To me the idea or term supernatural is illogical if something exists in reality it's just natural. We may not be able to explain currently or ever but it's still natural. If ghosts exist it's just another natural phenomenon that we just don't currently understand. There's an explanation for everything and if it's part of reality then it's natural.
Wrong. You can't predict "the person would live pain free". Besides, atheist doesn't accept naturalistic explainations just because it's naturalistic. You have to give me a proof that can be reproduced experimentally. People can invent explanations all the theme. Humanity is like a big mouth telling random things all the time. You have to filter all that shit out the hard way. How? Experiments and rigor. You don't have to accept explanations just because it makes sense. Give me the proof or I ignore you. Can't waste infinite brain resources assuming the possibility of anything every random person say "might be true". Atheism, at least as I see it, it's actually a very conservative approach regarding gaining knowledge. And that if supernatural stuff causes natural effects, then that stuff is not supernatural at all.
You really missed the point on the faith-healing example. What I was not saying that they would never have any pain again, but the pain would go away and then survive, now maybe I should have phrased it that way. But if you actually paid attention to what I was saying you'd get the point. Furthermore, I was not saying that you'd accept any old naturalistic explanation just because it's naturalistic, but that the explanation you accept have to be naturalistic.
@@ChuckCreagerJr Yes, it has to be naturalistic as necessary but not sufficient condition. And what is the problem with that? And regarding the faith-healing example, yes, I focused on the surface of the argument instead on the core of it. You are right. And yes, your example is indeed falsifiable but I have not clear if "a supernatural cause causes a naturalistic effect" counts as a supernatural sentence. If an affirmation is falsifiable, THEN it's is naturalistic, or at least, scientific. And if an affirmation is not falsifiable, then it's a scientific an hence a "bit supernatural". For example, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's an interpretation of the math that "fills" what happens between measurement and measurement, and by definition, you can't do physical claims of what happens "before" a measurement. You CAN do mathematical claims (to explain the mathematical relationship between measurements), but not "physical claims" of that math that explains what happens in between. That's would be non-scientific sentences and hence in the realm of "supernatural"ish claims since for me scientific and naturalistic is in the same box, and the remaining "shit" a different box, and I don't care if the things inside the "shit box" count as supernatural, naturalistic-but-non-scientific or whatever taxonomy you want to create. Understanding the inners of the "shit box" I think is a waste of time.
@@ChuckCreagerJr Lets compare your idea of a falsifiable medical claim and a genuine falsifiable medical experiment. The claim is actually about a FAITH HEALERS INTERVENTION being the cause of healed appendicitis. Let's say a Pharma company claims that their new medication heals appendicitis. How would the AMA test each of these claims? They would require a group of people (100?) with diagnosed app. who would go to the faith healer, another group (100) who would take the new medication and probably a third control group (100) who would undergo existing interventions. To satisfy falsification criteria both the faith healer and the phama co. would need to set out too show that their intervention FAILED. This is the null hypothesis. If either of them were unable to show this because, say, 95 of the 100 were actually healed following the intervention then they would reject the null hypothesis and have good evidence that their intervention was effective. Your claim that one person who has no pain following a visit to a faith healer presents a falsifiable claim shows your ignorance of the scientific method and ignorance of falsification criteria.
Your point that some supernatural hypotheses can produce testable predictions that may be falsifiable is correct.
To me the idea or term supernatural is illogical if something exists in reality it's just natural. We may not be able to explain currently or ever but it's still natural. If ghosts exist it's just another natural phenomenon that we just don't currently understand. There's an explanation for everything and if it's part of reality then it's natural.
Wrong. You can't predict "the person would live pain free". Besides, atheist doesn't accept naturalistic explainations just because it's naturalistic. You have to give me a proof that can be reproduced experimentally. People can invent explanations all the theme. Humanity is like a big mouth telling random things all the time. You have to filter all that shit out the hard way. How? Experiments and rigor. You don't have to accept explanations just because it makes sense. Give me the proof or I ignore you. Can't waste infinite brain resources assuming the possibility of anything every random person say "might be true". Atheism, at least as I see it, it's actually a very conservative approach regarding gaining knowledge.
And that if supernatural stuff causes natural effects, then that stuff is not supernatural at all.
You really missed the point on the faith-healing example. What I was not saying that they would never have any pain again, but the pain would go away and then survive, now maybe I should have phrased it that way. But if you actually paid attention to what I was saying you'd get the point. Furthermore, I was not saying that you'd accept any old naturalistic explanation just because it's naturalistic, but that the explanation you accept have to be naturalistic.
@@ChuckCreagerJr Yes, it has to be naturalistic as necessary but not sufficient condition. And what is the problem with that?
And regarding the faith-healing example, yes, I focused on the surface of the argument instead on the core of it. You are right. And yes, your example is indeed falsifiable but I have not clear if "a supernatural cause causes a naturalistic effect" counts as a supernatural sentence. If an affirmation is falsifiable, THEN it's is naturalistic, or at least, scientific. And if an affirmation is not falsifiable, then it's a scientific an hence a "bit supernatural".
For example, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's an interpretation of the math that "fills" what happens between measurement and measurement, and by definition, you can't do physical claims of what happens "before" a measurement. You CAN do mathematical claims (to explain the mathematical relationship between measurements), but not "physical claims" of that math that explains what happens in between. That's would be non-scientific sentences and hence in the realm of "supernatural"ish claims since for me scientific and naturalistic is in the same box, and the remaining "shit" a different box, and I don't care if the things inside the "shit box" count as supernatural, naturalistic-but-non-scientific or whatever taxonomy you want to create. Understanding the inners of the "shit box" I think is a waste of time.
@@ChuckCreagerJr Lets compare your idea of a falsifiable medical claim and a genuine falsifiable medical experiment. The claim is actually about a FAITH HEALERS INTERVENTION being the cause of healed appendicitis. Let's say a Pharma company claims that their new medication heals appendicitis. How would the AMA test each of these claims? They would require a group of people (100?) with diagnosed app. who would go to the faith healer, another group (100) who would take the new medication and probably a third control group (100) who would undergo existing interventions. To satisfy falsification criteria both the faith healer and the phama co. would need to set out too show that their intervention FAILED. This is the null hypothesis. If either of them were unable to show this because, say, 95 of the 100 were actually healed following the intervention then they would reject the null hypothesis and have good evidence that their intervention was effective. Your claim that one person who has no pain following a visit to a faith healer presents a falsifiable claim shows your ignorance of the scientific method and ignorance of falsification criteria.