Dismissing the Supernatural

[Furrowed Brow]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

[dianaiad]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it.
<snip to here>

I think a better way to express this would be 'it is highly unlikely that someone would truly die for something they knew to be a lie."

Not "impossible,' but 'highly unlikely." In those cases where someone DOES 'die for a lie,' it generally happens that they are really dying for a different truth. The mother who confesses to a crime her child committed, even though she might be put to death for it, isn't dying for a lie; she's dying to protect a greater truth; her conviction that HER life is less important than her child's.

Another words, the Bible is wrong in punishing children who are disobedient, even if they commit a crime worthy of death, right dianaiad?

Y'know, I have been trying, but for the life of me I can't figure out what tortuous path you could have used to arrive there from what I said. Or from anything in this thread.

There is certainly no possible correlation.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 21:

Another words, the Bible is wrong in punishing children who are disobedient, even if they commit a crime worthy of death, right dianaiad?

Y'know, I have been trying, but for the life of me I can't figure out what tortuous path you could have used to arrive there from what I said. Or from anything in this thread.

There is certainly no possible correlation.

Great. Now that you've 'mitted it, I gotta fess up to being lost as a cow at a square dance on it.

(edit to correct link to postular informational area there)

[Mithrae]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true. . . .


I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

I think Fredonly hit the nail on the head in post 2; the problem lies in what we class as 'supernatural.' Time travel could be considered 'supernatural' now, just as space travel would have been considered supernatural a thousand years ago.

If archaeologists in a 3rd century BCE site found a manuscript of the book of Daniel, which was carbon-dated at three universities to 270 BCE, it'd be proof of 'supernatural' prophecy. But according to your Premise 1, it's more likely that the archaeologists and universities were bribed and threatened by a militant Christian group with billionaires' backing to falsify the information.

First of all, the date of the writing of Daniel was pretty much established between 160 bce and 165 bce. Second of all, the terminology was such that the 'prophecies' were vague to be able to be retrofitted into multiple situations, which would cause it to fail on his list anyway.

I'm still pretty convinced that the balance of evidence favours an earlier date. But this is a hypothetical scenario questioning Furrowed's premise that "any explanation no matter how unlikely" is preferrable to the supernatural. Assuming you're right that the prophecies are too vague for Antiochus' rule and the century prior, we can always imagine a manuscript found from 400BCE or earlier (which certainly wouldn't be too vague to be meaningful). My point is simply that, rather than weighing evidence in any given scenario, Furrowed appears to be making a huge assumption about what is and isn't possible right off the bat.

[Goat]

I'm still pretty convinced that the balance of evidence favours an earlier date. But this is a hypothetical scenario questioning Furrowed's premise that "any explanation no matter how unlikely" is preferrable to the supernatural. Assuming you're right that the prophecies are too vague for Antiochus' rule and the century prior, we can always imagine a manuscript found from 400BCE or earlier (which certainly wouldn't be too vague to be meaningful). My point is simply that, rather than weighing evidence in any given scenario, Furrowed appears to be making a huge assumption about what is and isn't possible right off the bat.

We can imagine it. The internal evidence does not point to that. The fact that the prophecies were retrofitted to mean other events shows the language is not specific.

[Furrowed Brow]

I think Fredonly hit the nail on the head in post 2; the problem lies in what we class as 'supernatural.' Time travel could be considered 'supernatural' now, just as space travel would have been considered supernatural a thousand years ago.

Yes. The technology of a sufficiently advanced civilization would look like magic to us. Who said that? Arthur C Clarke I think.

If archaeologists in a 3rd century BCE site found a manuscript of the book of Daniel, which was carbon-dated at three universities to 270 BCE, it'd be proof of 'supernatural' prophecy. But according to your Premise 1, it's more likely that the archaeologists and universities were bribed and threatened by a militant Christian group with billionaires' backing to falsify the information.

As Goat suggests we just point to the vagueness of wording and retrofitting. This is much simpler, more plausible, and actually way more revealing of human psychology. But let’s say there was a series of very specific predictions, given time and dates and names and circumstance. E.g. A document dated 200 B.C predicted flight 2345 between Moscow and Paris will crash at 04.00 local time at such and such location, and there were several hundred of these very specific non vague predictions, and each one began to come true, then it would still be simpler the document is a hoax and a militant crazy prophecy group backed by reclusive billionaire were crashing planes to make the predictions come true.

