Assuming the supernatural is possible

[Justin108]

Would assuming the supernatural is possible suddenly mean that the supernatural is probable? Or would supernatural occurrences still be highly unlikely events?

[rikuoamero]

Most orthodox Christians have treated miracles as possible but exceedingly uncommon. The biblical writers seemed to suggest that miracles recorded in the Bible were noteworthy in part because of how rare such events were.

Islands floating in the sky are rare or should I say has never happened in recorded history, and according to everything we understand about reality cannot happen.
If I read a set of stories from a few thousand years ago that claimed there were in fact floating islands, should I consider the stories true because such things are rare (or should I say nonexistent)?

[Divine Insight]

Would assuming the supernatural is possible suddenly mean that the supernatural is probable? Or would supernatural occurrences still be highly unlikely events?

Assuming that something is possible doesn't change anything in terms of it being probable.

In fact, assuming that something is possible is a very productive way to exam the logical possibility of something. This is because it's far easier to prove the non-existence of something by assuming that it exists and then showing why this leads to a contradiction. Mathematicians use this method of proof quite often. The most common example is the proof that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of 2.

The first thing we do is assume that a rational solution to the square root of 2 exists. Then we show why this assumption leads to a logical contradiction thus proving beyond any reasonable doubt that there cannot exist a rational solution to the square root of 2.

So assuming that something is true doesn't change the probability that it might be true at all. And contrary to first glance, allowing for this assumption can actually be extremely useful in terms of proving that the assumption must necessarily be wrong.

So there is no danger at all in assuming that the supernatural is possible. That doesn't change any probabilities at all. Of course, if you assume that its not possible then you "conclude" that it has zero probability of being true. But the important thing to recognize is that in this case you haven't "proven" anything. All you did was assume that it couldn't be true.

This would be like just assuming that there can be no rational solution to the square root of 2 but never being able to actually prove that it cannot exist.

So refusing to even allow for the assumption of something is actually a very bad technique. That would be putting the cart before the horse (or putting the conclusion before the proof)

[bjs]

Granted it was a bit tongue in cheek, a passing comment focusing on " biblical writers seemed to suggest that miracles recorded in the Bible were noteworthy in part because of how rare such events were." In other words, a miracle is noteworthy when compared to any mundane occurrence, and were the Bible authors disinclined to mention any, the stories would be wholly unremarkable, as a menu might.

While what makes something remarkable is subjective, the biblical text is almost universally appraised as one of the most important texts on ethics and philosophy ever recorded. The suggestion they are “wholly unremarkable� seems entirely without merit, regardless of how someone views the miraculous events recorded therein.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 11 by rikuoamero]

The thread opens with the words, “Assuming the supernatural is possible…� Your explanation of how you don’t consider the supernatural to be possible does not add anything to this discussion.

[Mithrae]

They'd be comparable to a winning lottery ticket. (Though of course with a lot less resting on the outcome.)

How does this make sense? We know for a fact, it is beyond dispute, that someone wins the lottery. Open up a newspaper and there'll be a segment somewhere saying Person A has just won millions.

You have an interesting standard for "beyond dispute." There's a newspaper segment saying that a lottery company has declared that Person A won it, yes. I'm sure there've been newspapers reporting on a religious organization's miracle claim too. Of course sometimes journalists actually follow up on lottery winners, and are assured that they had no affiliation or special deals with the lottery company. But journalists follow up on miracle claims too. About the only difference I can think of is that we trust that government regulation of the lottery industry is thorough and robust enough because, as I noted, there is a lot more riding on lotteries.

And tens of billions of dollars per year in the lottery industry is surely not enough to corrupt the process...

Are you not even slightly sceptical of this?

In any case, the OP asked about probabilities. The prior probability of someone having a winning lottery ticket is for all intents and purposes zero, but we should assess posterior probability based on the actual available evidence. Is there a problem with comparing this to miracles?

Miracles though? Do you have an actual miracle to show the class?

I showed you in another thread, and you haven't responded.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]


47.68%

Jk. Obviously there is no way to determine the antecedent probability of such a case. Miracles are an exception to the typical behavior of nature. To grasp the probability we would, at the very least, need to know the character of the deity. After all, how probable is it that person x will get married? We cannot even begin to answer that until we know whether person x even wants to marry.

It is even more complicated with the case of Christianity. Christianity does not paint a picture of a deity willy-nilly scattering about disconnected miracles. It relates a story, a meta-narrative.

Thus a fuller question would be something like the following: How probable is it that the power behind the universe is going to bring all creation into a new stage of being by resurrecting a corpse from the grave?

To assign this an antecedent probability we would have to ask, "How often has this power done exactly that in the past?" Well, never. But that obviously does not solve the problem, for the very nature of this miracle is unique.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

If supernatural events were possible, nothing could be known. The supernatural could explain any and all anomalous data.

International billionaire conspiracy theories can already 'explain' all anomalous or uncomfortable data. So do you believe that nothing can be known at present?

If scientists get anomalous data, they redo the experiment or observation and presto, nine times out of ten they find what the problem was. If they don't, they keep confirming that the anomaly is in fact something real which needs to be explained if and when they can do so. How does the 'supernatural' change that in the slightest? Many scientists throughout history and into the present have recognised the possibility of paranormal phenomena.

Methodological naturalism ≠ philosophical naturalism.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 3 by McCulloch]

Is this an argument from 'need'? i.e., We want to know things, but the possibility of supernatural acts frustrates this need, therefore, supernatural acts cannot happen?

[Inigo Montoya]

Granted it was a bit tongue in cheek, a passing comment focusing on " biblical writers seemed to suggest that miracles recorded in the Bible were noteworthy in part because of how rare such events were." In other words, a miracle is noteworthy when compared to any mundane occurrence, and were the Bible authors disinclined to mention any, the stories would be wholly unremarkable, as a menu might.

While what makes something remarkable is subjective, the biblical text is almost universally appraised as one of the most important texts on ethics and philosophy ever recorded. The suggestion they are “wholly unremarkable� seems entirely without merit, regardless of how someone views the miraculous events recorded therein.

Firstly, this is a fairly weak and slapshot commentary of mine to pounce on at all, but since you insist..

Universally appraised as one of the most important texts on ethics and philosophy? You're counting the nearly 6 billion people on earth who have no use for it, right? You've agreed to the subjectivity of what constitutes ''remarkable,'' so I'll exit by lamenting the horror of what apparently passes for high value ethics and philosophy.

We're arguing to argue at this point, though, so take your internet points and I'll hush.

[Mithrae]

We're arguing to argue at this point, though, so take your internet points and I'll hush.

It's possible that he's arguing in defence of something important to him, which apparently without provocation or purpose someone had a "weak and slapshot" go at.



By the way, has anyone else been afflicted with a weird and crummy version of the forum layout over the past 48 hours or so? I thought it might be a brief glitch, but I've tried logging out and in and restarting my browser and it's still going on.