Hi!

As there yet hasn't been any sign of that supernatural exists, I guess the probability must be very close to zero. By supernatural I of course don't mean the still not found regularities of nature, but some real "arbitrary" action.

What is your best guess? I had the numbers E-10 and E-20 in mind, so will go for E-15. That is my honest estimation something truly supernatural exists is one in a 1,000,000,000,000,000. For this to be RGT I guess my estimate should be one in a million or better, but now it's one in a thousand million million, so yes, zero possibility in practice.

In the long run don't think this thread can survive without being moved to RGT, but let's try. What are your numbers?

Guesstimating 30% of philosophers are libertarian free willer's, and 70% think that if there were libertarian free will it would amount to "arbitrary action" - thus supernatural - I calculate the probability at a minimum of 21%.


PairTheBoard

If something deemed supernatural would exist, wouldn't it be just natural?

I was always intrigued by the fact that mankind was basically unaware of electricity for thousands of years, and lightning was perceived as something supernatural; caused by gods etc.

So I would rather ask how likely it is that there are natural forces/laws we are still unaware of, where people perceive some of their observable artifacts as supernatural.

Yes Morph, that's another interesting question. That probability could be way higher, imo. One in a thousand to one in a million comes to mind as possibilities.

Say a known entity, gravitational waves. Maybe there is a possibility that one of the approximately 100 billion people who have lived have had that of experience once, that it has altered thinking that one time? On the other hand Einstein and LIGO have altered many more minds regarding gravitational waves, by more conventional processes, by knowledge.

I wouldn't consider it as another interesting question, but the correct version of your question.

I don't understand. Are you saying that gravitational waves might have caused people in the past to see ghosts or talking burning bushes or something?

Or something else. Usually they see ghosts who don't exist by conventional psychological processes. I think gravitational waves are that weak I don't give them much of a probability for significantly having altered any mind ever, but why not once in all of history?

It is appropriate that this thread is moved on Sunday morning to a more appropriate forum for a full discussion/debate.

Let me know when you've decided how you will be able to convince yourself that something is supernatural.

I know it when I see it?

It would be difficult, any worded message could come from extraterrestrial life or by a hoax on earth, or obviously by illusion or hallucination. Maybe if known big entities would suddenly change dramatically. Say planet Mars would suddenly appear between Saturn and Uranus next Monday to Sunday, and then suddenly return.

A Metaphysical Naturalist would claim that any atypical experience or phenomenon would ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.

It might be helpful to define supernatural.

Maybe a god would be naturalistic too then? But that's the arbitrary part. So a god wouldn't exist by definition?

A consistent Metaphysical Naturalist would a priori dismiss the existence of a personal God (e.g. God as represented in the Koran or the Bible). Some sort of nebulous pantheistic idea of God might be "allowable" for the Metaphysical Naturalist.

A so-called Methodological Naturalist would not a priori rule out the possibility of a personal God. For the Methodological Naturalist, the "God question" isn't germane to his or her pursuit of scientific investigation.

Are you sure?

Let's say you shuffled a deck of cards. (Make it an "honest" shuffle where you're not intentionally trying to control cards or anything, or perhaps you ran it through a digital automatic shuffler that uses a radioactive seed.) You would consider this to be "randomized" in the usual sense of the term. Without your knowledge, I swap two cards in the deck. There is an intentional and real "arbitrary" change to the deck. But you would not know it when you saw it. Short of having transcribed the deck before I got to it, you would have no way of knowing that it happened and you would just go on through the deck as if it never even happened.

The challenge is that the tools you might use to measure/determine "supernatural" (as you have defined it) are woefully inadequate to the task. Rather, you're limiting yourself to "super-gigantic things that defy pretty much everything we understand about the universe."

Since the supernatural is by definition something that is "beyond the laws of nature", it seems unlikely one would be able to make probabilities for it. Not that probabilities are necessarily "a law of nature", but laws of nature tend to be invoked when we use probabilities for phenomena.

As for phenomena that are assumed to be supernatural that are later found to be natural, this has happened a lot in human history (infectious disease is a good example that is very relevant for 2021). It has in fact happened so much that these days we just tend to assume something is natural even if we can't yet explain it and it seems to be a safe proposition.

Theories positing the the supernatural also have an abysmal prediction record and are generally useless for modelling or explaining just about anything. In the interest of fairness one should note that this doesn't mean they are wrong, but that's such a low epistemological bar that it can be crossed by just about anything.

Of course there is an esthetical and social component to the supernatural belief. It can give beautiful stories and for many it is an important part of their everyday life, as long as nobody is hurt, I don't see an issue with that.

Is it morally wrong to hurt people? Why or why not? If you are a proponent of Naturalism, please answer in a manner consistent with your Naturalism. Thanks.

Sometimes it is. And no, I am not a "proponent of naturalism". Naturalism is unnecessary.

This list is not exhaustive, but which (if any) of the following broad categories would you say best identifies your worldview:

1. Theism: There is a God who has revealed some things about Itself to humans.

2. Polytheism: There is more than one God, and these God(s) have revealed some things about Themselves to humans.

3. Deism: There is a God, but this God has not revealed anything about Itself to humans.

4. Pantheism: Everything is God and/or God = Nature.

5. Atheism: There is no God and/or Nature is all there is.

6. a. "Weak" Agnosticism: "I don't have a strong conviction about whether
or not God exists."

b. "Strong" Agnosticism: "Nobody can rationally have a strong
conviction about whether or not God exists."

Thanks your for input.

We got to the lack of evidence isn't proof of non-existence very fast. Kind of "what if". And "if" is more than a super small possibility.

And btw, I'd say we just are morally wired.

I'm a "probabilist". Haven't found any evidence and as far as I know nobody else has. And then, why would there be? Maybe a 5b: weak atheist.

It doesn’t matter.

Beliefs in God has never helped build anything, predict anything, explain anything reasonably or cure anything. That’s all that matters. Theology makes clergy, that’s it.

I would encourage you to read the book What if Jesus Had Never Been Born by Dr. D. James Kennedy, et. al.

The book shows how Christianity in general and Christians in particular greatly accelerated advances in medicine, education, science, and politics.

I would also encourage you to crack open a history book.

And, like in all such endeavours, their beliefs in god were wholly irrelevant.

Medicine works without belief in God, education works without belief in God, science works without belief in God and politics work without belief in God. I'm sure many of them didn't think that at the time, but times have changed. Religion isn't needed to explain or predict anything. And contrary to the billions of warnings given throughout time, it isn't needed for morals either.

I suspect I have read a substantial amount more history than you.