Best rebuttal to the supernatural I've seen

[rikuoamero]

The following is a quote I found on a Youtube video I was watching the other day, a debate that well known atheist Matt Dillahunty had with a Christian apologist Mike Licona on the resurrection of Jesus. Posting it here for discussion

Mike Licona seems to think that if an event occurs for which we have no known naturalistic explanation, or which outright defies natural law (at least, as best we understand natural law so far), that this rules out nature, and thus warrants a supernatural conclusion (at least tentatively).

This is a powerful, powerful failure of reasoning on Licona's part.

Okay, let's assume some event has occured which defies natural law (as best we know it so far). We'll even assume that both its occurrence and its defiance of natural law (as best we know it so far) can be sufficiently confirmed (that is, with better evidence than just spooky anecdotes we've received third-hand).

When considering explanations, one option is that reality includes a supernatural component of some sort. (This might not even be a valid option, if Dillahunty's objection stands that "supernatural" is so ill-defined that it has no explanatory power... but let's just grant it as an acceptable option for the moment, for the sake of the reductio.) However -- and this is what Licona fails to see -- that isn't the only option. Another option is that our current model of nature was incorrect and needs revision. At minimum there are two options, and at best (until further consideration, which we'll get to in a moment) they have an equal chance of being correct. In such a scenario, though we've already conceded much to Licona, we still have no way of determining which of the two is correct, meaning that acceptance of the supernatural as an inference to the best explanation is already unwarranted/irrational.

Objecting "No no no, you see, this phenomenon defied natural law (as best we knew it), and so we've ruled out the natural option," fails to recognize that we've only ruled out current known explanations, not the possibility that our model of nature was in need of revision. That's still an option on the table, which we've yet to either confirm or rule out.

Objecting that this betrays a deep-seated bias in favor of naturalism, or that it amounts to a knee jerk assumption that the explanation for the phenomenon must be natural, fails to understand that merely recognizing that one option has yet to be ruled out is not the same as actually accepting or leaning toward that option.. Recognizing that an argument has failed to meet its burden of proof does not mean one has accepted the opposite position as true.

Again, from where we stand so far, we have at least two options on the table, neither of which have yet been ruled out.....

But it gets worse for the supernaturalist.

Unlike the supernatural option, we have actual precedent of our models of nature needing to be revised before. What's more, we already know that nature at least exists (something we can't yet say for the supernatural). These facts overwhelmingly tilt the probability in favor of the latter option, that our current model of nature is in need of revision. (Though we ultimately still don't know which of these two options is correct, if either.)

All this being true, the person who's settling on the supernatural per Licona's reasoning is already being less rational than a person who favors the natural option, and less rational still than the skeptic who's merely reserving judgement either way.

[theophile]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Good answer and I agree.

There is another option though that is partially related to the possibility that our understanding of nature needs to be revised:

That is, the rules of nature can change.

We may not be in a system of fixed rules that determine a fixed set of possibilities and a certain understanding (whether in need of revision or not).

Rather, we may be in a system where the rules can change and the impossible can become possible. (Where for God, all things become possible...) And where our understanding may be right (i.e., in no need of revision), but where the rules underneath it can change, undermining it as a result.

The very conditions of possibility can change - more things can become natural events. Water can turn to wine. The blind can once again see. Small amounts of food can feed thousands. The dead can return to life...

Now whether, again, this is just an aspect of us needing to revise our understanding of nature (having failed to see the limitless possibilities in reality) or whether the truly impossible (right now) can become possible, I don't know.

Either way, it is the truth of the matter I think, or the spirit that we need to enter into, when trying to understand these biblical events.

There is either a reality of limitless possibility (and a constant need to revise our understanding) or there is a fixed reality (that we may or may not understand) but whose governing rules can change - changing the nature of reality itself and what is natural v. supernatural.

(Also, none of this is to say that Jesus actually rose from the dead or that other miracles actually occurred. Rather, it is to say that the stories and teachings of the bible would point us to this type of understanding of reality.)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by theophile]

We may not be in a system of fixed rules that determine a fixed set of possibilities and a certain understanding (whether in need of revision or not).

Rather, we may be in a system where the rules can change and the impossible can become possible.

Okay. I hand you a six sided die, with each face having one of the numbers from 1 through to 6. Are you suggesting that at some point, it is possible for you to roll a 12?

