So, as I wrote earlier in this thread, a conversation about “evidence for the supernatural” can only be about what the person means by “evidence.” (Others correctly note that we have to figure out what we mean by “supernatural,” too.) This particular conversation is a clear example of why the conversations are rarely interesting. We have someone arguing about what “observable” means, and we now see that the conversation was predicated on a definition of “evidence” that is ridiculous.
BTW, @swamidass, this is an example of a “garden path” fallacy: the whole conversation/argument is structured such that the reader is led down a carefully crafted path toward a predetermined endpoint.
Is there no evidence for the supernatural? I already wrote that I think we cannot claim that. Does this very thread suggest that the evidence for the supernatural is so pitiful that it requires laughable contortions of language and reason in order to be convincing? Yes it does.
With detection, as is the case with quantum particles, you can’t observe the entity being detected. You can only observe the reading of the data that the instruments are providing, and based on the data you can make inferences about whatever the entity is that’s being detected. But the actual entity being detected is not observed.
Umm, I’m simply wanting to find out if I correctly understood what you said.
On it’s own this seems a little hard to decipher.
If everyone, who can see, reports that they see the sun, it is an objective and verifiable observation. How vision works does nothing to change that. I’m not sure this is really central to the conversation. Maybe if I were to say “what someone experiences by observation” that would put your concern to rest?
I think the way to diffuse this is straight forward:
Yes, there is evidence for God’s existence, but also against it. Quite a bit of evidence is marshaled in arguments for or against God’s existence. The real question is not whether or not the evidence exists, but to enumerate and explain it, and be sure our reasoning about it is sensible.
Jim, this is a red herring. I think you should be able to agree that the apparent evidence against God is “objective and verifiable” by the same definitions you are claiming for the apparent evidence for God. Instead, I think you are creating an interminable debate about the meaning of “objective” and “verifiable.” That is a side show.
I think @sfmatheson (an atheist) concedes, as he should, there is apparent evidence for God’s existence, but that doesn’t mean it is definitive. Would you, in turn, concede as you should there is against God’s existence? Surely you must agree that there is apparent evidence, even though you do not think it is not definitive.
Did I ever say anything to the contrary? If I did I wasn’t aware of it. I have no problem with this. My argument is simply to show that there is scientific evidence that can infer the supernatural. I’m not saying that there is no evidence to the contrary, at least that is not my intention.
All this talk about evidence and arguments is missing the point that we don’t have One. Single. Verified. Supernatural. Event. in all of history. As in, one event that is so well established that it is perverse to argue it didn’t happen.
Well, it depends what you mean by verified. Of course, as an atheist, you have to say none of them are verified. Given the nature of the question, this is going to be disputed no matter how good or bad the verification or evidence happens to be.
This contradicts the definition of “observe” that you just quoted. It contradicts your claim that atoms can be observed. You are very confused.
Sure it is, assuming that the chain of inference from photons to your consciousness is correct. Of course, sometimes it isn’t, and we experience optical illusions. My point is that observation, no matter how direct you think they are, involve inference. You think there’s a difference between observing, say, alpha particles and observing the sun. There is not. It’s just that some interpretations of sensory input seem more obvious to you than others.
I don’t think the conversation is missing that point at all. In fact I agree that we don’t have that kind of evidence, and I think that tells us something important. But just like the OP, your argument invites equivocation on what it means to be “verified” and “established.” And it doesn’t help with the cosmological argument (the only one the OP even makes). I agree with you that we don’t have compelling, or even reasonable, evidence of “the supernatural,” but my claim, like yours, is freighted with expectations of what such evidence would look like.
Or if it is constrained and guided by concentration gradients. Hey, this is fun! We can play around with the meaning of words! This makes us theologians, right @John_Harshman?
Are we now seriously questioning what ‘verified’ means? Surely we can agree that it means something along the lines of ‘established beyond any doubt’? Isn’t that what we mean by it in all other walks of life?
It isn’t just aheists who dispute verification of the supernatural. Theists tend to largely dispute the truth of supernatural events of religions other than their own. Many have some doubt at least about even the supernatural events of their own religion.
Can you give us a supernatural event that in your opinion has been verified?
I’m not sure I agree with you. With atoms I believe it can be at least somewhat accurately visualized from direct contact aided by computer programs. With quantum particles there is no such technology available. But again, I think this is a very minor issue which we can split hairs over. I don’t think it is central to the discussion.
I would say there’s more than just what seems to be more obviously observable, between observing the sun and observing a quantum particle. It’s a whole world of difference. Again, I would say we can split hairs about what is or isn’t considered observable. I’m simply referring to what we can reasonably refer to as observable.
The sun is an objective and verifiable observation that is experienced by all of seeing humanity. There’s no technology that I’m aware of in existence that can give us even an idea of what quantum particles look like. Therefor I would say that any attempt at explaining what they do look like is an abductive inference from start to finish.
Whose doubt? Who gets to judge? Why can’t a YEC say that there is no evidence for an old Earth that is established beyond all doubt? He can simply point to the existence of several people who doubt that evidence, including himself.
“Verified” is only meaningful within an “epistemic community” with agreed-upon standards of what counts as knowledge. For example, the evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson is “verified” within the community of professional particle physicists, who all agree that the existence of a new particle is regarded as proven without doubt if its experimental evidence has significance of at least 5 sigma.
The problem with the question of verification for evidence for the supernatural is that
Who is included in the epistemic community? All human beings? Agnostic human beings? Scientists? Which sub-field?
Does everyone in this epistemic community agree upon the definition of “supernatural”?
Does everyone in this epistemic community agree upon what would constitute experimental evidence for “supernatural”? What systematic checks would be needed to ensure the experiment is free from bias?
What is the threshold of statistical significance for the evidence for it to be considered “verified”?
As far as I know, there are no widely agreed-upon answers for questions 1-4, except in “small”, limited epistemic communities such as the Roman Catholic Church (which has some internal standards for miracle verification). So, to me the notion of “verified evidence” for the supernatural is meaningless and ill-defined when we’re talking about a group of people of wildly differing epistemic and metaphysical commitments (atheist, agnostic, Christian, etc.).
I can’t believe how difficult people are making this. ‘Verified’ has a perfectly ordinary meaning, in use every where and all the time. It means that something has been established as being true, or as having actually happened.
I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about a supernatural event being verified. Really there is nothing complicated about this, no more than verifying if the 10:15 from London has arrived at platform 4. There really is no need for sophistry.
Can you present us with a verified supernatural event?
Again, what does “established” mean with regards to supernatural events?
Most people understand what “10:15”, “London”, “platform 4” means. (Actually, some people who are not native speakers might not, because they have to infer that you’re talking about a train.) Also everyone agrees on what are the methods by which those facts can be verified. (E.g. looking up the official website for the British train system.)
We have no such thing for supernatural events.
Can you actually answer the questions I posed?
Is that a trap? I’ve just said that such a question is meaningless, so I have no answer.
