[
Replying to Data in post #29]
We have one possible theory regarding the existence of our natural universe. And it's supernatural.
There is hypothesis which is based in the belief in supernaturalism, but it is not the only hypothesis. Not sure why you included the word "possible" so if you would explain the addition of that word in your sentence, it might prove helpful.
Well, my experience has been that it can't. For example, we can't explain Moses parting the Red Sea by placing the event far away and concluding it was a tsunami when that doesn't fit the description of the event. It may sound more practical but it isn't the same event.
I note that you have not said the event can't be explained as having occurred due to the use of advanced technology.
You can explain that away by making the assumption that what John experienced on Patmos was a hallucination, a product of superstitious fear of things like eclipses, but that isn't historically correct and the phenomenon had previously been used, word for word, in older Hebrew texts for practical events that had taken place.
Such experience could be explained as a vision had due to the use of Entheogens and as such, doesn't qualify as something which requires the possibility of advanced technologic artifacts to explain, unless Entheogens are claimed to be said ATA's. So any particular event biblical event which can be explained otherwise - and without invoking a supernatural explanation, need not be on the table of this particular discussion.
When you try and evaluate the text first you have to know the text. Second you have to know the limits of technology, the above germ reference for example. Then you have to narrow down what exactly is the supernatural events in the Bible which you are evaluating.
The
supposed/alleged "supernatural" events in the Bible.
For example, the burning-talking bush story, or the Garden of Eden story or anything else of that nature (such as the parting of the waters) which is traditionally interpreted as being the result of a "supernatural" event.
Though, from our perspective - one, the holy spirit, is true, the second, demonic, is deception. But you have to have faith in these if technology and science can't evaluate them. You seem to be suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think that's a very scientific approach, but it isn't for science to say anything regarding the supernatural.
I have seen this type of argument before from supernaturalists, but it doesn't hold water let alone wash the baby.
Science doesn't have anything to show us which confirms the alleged "supernatural" exists but it does have devices which show us how folk can easily be led to believe (be "deceived" as you put it) something is "super to nature" if it happens and is not explained or cannot be understood by minds incapable of understanding any explanation.
"It's magic" or "it's supernatural" et al become "explanations" which are not really
explaining anything other than "we do not know how something happened, so "demons/lying spirits/et al" will have to suffice as explanation."
In this, it is correct that it isn't for science to explain anything which is still a mystery or hidden from current technology, by saying it must therefore be "supernatural". That is what supernaturalists are claiming, and they are not scientists./using science.
As you write - the creed of supernaturalist philosophies has it that
one has to have faith in said
supernatural explanations being truth if technology and science can't evaluate them and this is the very thing which allows for the deception you also speak of, being able to fool the believer who operates only with faith that this is the correct and only conclusion one can apply to biblical events which cannot (at this time) be shown to have natural explanations (such as ATA's).
This is also why you wrote "We have one possible theory regarding the existence of our natural universe. And it's supernatural."
Ghosts, for example. Just another word for spirit. Demonic. How do we know they aren't souls of the dead? From the Biblical perspective there isn't such a thing, it's demonic deception. Well, fine, but not everyone agrees. So can you make a device that can tell the difference? Even if you could measure their existence that wouldn't tell you what they were.
This is exactly what I am talking about. How do we even know these are "supernatural" things?
Even if they told us that they were, how would we know they were telling the truth.
Since there is no direct biblical script (at least that I am away of) the specifically tells us without a doubt that these things are supernatural, and the only ones claiming that these things ARE supernatural are the supernaturalists themselves, and the supernaturalists themselves are claiming they belief such on
faith while in the same breath, also tell us that such entities can deceive us by lying to us about themselves...well it should be obvious that we are to question the very validity of any claim involving supernaturalist explanations.
Just to be clear, I myself am not a Materialist nor am I a Supernaturalist, so I am not trying to thrown any baby out with any bathwater...more to the point I am actually trying to show that the bathwater of either philosophical position is not going actually cleaning the baby. (providing satisfactory answers to our questions.)
My own position on the question of whether or not we exist within a created thing, is that it is highly probable, but not explainable using supernaturalism - and obviously not explainable using materialism.
That I don't get. We now understand how technology can be mistaken for being supernatural phenomena?
I mean that the technology we now have, we can understand would be regarded by our ancient ancestors as magical and thus we could expect they would supply supernatural explanations to such.
You mean hypothetically?
I mean philosophically hypothetically.
In the possible future?
No. Since we now have been sufficiently exposed to technology which only a few years ago we thought of as science fiction - (and the technology is even better than the fiction that was imagined) there is no possibility that any advanced technology could have us believing in supernaturalism as the reason why something appears magical.
Thus, - hypothetically - should any ATA descend from space and reveal itself as real, we are less likely to explain such an event as being "supernatural" (super to nature/natural explanations).
Also, should such happen, we are more likely to understand biblical stories with similar happenings as being the product of ATA's rather than supernatural.
At the same time, I acknowledge that anyone who currently has faith in supernaturalist explanations of past reported events (such as told of in the bible) may well have great difficulty in understanding such natural phenomena as being anything but "Supernatural".
Plus I have to say I nearly bristle at the term "supernaturalist philosophy." To me that's like interpreting your question as "can science fiction debunk mythological stories."
Indeed, which is part of the point of the OP question "Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?" as currently we have the claim that supernaturalism "explains" possible religious mythology.
It is not a new theory that ATA's explain Supernaturalist mythologies but I question why you should "bristle at the term" since both science fiction and supernaturalism are of the same genre although one is explained honestly as fiction while the other is proclaimed as fact.
