The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Take it easy on IanS, he has principles. You do recall what principles are, right?
Last edited:
Can one disprove Jesus' resurrection?
- Thread starter rakovsky
- Start date
Take it easy on IanS, he has principles. You do recall what principles are, right?
Donn
Philosopher
It could be that the word "beyond" sounds like it means "more advanced"; as if the supernatural is more than science can handle; a better system; a step up.
It should read: the supernatural is beneath science.
It should read: the supernatural is beneath science.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
It seems that the word initially WAS intended to convey "more advanced than nature" or "more better than nature"
So, as IanS so cleverly pointed out, this goes back to just about Galileo's time (1564-1642), when science was just taking hold.Wikipedia said:
I imagine they used "supra" as they, being at least proforma Christians, were imagining gods and demons, which are a higher order of entities. But clearly, they grasped even then that these entities and events were outside of the normal experience.
I wonder what words modern atheists would coin to identify these concepts?
a- ascience, anatural, arational
anti- antiscience, antinatural, antirational
sub- subscience, subnatural, subrational
contra- contrascience, contranatural, contrarational (contrational?)
Well first of all, I do not know where you think the "spittle" is. You should realise that you were the one who immediately started to reply in curt & dismissive terms, and calling people liars etc. So if there is any bad behaviour here then it's coming from you. But that aside -
Despite what you have said above about the so-called supernatural not existing, I don't know if anything that should be called supernatural has ever happened in this universe, and nor do I know for sure whether it's possible for what could be classed as a supernatural event or miracle to occur.
That is really not something any of us can know with anything close to any certainty.
But we do not need to have any such almost certain knowledge. Instead the issue should always be determined by the "evidence" (though we could argue what "evidence" actually is, and indeed that very argument eventually appears along with all sorts of dictionary quotes in numerous threads on forums like this).
The important point (not pedantic quibbling as you first called it) is that what we have obtained from scientific research is a vast amount of evidence to show that everything in this universe happens for perfectly explicable reasons that have been explained in great detail by modern science. Whether there is anything else that is said to be "beyond or outside" of any possible scientific explanation, is a matter of conjecture. But it's a conjecture that is never supported by any credible evidence or any credible explanation at all.
If anyone (you for example!) is going to keep claiming that some real event called "the supernatural" is "beyond or outside" of science, then any such claim is completely worthless unless and until you can show some actual evidence of any such event actually happening, or failing that, at least construct a credible explanation of the mechanism by which such a thing could really occur.
Otherwise when anyone says "the supernatural is beyond and outside of science", that statement is untrue or void, because the person making that statement cannot even show that any such supernatural event is actually even possible let alone that any such thing has ever happened.
At most all anyone can honestly and accurately mean by trying to say that "miracles are outside of science" is - "if miracles can exist in such a way as to be described as "outside of and beyond science", then the said "miracle" will by that same definition be said to be "outside of and beyond science". And that is really a completely circular and empty proposal which has no merit or value at all.
And it's also (as I said before), the main slight-of-hand used by theists and some philosophical types, to imply that God certainly can exist, and that Jesus really did rise from the dead (for example), because they will claim that such events, i.e. miracles, are "beyond and outside the remit of science".
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I have implied one member lies because they lie. Also, when you talk about dismissive, if you review the thread you'll see it is the Fundamental Atheist contingent that has been flagrant with the poor behavior before I even entered the thread. But, we all have our own filters...
I don't, and have never disagreed with any of the above. It is a non issue: The Supernatural, gods, demons, miracles, dragons, ghosts... Do not exist, have no evidence.
Though, can't we have dragons? I want dragons.
I have never claimed an actual event was supernatural. Everything I've said about the supernatural: 1) it does not exist; 2) If it did exist, it would be outside nature (again, by definition). You keep ignoring this is conjecture, "IF...", that should the impossible occur.
