[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> Not by definition. Entirely for practical reasons, because the   
   >> supernatural is characterized by a lack of discernible properties.   
   >> There's nothing for science to grab onto.   
   >>   
   >>> Further investigation would be in the realms of theology and "special   
   >>> revelation", philosophy etc. On the other hand, I infer from what I   
   >>> know of the universe and from life things like design, intelligence,   
   >>> powerful agency; also abstract things like love, beauty, morality. So   
   >>> "natural theology" may identify attributes of a supernatural agent.   
   >>   
   >> How can you identify attributes of a supernatural agent without first   
   >> establishing that such an agent exists?   
   >>   
   >>> What position would you/do you take?   
   >>   
   >> My position is that science is our only way of gathering reliable   
   >> knowledge of the universe. Theology, revelation, philosophy, etc.   
   >> don't do it.   
   >>   
   >>> An observed phenomenon could conceivably breach the causality   
   >>> threshold to a such a degree as to give some individuals full   
   >>> conviction of supernatural involvement.   
   >>   
   >> Don't forget that a sufficiently advanced technology is   
   >> indistinguishable from magic. If you see something that's physically   
   >> impossible, as far as you know, it's either a miracle or you were   
   >> wrong about what's possible. How would you tell the difference?   
   >   
   > I started addressing each of your responses individually, but decided   
   > that a consolidated statement might be more coherent and constructive.   
   >   
   > I think that what we are really debating is epistemology.   
   >   
   > The Wikipedia article on this, for example, points to a philosophical   
   > rabbit hole. In any case, science (empiricism) occupies a unique   
   > position, insofar as the scientific method provides a means of testing,   
   > refining and accumulating knowledge of the physical world, utilising   
   > falsifiability and reproducibility to provide a capacity for   
   > self-correction.   
   >   
   > And it does this rather well. Indeed, our modern technological society   
   > is built on science, among other things. Science rightly enjoys   
   > prominence in the epistemological framework.   
   >   
   > Given that, two avenues of discussion come to mind:   
   >   
   > 1. The legitimacy of other epistemological categories (including   
   > religion), and their relationship to science.   
   >   
   > 2. The double-edged nature of science itself.   
   >   
   > What do I mean by that? Science relies on cause and effect. In fact, I   
   > wonder if one  definition of "natural" might be that which is subject to   
   > causality (quantum acausality notwithstanding).   
   >   
   > What if science itself identifies non-causal phenomena? Now, if I   
   > understand correctly, you are saying this can never happen; rather, what   
   > may appear to be non-causal can only be categorised as "currently   
   > unexplained naturally".   
      
   What do you even mean by "non-causal"? How would we tell if something   
   was non-causal? And you appear to be saying that events are in fact   
   caused, just by a supernatural entity that isn't part of the universe.   
   But why assume that it's not part of the universe?   
      
   > This is the nub of the issue I think. You seem to have upfront excluded   
   > epistemologies apart from science (as good as it is).   
      
   True. Why should we believe that any of them actually work?   
      
   > This provides a   
   > jusfication to leave it at "currently unexplained naturally" rather than   
   > considering supernatural explanation, because you assume that there is   
   > no other legitimate means of acquiring knowledge, and the best we can do   
   > is park it in the science baskets of "to do" or "too hard" (which takes   
   > us back to 1 above).   
   >   
   > This brings me back to my "1000 years" thought exercise. If that   
   > scenario did play out, it would be an instance of science providing   
   > evidence of non-causality. That's the other sharp edge - evidence from   
   > science giving reason to consider explanations beyond the reach of science.   
      
   There is no reason to believe, if science fails to explain something   
   over some arbitrary period, that anything else would succeed.   
      
   > Of course, even at that point you may say, so what, science is the only   
   > valid epistemology, therefore whatever your "supernatural" may be, we   
   > have no way of knowing anything about it. Nothing to see here folks. But   
   > to adopt this position would be itself an act of faith.   
      
   No, it's supported by evidence. Revelation has contradicted evidence   
   (and other revelation) frequently. It's proven an unreliable guide to truth.   
      
   > To take different tack: maybe there is a God, and maybe that God created   
   > the world and us, and maybe this has consequences that have profound   
   > personal implications. To exclude consideration of this possibility   
   > because of the limits of the scientific method would be to misapply   
   > science; especially so if science was loudly pointing us to the non-causal.   
      
   But how would you consider this possibility? Would you not be forced to   
   weigh the evidence? And that's the job of science. Of course science   
   isn't loudly pointing to anything non-causal, and this hypothesis of God   
   is still too undefined to be examined empirically. You could of course   
   use some other criterion of truth, for example how good it would make   
   you feel if it were true. Perhaps that's what you're doing here. But is   
   that a valid criterion?   
      
   Demonstrate another epistemology that can be useful in determining   
   truth, and then we'll talk.   
      
   >>> Biblical miracles served that purpose (not arguing for their veracity   
   >>> here, just using them to illustrate the principle). For example:   
   >>>   
   >>> Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him   
   >>> to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had   
   >>> dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray.   
   >>> When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was   
   >>> a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was   
   >>> against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them,   
   >>> walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the   
   >>> sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried   
   >>> out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take   
   >>> heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”   
   >>>   
   >>> And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to   
   >>> you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and   
   >>> walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he   
   >>> was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.”   
   >>> Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying   
   >>> to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got   
   >>> into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him,   
   >>> saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”   
   >>>   
   >>> (Matthew 14:22-33)   
   >>   
   >> So many problems with that story, from a theological perspective   
   >> alone, but no need to go into them here. But what does a cheap magic   
   >> trick tell you about God?   
   >>   
   >>>>> "Given a priori presuppositions, people holding different views   
   >>>>> regarding origins look at the same evidence and come to different   
   >>>>> conclusions. Or they ignore evidence that doesn’t support their   
   >>>>> viewpoint, while touting evidence that does.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's true for OEC and YEC, since they are required to ignore   
   >>>> almost every feature of the world, and the evidence they imagine   
   >>>> supports their views is in face imaginary. Not sure what you think   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)