--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <richardhughes103@> > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Sounds like someone is holding out for a supernatural > > > > solution to the mystery. > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > Naturalism:- The system of thought holding that all > > > > phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes > > > > and laws.
Come to think of it, that's NOT a helpful explanation at all. You can't have the definiens in the definiendum (Or whatever. Maybe it's the other way around?). > > > How would you define "natural causes and laws"? How > > > do you make the distinction between "natural" and > > > "supernatural"? > > > > > > Here's the relevant definition of "supernatural" > > > from my dictionary: > > > > > > "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the > > > visible observable universe" > > > > > > The relevant definition of "natural" is: > > > > > > "being in accordance with or determined by nature" > > > > > > These definitions leave something to be desired in > > > the current context, but I'm sure there are others > > > that are more precise. > > > > I would say they are not good definitions. > > That's what I said. ;-) > > > If "beyond the visible observable universe" = supernatural, > > that turns many physicists into ghost hunters! > > > > Of course it might mean "in principle" observable. Dark matter > > may not be observable now, but we may see it some day (or infer > > its presence more likely). But then my religious sister says God > > is observable, and I'll see Him/Her some day (she tells me it's > > a Him). > > > > I don't think it's about the "stuff" so much as about the laws: > > A supernatural object or event is one in which the Laws of Nature > > are temporarily suspended (or violated). > > But that would imply we know all the laws of > nature, wouldn't it? Well, maybe. What an odd idea "supernatural" is when you prod and poke at it! Something strange needs explaining. The supernaturalist says there IS no explanation; the scientist says there would be if we could just figure it out. I think I'm with the latter, but (against Stenger), I don't see why all explanations are materialist explanations. > Something God may be able > > to do for example (or maybe even God is subject to the Laws!). > > > > (This all takes me back yonks to Lyall Watson's "Supernature". > > Remember that?) > > Oh, my, yes, "Hundredth Monkey" and all that. > Extraordinary chap, may he rest in peace. Never > seemed to bother him when one of his theories > got shot down; he just dreamed up a bunch more. >
