It seems like supernatural philosophy conflicts with natural philosophy. I cannot seem to make the two go together, or maybe the two don't go together. Any suggestions on this.
Today i eat crisps. Tomorrow i eat dragons in disguise. One is observation based the other a priori synthetic. I think there are more than one possible world and gnosis is limited. We have freedom to believe and to enjoy or suffer the feedback. O think occams razor is ok for scientists if they see fit but i think positing an absence still involves metaphysical labour. So the judt a ctisp cognition is itself a supernatural attitude of dragon defiance.
It seems like supernatural philosophy conflicts with natural philosophy. I cannot seem to make the two go together, or maybe the two don't go together. Any suggestions on this.
Are we still arguing that we can't dismiss the idea of the supernatural even though no one has yet come forward to explain it, define it, describe it, or tell us how it differs from the natural?
Are we still arguing that we can't dismiss the idea of the supernatural even though no one has yet come forward to explain it, define it, describe it, or tell us how it differs from the natural?
This wall, as you call it, is founded on basic logic. The label supernatural is an absolute negative statement about the nature of a phenomenon. It means that a phenomenon has no natural explanation. The problem is that absolute negatives can never be proven without absolute knowledge of the relevant system. We don't have this absolute knowledge, hence we can never call anything supernatural.You see it your way, I see it mine. IMO the problem is a wall that prevents acceptance of any definition that might be offered.
This wall, as you call it, is founded on basic logic. The label supernatural is an absolute negative statement about the nature of a phenomenon. It means that a phenomenon has no natural explanation. The problem is that absolute negatives can never be proven without absolute knowledge of the relevant system. We don't have this absolute knowledge, hence we can never call anything supernatural.
If you want to use another definition, please share it with me. I debunked the definition that I think is the most commonly used one.Well, see, you're assuming something about my definition before I even gave it - a strawman technique.
"Super" is just a prefix, without much meaning until one understands how it is used.
Sorry, no. That was just the first word I could think of when I signed up.Should I assume from your screen name that you are, by profession, an engineer?
How does that constitute an absolute negative claim?So am I. So, if we have a structure and a superstructure am I making a statement that requires absolute knowledge about the superstructure?
But you know all the relevant rules.Even if you are referring to an absolute (or maybe "infinite" would be a better word) quality, your reasoning is wrong. I do not hold every natural number in my head (i.e. have an "absolute" knowledge of numbers), but that doesn't stop me from discussing some aspects of the infinite nature of the natural numbers.
What exactly does this have to do with our debate?Further, I'll let you know that sandwiches and I have had this discussion before. My comment was to him about certain approaches to physicalism.
You see it your way, I see it mine. IMO the problem is a wall that prevents acceptance of any definition that might be offered.
If you want to use another definition, please share it with me.
How does that constitute an absolute negative claim?
But you know all the relevant rules.
What exactly does this have to do with our debate?
The same happens when discussing "natural" and "supernatural" (or synonyms such as physical & non-physical, material & spiritual, etc.). There is no point in even starting this discussion unless we have a definition of physical that doesn't a priori exclude definitions of the non-physical.
Just prove it already.
I'll wait for it. Frankly, I don't see how I should argue against the views of my conversational partner if the conversational partner hasn't even made his views clear.I'll do that. I'll need some time to dig out my resource and refresh my memory.
Occams Razor. The hypothesis, Kim Jong Un's very existence was just a conspiracy, is based on more assumptions than the simpler hypothesis that Kim Jong Un actually exists. Occams Razor may not be an actual rule of logic, but it's still a handy tool to see which hypothesis one should prefer from a set of hypotheses.I could name any number of physical things that I bet you could not produce if I demanded it. A past example I have used is Kim Jong Un. Given today's technology, North Korea could easily forge the video evidence of his existence. So, prove it to me. Right now. Make Kim Jong Un appear at my desk. Just prove it already.
Sorry. "Proving" the existence of a person just doesn't work that way. One must have their cooperation.
Occams Razor. The hypothesis, Kim Jong Un's very existence was just a conspiracy, is based on more assumptions than the simpler hypothesis that Kim Jong Un actually exists.
There's distorted information, and there's inventing a dictator from scratch.Hmm. Indications that we can trust information coming from North Korea about the ruling family vs. indications that such information has been distorted.
We know very little about Kim Jong Un. Still, there's having reasonable doubt about the information we have about him, and there's the belief that he doesn't even exist and is simply photoshopped into all of his pictures.I guess I tend to view what North Korea says with suspicion. It's somewhat of an outdated example, so perhaps you have forgotten how at one time the media wasn't quite sure if Kim Jong Il actually had a son named Kim Jong Un.
More recently they were trying to figure out if he's actually married or not. What about children. Does he have children or doesn't he?
Actually, thats a very true statement. If we are commanded to come to God through faith, then if He allowed absolute proof it would mean that there no longer is pathway to salvation, since faith is the belief in things unproven. However, there are supernatural things which are sometimes recorded by devices intended to record the natural world. For example, a voice is clearly heard speaking on a recording when there was clearly nobody present to speak. Is that natural or supernatural? It was recorded so it must be natural, but no human voice made the sound so it has to be supernatural. The cynical can pass all such recordings off as forgeries, but does denying something make it untrue?Sorry. "Proving" the existence of a person just doesn't work that way. One must have their cooperation.
I'll wait for it. Frankly, I don't see how I should argue against the views of my conversational partner if the conversational partner hasn't even made his views clear.