I would suggest that scientific evidence (as opposed to just empirical evidence) are facts that can be fitted into a rigorous theoretical framework, that follow logically from the entailments of the theory, and that can be observed repeatedly by independent observers. Importantly, the theory one tries to fit the facts into must, at least in principle, be falsifiable through counterfactuals.
For science to include the ‘supernatural’ you will first need to formulate a theoretical framework of what this means and what it entails. You should then be able to come up with potential falsifying data. That last point I think is where the problems reside. You would need a formulation like "If the supernatural exists, it logically follows that we will never observe X. Therefore, if we were to observe X we would have demonstrated that the supernatural doesn’t exist’.
Can you give a concrete example of this purported scientific data? What I mean is you need to give a reference to a published article or some database where this scientifica data can be accessed. Not a timestamp in a youtube video where someone just declares something, I want to see the actual data myself. Can you provide that?
I was not aware that such “empirical data”(is there another kind of data?) had been found. Can you provide it?
I’m quite certain you need to accept a host of additional premises in order to derive that conclusion logically.
It’s getting tedious watching you pile up assertions without backing them up. If you keep just declaring certain beliefs you hold as if they were facts then this isn’t really a discussion or debate, it’s just two sides taking turns stating what they believe. If we are to make any sort of progress here we need to see this evidence and these logical arguments you think establish the conclusions you state so that we can evaluate them.
Oh, I would assume it’s the redshift, expansion, CMBR, etc. I’m only going by Vilenkin’s statement, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” I would think that would be a correct assumption to make from that statement. Am I wrong?
Here’s a very simple argument that could be filled out more, but more or less does what’s necessary.
If the initial event responsible for the existence of space, time, matter, and energy has a cause, the cause is not physical.
There is a cause of the initial event.
Therefor the cause is not physical.
From there we can conclude that the cause would be without space, time, matter, and energy and would therefore have to exist in a realm that transcends the physical. That realm is what is commonly defined as the realm of the supernatural.
OK. I’m wondering if the use of the term supernatural in the statement in question is being used in a more specific sense of the term rather than the broader sense of the term by the naturalists. If that’s the case there’s another problem with not using specific enough terminology for what is meant.
If the naturalist has the spooky type meaning of ghosts and goblins in mind then that should be made clear. The definition I’ve offered is taken from a dictionary as one of the ways in which supernatural is defined and that is how I understand what is implied by the naturalist when using the term.
That is not necessarily the definition a “naturalist” is using.
One does not have to be a “naturalist” to not accept the existence of the “supernatural.” I am not a naturalist myself, but also do not believe that the “supernatural” exists. TBH, I am not even convinced the distinction is coherent.
No, that would be incorrect. It is based on the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. Look it up.
The part that supernaturalists always ignore about this is that Vilenkin also has a model in which the universe spontaneously comes into being from literally nothing thru naturalistic processes. The supernaturalists are much less inclined to cite his authority on that matter.
These are just ideas based on ideas, not on empirical evidence. And Vilenkin does not deny the beginning of the physical realm, his argument is that it doesn’t need a cause, which strictly logically speaking (can be imagined) is possible, but broadly logically speaking (can be actualized, i.e., conforms to the reality we experience) is not possible.
This might be a little off topic but I will address it nonetheless.
I don’t recall ever saying that both can’t be done simultaneously. That’s the nature of abductive reasoning. Competing arguments are filtered through several criteria to establish which are more plausible. Of the most plausible ones, if there’s one that seems to be more plausible than the rest, then that is considered to be the best explanation.
What I would point out is that scientists should be free to determine, if the plausibility of a proposed natural explanation keeps diminishing as more research is done, that there might be a good possibility that at least their present hypothesis is probably incorrect.
Based on that, they would then be able to make reasonable decisions as to how to proceed with their research. Unfortunately, it seems like what happens at least some of the time, usually when there’s no other natural alternative in sight, is that science keeps pursuing a proposed natural explanation to the point of irrationality.
You are drawing the bulls eye around the bullet hole. A healthy ecology is a necessary outcome of evolutionary processes because of how it forces species into open niches. You might as well be in awe of how the shape of the water in a lake so perfectly fits the shape of the land below it.
If there is too little food, then the predators shrink in number. Natural history is also full of extinct species where ecologies have collapsed. Where a predator or producer leaves a niche open there can be species that evolve to fill that gap.
I would argue that a quantum fluctuation would have it’s existence in the physical realm, which you yourself admitted in your comment. Furthermore, if you’re argument is based on virtual particles popping in and out of existence, I would challenge that position since it is not something that has been empirically verified and is basically just an idea which has no basis in empirically verified reality.
My understanding is that what’s at issue is how to explain the disturbances that are created when energy fields interact with each other. As I understand it, there are several different proposed explanation for this phenomenon. So I would argue that the objection is on pretty shaky ground at best, and borderline on being baseless at worst.
Since science tells us that all empirically accessible physical events have a cause, that is grounds for expecting that there are no physical events that are without a cause. To suggest otherwise has no basis in empirical reality.