The very conditions of possibility can change - more things can become natural events. Water can turn to wine. The blind can once again see. Small amounts of food can feed thousands. The dead can return to life...

For me to believe these or anything like them, I would need something more than stories from thousands of years ago. It's very easy to pen a document that says Jesus conjured up food and restored eyesight...it is something altogether different to show that that indeed did happen.

(Also, none of this is to say that Jesus actually rose from the dead or that other miracles actually occurred. Rather, it is to say that the stories and teachings of the bible would point us to this type of understanding of reality.)

To suggest this is to suggest we might as well stop teaching physics and chemistry. The science behind how what I type on my keyboard here at home ends up on the screen of your computer (wherever it is you are) is well understood, but to suggest that (at what? Random?) it can just change is to suggest there is no point in trying to understand physics or chemistry or any other scientific field. Why bother learning the physics and engineering behind transmitting text all over the world if the very physics governing this process can just change?

[theophile]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Okay. I hand you a six sided die, with each face having one of the numbers from 1 through to 6. Are you suggesting that at some point, it is possible for you to roll a 12?

Perhaps. More that the so-called 'rules' that govern our reality now, and constrain it, may no longer do so. Our constraints will be removed and our freedom will increase.

It's like the (meta)physical version of a moral truth. When you're a child, you have more rules placed upon you. Your freedom is limited. But as you mature, and prove your readiness, rules are removed, freedom increases, and more things become possible for you.

Taking a physical turn on this, the rule that life ends with death will no longer hold.
The rule that food can only feed so many will no longer hold.
And yes, the rule that a six-sided dice cannot roll a 12 may no longer hold...

It's not that we need to revise our current understanding of reality, but that reality itself - or what is possible - can change, and so our understanding will need to change with it.

Again, I'm not fully sold on this, because I can't fully make it work in my head - but it is an option (I can't fully rule it out either). I'm more inclined to say that these possibilities already exist (that all things are possible), but that our understanding of reality limits us from seeing certain things as possible (like resurrection). We have imposed rules on ourselves that we will one day transcend.

For me to believe these or anything like them, I would need something more than stories from thousands of years ago. It's very easy to pen a document that says Jesus conjured up food and restored eyesight...it is something altogether different to show that that indeed did happen.

Sure. Same as back then, right? Like doubting Thomas, or a core part of Paul's argument.. People in his day had seen Christ crucified and resurrected - for those who witnessed it, or trusted the witnesses, it is no longer hope that all things are possible but belief.

Before that, there was only hope. After the event, and witnesses of it, there was belief. But now again, so far removed from the event and its witnesses, we are back to hope.

(Again, I'm not saying these things actually happened. I'm only trying to point out biblical metaphysics, which is, I think, either (1) that all things are possible (if only our understanding were great enough to see it) OR (2) that all things can become possible (the very rules that govern reality can change).

(I'm also, to be clear, not saying that divine magical powers are the ticket in either case. In option (1), it is definitely within our power. Why I don't like option (2) is because I feel the only way it is possible is to bring it back to the moral parallel, where a super-power God actually adds or removes rules that govern our reality. I'm against that kind of thinking as much as you are...)

To suggest this is to suggest we might as well stop teaching physics and chemistry. The science behind how what I type on my keyboard here at home ends up on the screen of your computer (wherever it is you are) is well understood, but to suggest that (at what? Random?) it can just change is to suggest there is no point in trying to understand physics or chemistry or any other scientific field. Why bother learning the physics and engineering behind transmitting text all over the world if the very physics governing this process can just change?

Of the two biblical 'metaphysics' I identified above, I am strongly inclined to the first (as much as I like the miraculous extremity of the other). That is, my position is that all things are possible (resurrection, water into wine, etc). It is our understanding (and perhaps a few other things) that constrains us.

Thus, scientific endeavor is absolutely essential for us to realize the biblical vision where all things are possible.

But if the second option is the case, I agree, we would need to seriously rethink the place of science, as it would by definition be limited by current reality, being essentially an understanding of the rules that govern it.

Something more powerful than science would necessarily be the driver of changes in our reality. Science would play a follow-up game of questionable significance.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by theophile]

Perhaps. More that the so-called 'rules' that govern our reality now, and constrain it, may no longer do so. Our constraints will be removed and our freedom will increase.

