Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
That's no fun (re: front-loading claims)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 76501827" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>If an event happens that leaves evidence, but you have no testable hypothesis that gives an expectation or prediction of that evidence, or predicts that evidence should not appear, then you have no explanation. IOW, the event is unexplained. In that case, you can speculate about an infinite number of potential causes, including the supernatural, but you have no evidence for them - they are just speculative claims.</p><p></p><p>By 'explanation' here, I mean some description that provides some specific understanding of the nature of the event and how it came about (among other things). An 'explanation' that can be applied to <em>any</em> unexplained phenomenon, such as, 'magic', 'rare random chance', 'the supernatural', etc., explains nothing; these are simply imaginative stickers to cover the lack of an explanation. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 76501827, member: 241055"] If an event happens that leaves evidence, but you have no testable hypothesis that gives an expectation or prediction of that evidence, or predicts that evidence should not appear, then you have no explanation. IOW, the event is unexplained. In that case, you can speculate about an infinite number of potential causes, including the supernatural, but you have no evidence for them - they are just speculative claims. By 'explanation' here, I mean some description that provides some specific understanding of the nature of the event and how it came about (among other things). An 'explanation' that can be applied to [I]any[/I] unexplained phenomenon, such as, 'magic', 'rare random chance', 'the supernatural', etc., explains nothing; these are simply imaginative stickers to cover the lack of an explanation. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
That's no fun (re: front-loading claims)
Top
Bottom