If a team of scientists said they'd managed to invent time travel, but for fear of temporal paradoxes were willing to share their heavily-patented research only with two other scientific teams internationally and in addition confirm their ability by accurately predicting (in a secret manner) a dozen future lottery draws, it'd be proof of time travel. But according to you, it's more likely (again) that a militant billionaire group managed to bribe and threaten enough people to pull off the whole hoax.

Yes. I would say the bad billionaire was more likely until it was demonstrated that the lottery had not been rigged, and some real technologies we can all share started to be produced on the back of those patents. To really begin to accept the scientists claims we would need to know the principles and the math the scientists used. If someone is going to tell us the universe works different to our current understanding they are going to have to do a lot more work to convince us (ok me).

And as for space travel... well, we know that the moon landing was faked!

No. The moon landing was within the reach of 1960 rockets and the equations of Isaac Newton. It is far more likely men went to the moon on several occasions than not.

Take belief in UFOs and aliens. There are plenty of videos on youtube, photographs, witness statements over several decades etc. Do I believe an alien civilization has ever visited Earth?? No. It is still overwhelmingly more like the UFO phenomenon is down to hoax, lies, hysteria, delusion, mistakes, misidentification, wishful thinking, and secret government technologies and so forth.

Rather than beginning with a premise which presupposes a complete understanding of what is 'natural' and what isn't, wouldn't it make more sense to weigh evidence in each case and decide whether there's a sufficiently compelling case to expand one's notion of what might be possible?

I think we can still entertain the possibility of time travel or faster than light travel. In the example for time travel you constructed a bad billionaire is still more likely, though it is not impossible the scientists had discovered time travel. There is however zero probability of say a time travelling telepathic dragon being real; so no some things are not seriously entertained as possible.

In essence, your premise says that there is no possible volume of evidence which would convince you that something you consider 'supernatural' is possible.

True there is zero evidence that could persuade me a time travelling telepathic dragon was real. Stuff like time travel and faster than light travel could be evidenced. But I would not be persuaded my any claims that remained cloaked in secrecy and asks us to suspend disbelief. That is how the stage craft called magic works. If something looks like magic then it is overwhelmingly more likely it is staged and a lie. I don’t think this is being closed minded, it is having the mind to try and peak behind the magic act and see what really is at play. Even if I can’t figure out how it is done it is still more likely the rabbit appearing from under the hat is a trick. What the magic act reveals most and what is its real lesson is why someone whould want to play such a trick and why someone else would want to suspend disbelief. The problem of the "supernatural" is not a question of epistemology it is a problem best adressed by social psychology.

So I guess I'd say one characteristic of the "supernatural" is its perpetual cloak of secrecy. It is the willingness not to explain something in light of what we do know or are sure of.

[arian]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it.
<snip to here>

I think a better way to express this would be 'it is highly unlikely that someone would truly die for something they knew to be a lie."

Not "impossible,' but 'highly unlikely." In those cases where someone DOES 'die for a lie,' it generally happens that they are really dying for a different truth. The mother who confesses to a crime her child committed, even though she might be put to death for it, isn't dying for a lie; she's dying to protect a greater truth; her conviction that HER life is less important than her child's.

Another words, the Bible is wrong in punishing children who are disobedient, even if they commit a crime worthy of death, right dianaiad?

Y'know, I have been trying, but for the life of me I can't figure out what tortuous path you could have used to arrive there from what I said. Or from anything in this thread.

There is certainly no possible correlation.

Sorry Dianaiad, but I guess 'indoctrination' can and will do that to us, blind us to 'possible correlations'.

You said: "The mother who confesses to a crime her child committed"

I said: "Another words, the Bible is wrong in punishing children who are disobedient, even if they commit a crime worthy of death, right dianaiad?"

I take you claim to be a Christian and speak on behalf of Christianity, am I right? as a Christian, how could you justify a mother taking the blame for something her child has done wrong, even to her death? This defies all Biblical logic and teachings, where we are commanded to punish disobedient children.