I will need evidence of this change, in order to believe that there is a change. To the best of my knowledge, a six sided die with the numbers 1-6 will only ever roll 1-6. If I am to believe that it will one day roll a 7 or some other higher number (or maybe even a fraction?), I will need more to believe that than someone suggesting that the rules that govern the roll of a die will change in the future.

It's like the (meta)physical version of a moral truth. When you're a child, you have more rules placed upon you. Your freedom is limited. But as you mature, and prove your readiness, rules are removed, freedom increases, and more things become possible for you.

Moral freedoms have little to nothing to do with physical laws.

Taking a physical turn on this, the rule that life ends with death will no longer hold.

As I tell Christians on this site, I need evidence of this.

The rule that food can only feed so many will no longer hold.
And yes, the rule that a six-sided dice cannot roll a 12 may no longer hold...

Same as above

It's not that we need to revise our current understanding of reality, but that reality itself - or what is possible - can change, and so our understanding will need to change with it.

I disagree. A thousand or so years ago, Vikings believed that lightning was caused by the god Thor throwing his hammer around. Fast forward several hundred years, and experiments done by some very smart people discover that it is electricity.
Are you suggesting that there WAS a God Thor throwing his magic hammer around, and then at some point, the 'rules changed' and suddenly, it was electricity?

Again, I'm not fully sold on this, because I can't fully make it work in my head - but it is an option (I can't fully rule it out either).

I can't rule it in at all, because I have no evidence of it.

People in his day had seen Christ crucified and resurrected

Or more than likely...hear me out here...they thought they had. Or someone made it up (I am of the opinion it was Paul).

Before that, there was only hope. After the event, and witnesses of it, there was belief. But now again, so far removed from the event and its witnesses, we are back to hope.

Unlike yourself, I do not allow my emotions to sway what it is I know, and hence believe. There are lots of things I hope for, but it doesn't mean I believe that what I hope for is actually true.

Again, I'm not saying these things actually happened. I'm only trying to point out biblical metaphysics

But not Quranic, or Tanak-ic or {insert holy book here} metaphysics? Just Biblical?

Why I don't like option (2) is because I feel the only way it is possible is to bring it back to the moral parallel,

As I said before...I don't go for emotions. What you personally feel has no sway with me.

[theophile]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I will need evidence of this change, in order to believe that there is a change. To the best of my knowledge, a six sided die with the numbers 1-6 will only ever roll 1-6. If I am to believe that it will one day roll a 7 or some other higher number (or maybe even a fraction?), I will need more to believe that than someone suggesting that the rules that govern the roll of a die will change in the future.

Like I said, I can't rationalize it either, unless I go the route of onto-theology and make God a super-being. So logically it exists as a possibility. But that's not a route that I'm willing to take. Like you, I can't justify it either - logically, empirically, emotionally, however you like.

Moral freedoms have little to nothing to do with physical laws.

It's a parallel. An illustration using another domain. Of course it breaks down under scrutiny, but the parallel still holds. How about you open your mind and consider exploring an idea versus stating the obvious.

I disagree. A thousand or so years ago, Vikings believed that lightning was caused by the god Thor throwing his hammer around. Fast forward several hundred years, and experiments done by some very smart people discover that it is electricity.
Are you suggesting that there WAS a God Thor throwing his magic hammer around, and then at some point, the 'rules changed' and suddenly, it was electricity?

I thought I was clear on this. There are two options I can see to go back and build on the "rebuttal" of the OP: one where we simply don't understand the limitless possibilities of reality, and our understanding constrains us to what we perceive are its governing rules OR one where the very rules that govern reality can change.

The case you describe here fits within the first option, where it was our understanding that fell short but eventually caught up. The rules that govern reality did not change. Our understanding did.

Or more than likely...hear me out here...they thought they had. Or someone made it up (I am of the opinion it was Paul).

I am inclined to agree. You are clearly not following me.

Unlike yourself, I do not allow my emotions to sway what it is I know, and hence believe. There are lots of things I hope for, but it doesn't mean I believe that what I hope for is actually true.

Excuse me? I don't know where these responses are coming from. I must have been very unclear. How did I let any emotion "sway what I know"? Also, of course hope doesn't make something true. Really don't know where this stuff is coming from.

As I said before...I don't go for emotions. What you personally feel has no sway with me.