When one talks of "ancient miracles" and "modern miracles," and says miracles don't exist, you should take from this that I am talking about claimed miracles (again, since I say they don't exist).
You then insist I prove a modern miracle exists. Get a grip.
1) The supernatural does not exist.
2) Supernatural literally means "Above or Outside of nature"
3) *IF* <--- See the IF, it means this is conjecture: IF a supernatural thing existed, it would be outside of science. Again, this is restating the DEFINITION of Supernatural. The conjecture does not mean the supernatural thing exists.
You are arguing a logical absurdity.
Exactly. You are arguing that supernatural is not it's definition.
And, as I said before, I am not a theist. But, ultimately, this is the problem.
It is a true statement that the supernatural is outside science. Fighting against this is a logical absurdity. Yes, theists make the TRUE and obvious statement because it is unassailable: Supernatural = Outside Science.
It's the step when theists claim that a supernatural anything is real that we jump on it. As you've repeatedly stated, and I have agreed, there is absolutely no credible evidence that a supernatural anything exists. Full Stop.
Except for Dragons. Can't we have Dragons? Please?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Well, except the universe appears to be isotropic through time, except for the inflationary period the observed behaviors of the universe are extremely consistent.
OK, I'm not going to waste more of my time or yours commenting on all that you say above, because we have been through all of that many times already now. So I'll just concentrate on the highlighted part, which is also something we have been through at least a dozen times now, but which is the heart of the matter and the source of the original & continuing dispute from my very first reply to you -
- look at what you yourself say there. You say
"I have never claimed an actual event was supernatural. Everything I've said about the supernatural: 1) it does not exist; 2) ...."
So you say the supernatural does not exist. And you state that as an absolutely certain fact. But here is what your original post said about about the mere claim of miracles -
post # 574
OK, so that original statement from you was of course not true, because as you quickly agreed (but claimed it was only "pedantic quibbling"), the claim is certainly fully and easily investigated by scientific means.
However after you reluctantly agreed that the incautious wording of your original post was wrong, you settled upon quoting a dictionary to me, saying that I must argue with what it says in your quote from the dictionary where you quoted the dictionary as saying this -
post #703
post #704
post #712
OK, so there (above) are four posts from you (there were many more after those four) where in reply to me, you are repeatedly relying upon dictionary definitions to say that -
"MIRACLES AND THE SUPERNTAURAL ARE OUTSIDE OF SCINECE"
And what I keep pointing out to you is - whether a statement like that is in a dictionary or not, the wording of the statement is simply wrong. It is certainly not true that any Miracle IS outside of science. For example in your above post you just wrote this -
"I have never claimed an actual event was supernatural. Everything I've said about the supernatural: 1) it does not exist; 2) ...."
OK, so lets take what you say there, the supernatural and miracles "do not exist". In that case your dictionary definition saying that "miracles and the supernatural ARE outside of science", becomes "something that does not even exist, IS outside of science, meaning it’s not capable of being studied and explained by science".
Lets take a specific example to clarify that, a specific example of anything that you say does not exist and is untrue, e.g. people claiming that Elvis is still alive today, then your dictionary statement becomes -
"the continued life of Elvis today IS outside & beyond any possible scientific investigation"
Well that is completely untrue, isn’t it! There is no continued life of Elvis to be “beyond or outside of” anything! The initial claim or premise, i.e. Elvis living today, was (according to you) not actually true at all!
If we do the same with the claimed resurrection of Jesus (i.e. the subject of this thread), then the definition becomes -
"the resurrection of Jesus (i.e. the miracle) is beyond any possible investigation or explanation by science".
Well that is only true IF the resurrection really happened. If it did not happen, and was entirely untrue, as you say it was, then that definition is the same as saying -
“the non-resurrection of Jesus as something that never existed at all, is outside any possible investigation or explanation by science”.
