Causation

[liamconnor]

Hello all,

I typically am over in the apologetics department, but sometimes have purely philosophical OPs which are always turned into apologetics.

So, hopefully frequenters of this forum can resist "reading between the lines".

I have a hard time conceptualizing the concept "the laws of nature" as any thing other than our assumption that our common experience must form an unalterable pattern.

As Hume pointed out, we can't perceive causes. All we can do is see what occurs when x is added to y under conditions z.

But would this not mean that our so-called supernatural/natural distinction is misleading. The supernatural would not mean "caused by a god" but merely "extremely unique". The difference between, say, a flower dying in the winter and springing back up in the spring, and a body three days dead reversing the processes of decay--well, it would not mean there was a god, but rather, that the one event is widespread, while the other is unique?

[4gold]

I would conclude that you had an ability that I don't understand.

But a Humean would conclude that there is no cause and effect to understand.

Conversely, you could be a realist and have difficulty explaining miracles.

I'm trying to figure out which one the original poster is trying to argue.

[marco]

I would argue this...if you had me in a controlled laboratory environment and every single blind person I touched was instantly able to receive sight, what scientific evidence would conclude that the supernatural exists?

Assuming the answer is "no lab experiment exists that can detect the supernatural", my response is that miracles can only exist in a realist philosophy, not under Hume's Problem of Induction, but under Aristotle's Unmoved Mover argument.

It is interesting how you move from an unexplained event to the supernatural. Interesting too how you invoke Aristotle to explain some occurrence, as if Aristotle were the ultimate arbiter. His unmoved mover ideas are challenged. Attributing the first act of setting in motion to a God is a human attempt to bridge the ignorance gap. Sometimes it's best to accept our ignorance rather than invent fantasies.

[4gold]

It is interesting how you move from an unexplained event to the supernatural. Interesting too how you invoke Aristotle to explain some occurrence, as if Aristotle were the ultimate arbiter. His unmoved mover ideas are challenged. Attributing the first act of setting in motion to a God is a human attempt to bridge the ignorance gap. Sometimes it's best to accept our ignorance rather than invent fantasies.

My understanding of your post is that there is no amount of evidence that would ever convince you of the supernatural. No matter what evidence you saw, you would always assume ignorance. Did I read you right?

[marco]

My understanding of your post is that there is no amount of evidence that would ever convince you of the supernatural. No matter what evidence you saw, you would always assume ignorance. Did I read you right?

This is an amazing deduction from my innocent post. I have experienced events that are beyond my explanation and others, no doubt, would attach something supernatural to them. I think the formula: I don't know - is sufficient, given there are things well known to others that are beyond my compass. I have no idea why the man in the street needs to exercise his brain with some explanation for things that are as yet inexplicable. Were God the culprit I would have thought his greater means of communication would have found a way to turn ignorance to certainty. Some enthusiastic pastors and clerics attribute the odd hurricane or earthquake to the agency of an angry deity. I don't.

[4gold]

This is an amazing deduction from my innocent post. I have experienced events that are beyond my explanation and others, no doubt, would attach something supernatural to them. I think the formula: I don't know - is sufficient, given there are things well known to others that are beyond my compass. I have no idea why the man in the street needs to exercise his brain with some explanation for things that are as yet inexplicable. Were God the culprit I would have thought his greater means of communication would have found a way to turn ignorance to certainty. Some enthusiastic pastors and clerics attribute the odd hurricane or earthquake to the agency of an angry deity. I don't.

Fair enough. What evidence would convince you the supernatural exists that you would not attribute to ignorance?

[McCulloch]

What evidence would convince you the supernatural exists that you would not attribute to ignorance?

Great question, but somewhat moot.

What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? Why did it convince you?

[marco]

Fair enough. What evidence would convince you the supernatural exists that you would not attribute to ignorance?

Some have deduced the supernatural exists by the fall of a tree under lightning, by the appearance of eagles over Rome, by the discovery of a queen's ring in a salmon...

Faced with some apparently miraculous event I would require that the causal agency repeat the event as many times as my doubting mind required. I would expect as much proof as I get in the solution to a mathematical problem.

Were I blinded and shouted at from the sky, I would worry about my sanity. I would be reassured if, on questioning the voice, I received answers sufficient to justify a conclusion about the supernatural. Christ's commendation of folk who accept without concrete proof borders on nonsense.

We have wonders and absurdities at the cutting edge of science without introducing deities to explain them.

[4gold]

What evidence would convince you the supernatural exists that you would not attribute to ignorance?

Great question, but somewhat moot.

What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? Why did it convince you?

Before writing the question off as moot, are we in agreement that science is unable to provide materialistic evidence of the supernatural?

There are roughly a dozen philosophical arguments for the existence of God that I find satisfactory, and about 5 that I find ironclad. I'd say the most compelling argument for me is Aquinas's "On Being and Essence". 750 years later, and it's still undefeated.

[4gold]

Some have deduced the supernatural exists by the fall of a tree under lightning, by the appearance of eagles over Rome, by the discovery of a queen's ring in a salmon...

Faced with some apparently miraculous event I would require that the causal agency repeat the event as many times as my doubting mind required. I would expect as much proof as I get in the solution to a mathematical problem.

Were I blinded and shouted at from the sky, I would worry about my sanity. I would be reassured if, on questioning the voice, I received answers sufficient to justify a conclusion about the supernatural. Christ's commendation of folk who accept without concrete proof borders on nonsense.

We have wonders and absurdities at the cutting edge of science without introducing deities to explain them.

It seems you and I are in agreement. There is not a scientific study (observable, verifiable, repeatable) that could provide evidence that the supernatural exists. Evidence for the supernatural could come through personal revelation, as you suggest, but I would also add it could come through reason, logic, and philosophy.

[McCulloch]

What evidence do you have that the supernatural exists? Why did it convince you?

Before writing the question off as moot, are we in agreement that science is unable to provide materialistic evidence of the supernatural?

Yes, we agree on that.

There are roughly a dozen philosophical arguments for the existence of God that I find satisfactory, and about 5 that I find ironclad. I'd say the most compelling argument for me is Aquinas's "On Being and Essence". 750 years later, and it's still undefeated.

We have argued all of the major arguments for the existence of God here. None of them have resulted in anything close to satisfactory let alone ironclad. Please contribute to those debates your remarkable insight.