You label the action of the mother as; ".. she's dying to protect a greater truth"

What greater truth? Is this like the Book of Mormon, the 'greater truth' as revealed by Jesus himself to Joseph Smith?

There is only ONE truth, there is no 'greater truth' to override that, none.

Take care.

[dianaiad]

<snip to>
I take you claim to be a Christian and speak on behalf of Christianity, am I right?

Yes to the first, though some might quarrel with that, but...
No to the second. I speak only for me. I certainly cannnot 'speak for' mainstream Chrisitanity.

as a Christian, how could you justify a mother taking the blame for something her child has done wrong, even to her death?

Where did I say I justified it? I simply used it as an example of someone dying for what someone else might think of as a lie, but that s/he might consider, perhaps, a lie in service to a greater truth. In the case of the mother, the 'greater truth' would be her opinion that her child's life was more important than hers. This example does not in any way indicate what I think about such an action, one way or the other.

This defies all Biblical logic and teachings, where we are commanded to punish disobedient children.

Don't confuse an analogy/example with the point of the story, there.

You label the action of the mother as; ".. she's dying to protect a greater truth"

No, I presented it as an example of the thought process behind her action. Not "I"m dying for a lie," but "My child's life is more important than mine, so I"ll give my life for his."

It has nothing to do with whether I would do the same, or approve.

What greater truth? Is this like the Book of Mormon, the 'greater truth' as revealed by Jesus himself to Joseph Smith?

Wow, you ARE fond of non-sequturs and red herrings, aren't you?

There is only ONE truth, there is no 'greater truth' to override that, none.

Take care.

YOu are quite right. However, just as the scientists are still on the trail of the 'theory of everything," so are the rest of us still looking for that one 'greater truth" that over-rides all things.

The upshot is, none of us have that.

Yet.

[arian]

True there is zero evidence that could persuade me a time travelling telepathic dragon was real. Stuff like time travel and faster than light travel could be evidenced. But I would not be persuaded my any claims that remained cloaked in secrecy and asks us to suspend disbelief.

Edison had a huge problem making the lightbulb burn longer than the few seconds that it took that tiny wire to burn up. Then he got the idea to 'remove' something that cannot be seen (air) from the bulb, and walla!

His faith in the 'unseen' resulted in our ability to work, play and live in the dark. Sure, .. he knew it was 'cloaked in secrecy', but his 'faith' in that 'it can be done' gave him that ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

That is how the stage craft called magic works. If something looks like magic then it is overwhelmingly more likely it is staged and a lie.

Magic isn't a lie, it is truly magic. Only when 'magic' is used to represent a 'miracle', only then it is a lie, for it claims to be something greater than a trick, or magic. When a stage Magician performs a disappearing act, people don't feel fooled or cheated out of their money, because that is exactly what they paid to see, a good magic show.

But what I wonder is, why would anyone go and pay to see Benny Hinn (and the like) who claim to perform 'miracles', which are obviously 'magic tricks', .. poor ones at that?

I don’t think this is being closed minded, it is having the mind to try and peak behind the magic act and see what really is at play. Even if I can’t figure out how it is done it is still more likely the rabbit appearing from under the hat is a trick. What the magic act reveals most and what is its real lesson is why someone whould want to play such a trick and why someone else would want to suspend disbelief. The problem of the "supernatural" is not a question of epistemology it is a problem best adressed by social psychology.

First you must go back to the real definitions, because the real meanings have changed, just as the word 'Christian' has.

If you are talking about 'miracles' done by the 'Holy Spirit', we are NOT to confuse that as 'magic' done by 'supernatural forces'. This is why there is so much confusion in Christianity today, and why atheists have a field day with it. Christians have been starving for 'miracles' for so long, they accept poor magic tricks instead.

Supernatural: - Encarta -
1. not of natural world: relating or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws

Fine, .. but just because something cannot be explained yet by 'natural laws', are we to say: "It never happened"? Wow, very scientific answer, ..... not.
If I was a scientist and saw someone walk through a wall, or even heard of such story, .. I wouldn't deny it, then attribute some label like 'supernatural' to it, instead I would try to imagine how those atoms lined up to where the other body was able to pass through it?
How science can outright deny miracles and label it magic by some supernatural forces is beyond me? But then they go on talking about 'redshifts' and 'dark matter' and 'black holes'!