Well any wording of that sort about any imaginary untrue event, such as a “miracle” (where you say it certainly is untrue), cannot possibly be correct, because by writing that “X is not capable of study by Y, it has to be implicitly true that X exists in the first place, otherwise it cannot be studied by anything, not just because it’s “outside of” science, but because it's outside of everything in the universe, it’s outside of any existence at all (according to you).
If you, or a dictionary, wanted to write a definition like that more accurately about an event that is now considered to be almost certainly impossible and untrue, then the definition must, if it is to be correct, include those words of major caution. So you’d have to write something more like -
“claims of miracles and the supernatural are claims of things which are said to be inexplicable by science or by any other logical rational means”
OK, so changing the subject slightly now - one might then wonder why any dictionary would be so incautious as to write a definition without such words of obvious caution, and just saying (as you said the dictionaries say ... though all your examples did in fact include some words of caution somewhere in their list of definitions) -
“MIRACLES AND THE SUPERNATURAL ARE OUTSIDE OF SCIENTIFIC EXPLANTION”
So why would any dictionary still write a definition with wording anything like the above?
Right, well I am not remotely interested in any conspiracy theories. But it occurs to me that one possible reason why modern dictionaries do not include overt and obvious words of caution in each line of definition about what a miracle is claimed to be, might actually be a historical concession to the sensibilities of the Christian church. By which I am suggesting this -
- until about 200 years ago almost everyone did believe that God truly existed, and that Jesus was truly risen from the dead by a miracle.
So in dictionary defining of words such as “supernatural” and “miracle”, people did not expect to see cautionary words that clearly implied the claimed miracle of God and Jesus was nothing more than an unsubstantiated irrational faith-belief. And the Church in particular would no doubt have been outraged at any such indecisive definition that appeared to question the “certainty” of God and Jesus.
So my “conspiracy theory” here, is to suggest that the same undue courtesy is still being extended to the Christian Church today in dictionary definitions, where the dictionaries are very reluctant to directly and openly imply that Christian religious belief in the miracles of God and Jesus are actually nothing more than just an unscientific unsupported belief in things that are almost certainly untrue and that almost certainly never even existed at all.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
OK, you say your issue is incautious wording of mine. Fine, if you didn't grasp it's meaning and context, this is obviously my issue.
The supernatural does not exist. If one speaks of miracles in fact, it is obviously claims of miracles. It's irrational to pull sentences out of context then insist on contrary interpretations. CONTEXT.
Yes, modern miracles have been investigated. They have been found to be of mundane provenance. Thus, they are not miracles. If you examine the context of my comments rather that picking out random sentences, this simple perception would be obvious. CONTEXT.
The context of every single post I've made is the Supernatural does not exist. Everything else must be read for understanding within that CONTEXT.
If I cannot convince you after all this time, stating my belief that the supernatural does not exist, further repetition is not going to help.
For the record: The Supernatural does not exist.
ETA: I just reread your reply. You now claim that I say the supernatural does not exist, the definition is outside of science, therefore I am claiming that "something that does not exist is outside of science." Wow.
The dictionary describes all sorts of things that don't exist, as we have concepts of things that do not exist. The Dictionary defines fairies, dragons, unicorns. OF COURSE THEY DON'T EXIST. But, they have specific attributes.
Fairies have wings. But they don't exist. Oh, I'm so confused. If they don't exist, how can they have wings?
Supernatural is beyond science. Supernatural does not exist.
My argument from the beginning, as you cleverly quote, is that miracles are outside of science. Again, by definition (although I did not say "by definition" as one is not required to say "by definition" for every word used.
And now we can't trust dictionaries because they pander to religion? Wow and a half. It is not the dictionaries purpose to write "words of caution", it is to provide... definitions.
/ETA
I'm glad you've said you will no longer argue the point. I shall join your resolve. Again.
The supernatural does not exist. If one speaks of miracles in fact, it is obviously claims of miracles. It's irrational to pull sentences out of context then insist on contrary interpretations. CONTEXT.
