I mean what I said, which seems clear enough to me, not what you said.
Why is that clear? What part of my explanation didn’t you understand? “Supernatural” is an undefined term. There are no characteristics by which it can be recognized. Best to ignore this supposed distinction and just investigate phenomena.
Here are problems without answers:
For a right triangle with legs x, where x is a rational number, express the hypotenuse as a rational number.
Construct a workable perpetual motion machine.
Devise a system of real-time communication (i.e., no perceived delay, like a conversation between two people in a parked automobile) between Earth and Mars, using the electromagnetic spectrum.
Revivify a can of smoked sardines.
That’s a great point. I would not call such a claim “vacuous” and would say the opposite. Someone’s self report about their inner life is not something I would ever call vacuous.
If you can’t handle the perception that the word supernatural is undefined, how the heck are you going to handle a process where the results are undefined… but someone wants to call it science.
You and I both agree that science cannot comprehend the supernatural. Are you never satisfied?
Go pick on someone else now, okay?
Okay @sfmatheson,
Let me try again:
I do not think “detecting the loss of 21 grams” is adequate to the question “Can science detect the supernatural.” This refers to the fact the soul is supposed to weigh 21 grams, correct? And when someone dies, their body is suddenly lighter by 21 grams? But is this weight loss what is actually being challenged? I don’t think so.
Let’s use the example of parting the Red Sea:
Heck, anyone could SEE that the Red Sea has just parted, right?! The question is: was the Red Sea parted by NATURAL processes, or SUPER-NATURAL processes.
Just to burnish my credentials as a pedant, every one of those problems (questions?) has an answer. A solution, no. But an answer. Unless you want to argue that “this is impossible in principle” is not an “answer.”
Who said I couldn’t handle it?
What process are you talking about?
I don’t think we mean the same thing at all here. The word “supernatural” is a meaningless label. Fortunately, it’s not necessary to attach that label in order to study a phenomenon, even one you would think may be supernatural. Science can study phenomena just fine.
Definition of supernatural - Adj. - (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Noun - manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
I am satisfied. It just means that we can’t explain something, not that it is impossible to explain, just that it is beyond current understanding. God knows…as a supernatural being, do you think He deals in supernatural occurrences, or just occurrences? Would Jesus consider walking on the moon a miracle? My guess is he would smile and say something deep about it in regard to how to obtain salvation.
By definition - supernatural IS what science cannot explain. Comprehension is a different argument, I think the scientists here are all capable of comprehending, but smart enough to know that a supernatural (unexplained event) is scientifically irrelevant.
To repeat Ron’s point, a problem that has a ((solution)not what he said) is no longer a problem. 1+1=? is a problem, 1+1=2 is no longer a problem once solved. I agree with @sfmatheson that all problems have answers. “Not possible” is an answer.
Here’s a strange one to consider that runs into questions of reductionism, essentialism, and cannibalism. Know that you’ve consumed food that are made of the material constituents that likely once were part of another human’s body. At what point does an amino acid stop being part of a human’s body, and become part of something else instead, and when am I then allowed to eat it without engaging in cannibalism, and why is that the point at which it is no longer human?
Yeah I don’t know why this suddenly came to mind. I’ll get my coat…
If you can’t comprehend a definition of “supernatural” that you can at least use in a discussion with people who believe that category exists, then you are basically wasting the time of all the people participating here who CAN comprehend such a definition (even if they don’t agree that there is ever a valid application).
I don’t have to agree with Original Sin to know what people mean when they bring it up.
I don’t have to agree that holy waters are medically efficacious above and beyond their value as placebos - - I can still discuss what devoted religious folk mean when they talk about miraculous healing waters.
Too bad your massive I.Q. doesn’t afford you the same amount of capacity to deal with non-concrete terminology.
Not only do the first three have answers, but the answers represent tremendous advances in human understanding. It is one thing to express that no solution is known, a much deeper insight is required to state that no solution is ever possible, and this is the bar ID expressly sets for itself.
I might take your point as being that there are classes of problems where it can be demonstrated there is no solution (as opposed to no answer), where certain origins may so belong. But so far, ID has failed to produce compelling arguments that abiogenesis is as mathematically impossible as squaring the circle, that increasing complexity is as physically impossible as perpetual motion, or that the genome is as systematically impossible as superluminal communication. At best, it has cataloged problems which are hard, but we have solved hard problems before.
I would just eat the sardines.
What is that definition? Is it a useful definition for any practical purposes?
You should probably refrain from the insults. My massive IQ doesn’t tell me what you mean by “non-concrete” here either. If it’s a synonym for “meaningless”, I get it; otherwise, not.
I think the definition you have employed is marvelous. It states my position exactly!
It’s about things that are BEYOND scientific understanding. And that’s why I.D. supporters will always fail to make their point.
Uh, the definition came from the dictionary, I guess I’m brilliant that way…or that’s just the definition. Must be a supernatural question.
Certainly it fits your needs, as anything supernatural by that definition is, by definition, beyond scientific understanding. But doesn’t winning by definition feel just a bit like cheating? How can you tell if something is beyond scientific understanding? How can you distinguish it from “we don’t know yet”? You certainly can’t use this definition to claim that acts of God are supernatural unless you first determine, somehow, that they’re beyond scientific understanding. And to do so you would have to be able to point to an act of God. This gets you nowhere.
Uh, good. Did anyone suggest that it was?
I think you might not understand the distinctions I’m making.
Point taken. Solutions.
And yet so many people seem to be having problems with a text book definition for “supernatural”.
Just to be clear…what you are stating in your writing above as supernatural is not the “textbook” definition. You are imposing some sort of magical wonderment into the term. I agree with @John_Harshman that supernatural is a negative term (meaningless on its own), defined by what we don’t understand (about something natural), not by what we hope something might be on its own. Even if you say something is by definition “supernatural”, you are saying that it is not understood, or cannot be explained…not that the only explanation is that it must be from God.
Perhaps we need another term for “It must be from God”…oh, that’s “divine”.
What is this text book definition, and what text book is it from?