Supernatural: - Microsoft® Encarta®
2. relating to a deity: relating or attributed to a deity
3. magical: relating or attributed to magic or the occult

You see, .. if anyone refers to our Spiritual God who works miracles through his Spirit as 'supernatural', has no idea what they are talking about, none.

There are 'Principalities and Powers' which are very real, more real than this physical universe. Lucifer was one of these Powers in the spiritual realm, and he rebelled (went against) his Spiritual Creator, and was forced out of that spiritual realm called 'Heaven' (not the sky where the birds are, nor the heaven where the stars reside), but is the 'real place' where all the Angels and all those Heavenly creatures reside, all within God.
Lucifer and those Angels that followed him were cast down to this physical realm, and people 'know' they are there, but cannot see them, and as with everything else in the Bible that man cannot see or visualize, they renamed it 'supernatural' beings, or deities who perform 'magic'.

So I guess I'd say one characteristic of the "supernatural" is its perpetual cloak of secrecy. It is the willingness not to explain something in light of what we do know or are sure of.

Sure of what? What are we 'sure of', dark matter, black holes, or the size and age of our 'observable universe'??? Yes, I too am sure of those claims, .. I am 'sure' they are wrong, lies by what you would call; 'supernatural deities'!

[arian]

<snip to>
I take you claim to be a Christian and speak on behalf of Christianity, am I right?

Yes to the first, though some might quarrel with that, but...
No to the second. I speak only for me. I certainly cannot 'speak for' mainstream Christianity.

I hear you, ... I try to sticking with 'Believer' instead of calling myself Christian, .. if you know what I mean?

as a Christian, how could you justify a mother taking the blame for something her child has done wrong, even to her death?

Where did I say I justified it? I simply used it as an example of someone dying for what someone else might think of as a lie, but that she/he might consider, perhaps, a lie in service to a greater truth. In the case of the mother, the 'greater truth' would be her opinion that her child's life was more important than hers. This example does not in any way indicate what I think about such an action, one way or the other.

]This defies all Biblical logic and teachings, where we are commanded to punish disobedient children.

Don't confuse an analogy/example with the point of the story, there.

Got it, .. sorry for the confusion my friend.

You label the action of the mother as; ".. she's dying to protect a greater truth"

No, I presented it as an example of the thought process behind her action. Not "I"m dying for a lie," but "My child's life is more important than mine, so I'll give my life for his."

It has nothing to do with whether I would do the same, or approve.

What greater truth? Is this like the Book of Mormon, the 'greater truth' as revealed by Jesus himself to Joseph Smith?

Wow, you ARE fond of non-sequiturs and red herrings, aren't you?

I see a good heart in you Dianaiad, and even saying that a mother would die instead of her child who has done wrong proves that. On purely human terms, I too would die in my kids stead, only by what I know of God, I now know it would be wrong for me to do that.
You have said nothing wrong, as you explained, it was just an analogy. I was just 'debating', I should have looked deeper, please forgive me.

There is only ONE truth, there is no 'greater truth' to override that, none.

You are quite right. However, just as the scientists are still on the trail of the 'theory of everything," so are the rest of us still looking for that one 'greater truth" that over-rides all things.

The upshot is, none of us have that.

Yet.

I agree with you on that too, but honestly, we must ask ourselves; "how would I know, or recognize that 'greater truth' if it came by me?"

Again, I am sorry. Take care my friend.

[Jagella]

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't think twice to lie to save your skin, and you save on body bags, while I would die not to hurt anyone, and would die for the truth, I cause more death???

Yes, if you die for a true claim, then more people will die. More people dying means more death. I say don't die for any claim—true or false. That way you can live on. Religion sadly puts beliefs above anything else including human well being and life. I don't agree with those priorities. It's best to live on as long as you can in this life. There is no other life, and it's the only life any of us have. Why throw it away on some belief?

.. you rather die a lier?

No, I'd rather be a living liar than a dead martyr.

The Churches are full of Christians who would do anything to save their own skin.

Can you blame them?

Jagella