And, as pointed out, there is a lot of science fiction which has since turned into fact, so we have something in that to go by when hypothesizing, which we do not have with supernaturalist philosophy.
What do you propose would be done to alleviate the likely dogma, bias, and corruption of such an investigation, and how the application, science, machinery, equipment and knowledge can be trusted to be accurate?
Do you mean in examining claims of supernaturalism?
Why should we accept the notion of supernaturalism at all - regardless of where the claims are coming from? Why should we accept the concept of supernaturalism and the philosophies attached to said concept, be they from "mediums, fortune tellers, astrology, et al" or from preachers of Christian Supernaturalists et al?
Why shouldn't we?
Based on your own claims, because one can be deceived, and belief in supernaturalism as an explanation can be deception.
Do we have a list of things that scientific exploration and investigation aren't allowed to examine?
No. At least not in regard to the natural universe we exist within.
I've already mentioned, squid, whales, germs, what about colors we can't see, sounds we can't hear. A dog whistle. An elephant sound we hear recorded that can travel miles to another elephant.
All those things you mention (and indeed all things) are natural enough and so while they exist there is always potential to explore and investigate and develop means by which this can be done (advance our technology) and a very good reason we invent device is assist us in seeing what we cannot see/hearing what we cannot hear et al, and in every instance this is all about the natural as are you examples.
But what examples can you offer which show us that a supernatural thing exists?
I think the best solution is let science do science and faith do faith.
The "best solution" to what? Superstition? Mental disorder? War? Famine? Disease?
In what way is faith in the belief in a supernatural thing, any kind of solution "best" or otherwise?
My focus isn't on the in-house accusation's, but why we should have to accept ANY claims re "supernatural".
It's up to the individual. I don't believe everything science tells me. I wouldn't recommend anyone believe everything supernatural even might be valid.
But you do believe in the existence of supernatural things, so it appears your statement is contradictory re that.
But lets examine what it is you think the individual should seriously contemplate as being supernatural and why and also what things they shouldn't and why.
In that way, it might greatly assist us in answering the OP question.
Why should we think of the Source Creator Mind as being outside of this universe rather than a natural aspect of this universe?
Well because we either made up our own version of a God concept or we are beholden to the accuracy of our interpretation. If God created the universe, and exists outside of it, which the Bible dictates, thenhe is outside of time and not a part of the natural universe. You can argue if that's allegorical, mythological, metaphysical, etc. but that's pretty much straight forward what it says.
No it is not. What it is "pretty much" is the
interpretation supernaturalism has placed upon the stories.
Those stories can be explained without applying
any supernatural interpretations whatsoever.
See
The Bridging Natural Philosophy thread for a summary of said philosophy by way of explanation of alleged supernatural explanations which can be explained naturally.
The bible does not appear to specifically state that God is outside of the universe.
It says the heavens can't contain him. That is, the universe. It doesn't say why. It says the temple can't house him, only a symbolic presence.
That is not necessarily implying that God is supernatural. Rather it can also imply that the universe as it is (and is currently expanding et al) is not the outward representation of what The Universal mind is capable of creating. Rather the current Universe is a representation of a particular creation created.
Which is why I am asking that question (How are we to know that Supernaturalism isn't an interpretation error leading to deception/false news?)
We test it, just as the Bible says not to believe every spirit (i.e. god breathed, or inspired expression). We can't test the "supernatural" (in this context) with scientific method. Or at least we seem to think so.
Please give an example of such a test, that we readers can understand what it is you are saying can be done.
For example, and in relation to my question - how can we know that anything claiming to be supernatural is in fact supernatural?
Or, suppose for example, I am interacting with an invisible entity mind to mind. Suppose that the invisible entity tells me that it is not supernatural and that while there is such a thing as being invisible to human sensory systems (brain and nervous system) there is no such thing as supernatural.
How would anyone be able to show me whether the entity speaks the truth or is trying to deceive me?
How are we to know that Supernaturalism isn't an interpretation error leading to deception/false news?
We don't.
This is true imo. Furthermore, since we don't know, why should we assume, since the assumption may be false.
As a skeptic I would assume it false, but assumption has to go both ways in this case. The pragmatic lean towards negative and the idealistic lean towards positive. The assumption, either way, doesn't constitute anything outside of an opinion, almost always uninformed.
Then why as a sceptic, would you place faith in it either way? Is it because there is no way to verify its actual existence, but you want to believe it exists because - as you wrote - "We have one possible theory regarding the existence of our natural universe. And it's supernatural." and thus you place "faith" in it being a true interpretation?
Your mention of superstition reminds me that such predominantly comes from/is linked to Supernaturalist philosophies.
In your words what exactly does that term mean?
It is an umbrella term for anything which claims the existence of a supernatural thing.
In that, it is not necessarily theistic philosophy but any theistic philosophy which includes that claim, is Supernaturalist Philosophy.
Re our disagreement with Occam's Razor, The Bridging Natural Philosophy I mentioned actually does simplify in relation to Supernaturalist Philosophy by providing natural answers while also solving such things as the hard problem of consciousness which Materialist Philosophy cannot solve and showing the Infinite Causation Fallacy which Materialist philosophy uses when arguing against the idea of an eternal (uncaused) creator.
Re that Eternal Creator, The Bridging Natural Philosophy explains how such does not have to be supernatural in order to exist.
IF we are to accept that the biblical stories are true, THEN we must first establish that there are no natural explanations BEFORE we start making claims that the explanations are supernatural ones.
Well, why didn't you say so?!
Here I am going on and on . . .
I did not say so earlier because you appeared to be arguing in favor of supernaturalism. Are you not?