I swear you atheists have these 'canned' responses that you throw out even when they have no relevance to the conversation, but because you pigeon hole every theist. I'm not trying to sway you of anything. If I say "feel," believe me, it is inextricable from reason (I find it tough to parse the two unlike yourself apparently...).

Please recall, I was in firm agreement with the OP from the get-go, so again, really not sure why you're turning this into some sort of "better than thou" debate, so grounded you apparently are in reason and not in emotion.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

we've ruled out the natural option," fails to recognize that we've only ruled out current known explanations, not the possibility that our model of nature was in need of revision.

To me, YES but that doesn't automatically negate something as supernatural. As far as I can see it, supernatural is something that isn't or doesn't act naturally as we know it. Once we understand it (if we ever do) it stops being supernatural at that point, but doesn't mean it wasn't supernatural in the past.
In other words, definitions change going forward but not in retrospect.

the person who's settling on the supernatural per Licona's reasoning is already being less rational than a person who favors the natural option

Many people who believe in supernatural events likely won't disagree with this.

[bluethread]

To the best of my knowledge, a six sided die with the numbers 1-6 will only ever roll 1-6. If I am to believe that it will one day roll a 7 or some other higher number (or maybe even a fraction?), I will need more to believe that than someone suggesting that the rules that govern the roll of a die will change in the future.

Two observations. The sides have numbers because they have been assigned to them. On a proper die the 2 side is no different from the 5 side. or the 3 side. They are interchangeable. Second, a die need not be static, over time or due to alteration by an outside source, there are at least six other possibilities, i.e. balance on a corner. Any such event would of course be rejected an anecdotal in a scientific model. Such is one of the limitations of science. Also, the die might be "loaded", i.e. it appears to be a uniformly dense cube, when it is actually not. There are also presumptions regarding the nature of gravity and space. Simple Newtonian physics is relative to the relative size and location of the two objects, as well as other environmental factors.

In short, when one defines the universe as natural, nothing is supernatural. However, when one wishes to argue for what one considers to be natural, one is redefining that term to exclude certain possibilities. This makes the supernatural nothing more than that which one will not accept.

It's not that we need to revise our current understanding of reality, but that reality itself - or what is possible - can change, and so our understanding will need to change with it.

I disagree. A thousand or so years ago, Vikings believed that lightning was caused by the god Thor throwing his hammer around. Fast forward several hundred years, and experiments done by some very smart people discover that it is electricity.
Are you suggesting that there WAS a God Thor throwing his magic hammer around, and then at some point, the 'rules changed' and suddenly, it was electricity?

Electricity is our form of Thor's hammer. Even though I do not think that lightning was Thor's hammer back then, it may not have worked as we define electricity today. It is my understanding that we do not fully understand electricity even today. Otherwise, we could predict lightening strikes without exception. We have developed lightening rods that work in most instances, but not always.

Before that, there was only hope. After the event, and witnesses of it, there was belief. But now again, so far removed from the event and its witnesses, we are back to hope.

Unlike yourself, I do not allow my emotions to sway what it is I know, and hence believe. There are lots of things I hope for, but it doesn't mean I believe that what I hope for is actually true.

I have my doubts about that. That may be how you see yourself from your philosophical prospective. However, it has been scientifically verified that it is natural for human reasoning to be influenced by emotions. That is unless you have supernatural reasoning powers. Do you?

[marco]

Okay. I hand you a six sided die, with each face having one of the numbers from 1 through to 6. Are you suggesting that at some point, it is possible for you to roll a 12?

No, that is very clear from the given situation. I go along with your dismissal of Christ's miracles on the grounds of absurdity. However, it is wrong to base our conclusions solely on what our science tells us, for Newton's science did not explain the aberration in Mercury's orbit. When we toss two coins the probability of getting a head and a tail is 0.5, two heads, 0.25 and two tails, 0.25. That is easily verified in theory. In Bose-Einstein statistics, however, a new reality seems to apply which denies our common sense calculations and the probabilities are all 1 in 3.

The problem with "miracles" is their attachment to tales of nomadic tribesmen and religious writers. I believe that our level of knowledge is still at an early stage and there may be explanations which, as far as present understanding goes, would be as good as miraculous..... but without the deity's magic wand.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

It seems like a rhetorical trick to define things in a way that favours one's arguments.

My initial response is to argue that God's actions in the world are natural - as natural as any other free willed beings.