Yes, modern miracles have been investigated. They have been found to be of mundane provenance. Thus, they are not miracles. If you examine the context of my comments rather that picking out random sentences, this simple perception would be obvious. CONTEXT.
The context of every single post I've made is the Supernatural does not exist. Everything else must be read for understanding within that CONTEXT.
If I cannot convince you after all this time, stating my belief that the supernatural does not exist, further repetition is not going to help.
For the record: The Supernatural does not exist.
ETA: I just reread your reply. You now claim that I say the supernatural does not exist, the definition is outside of science, therefore I am claiming that "something that does not exist is outside of science." Wow.
The dictionary describes all sorts of things that don't exist, as we have concepts of things that do not exist. The Dictionary defines fairies, dragons, unicorns. OF COURSE THEY DON'T EXIST. But, they have specific attributes.
Fairies have wings. But they don't exist. Oh, I'm so confused. If they don't exist, how can they have wings?
Supernatural is beyond science. Supernatural does not exist.
My argument from the beginning, as you cleverly quote, is that miracles are outside of science. Again, by definition (although I did not say "by definition" as one is not required to say "by definition" for every word used.
And now we can't trust dictionaries because they pander to religion? Wow and a half. It is not the dictionaries purpose to write "words of caution", it is to provide... definitions.
/ETA
I'm glad you've said you will no longer argue the point. I shall join your resolve. Again.
Last edited:
No. I said that initially in your first post, the issue was simply the wording which actually said that the "claim" of miracles was beyond scientific explanation. Whereas of course the "claim" is very easily explained. And the miracle itself is really not known.
The reason for the continued dispute is that you then went on in subsequent posts to repeatedly say that dictionary definitions confirm that you are correct to say that "miracles & the supernatural ARE beyond and outside of science", meaning that science is inherently incapable of explaining miracles. Even though those are miracles which you say definitely do not exist.
And what I am saying to you is - if the miracle does not even exist, then it's completely wrong to have a definition which says that "a Miracle which does not exist, IS beyond and outside any possible investigation by science" ... because if it does not even exist, then there is nothing for science or anything else to explain or investigate!
And I also emphasised that use of the the words "IS" and "ARE" in any such definitions, e.g. saying "Miracles ARE beyond ..." and "the Miracle IS beyond ...", is wrong because those particular words IS and ARE, when presented in that way in those definitions, imply that the non-existent miracles actually do exist!
If as you say, the miracles never actually existed, then the definition should say something like "Miracles are claimed events of the supernatural, that are said to be inherently beyond the capacity of scientific explanation".
But the wider and more important problem is that as long as people say Miracles are defined as events "beyond and outside of scientific explanation", that directly encourages theist belief claiming that God does indeed exist, and that science is a blunt and insufficient tool ever to understand the workings of God and his miracles. And that instead religious faith is the true way to know the existence of God and the truth of the miraculous resurrection of Jesus.
And that's really the entire basis of all religious belief, i.e. the belief that a supernatural creator God truly does exist, and that he works through constant miracles. One of which was the resurrection of Jesus. So, I think it’s important not to support or encourage that by writing definitions worded as if to accept that the miracles are actually known events, and that science is inadequate to understand or explain the miracles (but where religious faith does indeed explain them as “truth” and “fact”).
I don't think I ever did say that I will no longer argue these points. By all means quote me if you can find me saying that.
I don't want us, you and I, to spend any more time disputing this issue, because apart from anything else I have better things to do with my time, and daresay you have too. And nor do I want us to "fall out" over it, because I’d much rather find polite constructive agreement in all things, rather than continued bickering.
But what I definitely do not want to do, is to inadvertently offer support for unjustified and ultimately dangerous religious belief in miracles from God and Jesus, by allowing it to pass unchallenged when people appear to say that "miracles actually ARE things beyond, above & outside, any possible understanding by science”, as if it could of course be immediately & properly understood through religious faith instead.
Last edited:
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
I'll let yours be the last words. Again.