Your question about the source needs to be directed to @Mark10.45.
No, @Mark10.45 gave a dictionary definition. I assumed that the textbook definition was something else. Or are you claiming that dictionaries are textbooks? You need to work harder at saying what you mean. As Mark Twain said, "Use the right word, not its second cousin.”
Whatever you like… a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.
If something isn’t natural then why would we think Science can plumb its order?
Why would we think it couldn’t, whatever “plumb its order” means?
1 Like
Because that is the definition of supernatural?
Let me jog your memory:
Now some people think this definition implies that eventually science will understand all things. But haven’t you and I come to consensus quite a while ago? Science will NOT understand all things.
Circular reasoning, tautology, truth by definition, whatever you want to call it. By any name, it’s a silly argument. Sure, things science can’t study can’t be studied by science, by definition. But how do you know the things you suppose are supernatural fit that definition?
I don’t know; that’s something science doesn’t, at least at this point, know. But even if we agree that science will never understand all things, you still can’t identify what those things are, or whether they’re the things you want them to be. Can’t you see that your argument here is vacuous?
3 Likes
George, you seem like a nice man, but divinity is clearly different from supernatural…supernatural is a relatively plain term devoid from theological spiritual thinking. It has been skewed by those that want to assign meaning to unknown principles of nature. Use divine, that term cannot be misunderstood, and also doesn’t allow you to make assertions that spiritual belief is somehow important to the scientific method (which it is not).
I’m going to put you back on “mute”. You are far too callous to sustain a conversation long enough to make any progress. A year of “mute” and “ignore” should be enough.
http://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/%5BProfileName%5D/preferences/users
Hey, I liked the book definition you provided for super-natural just fine.
“Divine” brings all sorts of problems into the analysis… is Satan divine? And if I’m trying to make a point about the limits of Science, I try to avoid metaphysical terminology.
I think Super-Natural fills the bill. But I’ll play with the word “divine” from time to time and see if it gets me anywhere with the I.D. crowd.
You can’t make a point about the limits of science by just saying that whatever is beyond the limits of science is beyond the limits of science. That doesn’t help you show that anything in particular is beyond those limits. I’m not the only one trying to tell you that.
1 Like
And I would go further to say that you are not avoiding metaphysical terminology, but rather using it to prove how science is limited, which is also circular, illogical and counter-productive to any progress. So you have two people from completely opposite sides of the spectrum saying the same thing, time to develop a new argument to sway the “ID crowd” if that is your goal.
Ah, but George has muted one of those people, so now it’s only one person saying it. Maybe he’ll mute you too, and then there will be no inconvenient objections.
He is right in his assessment that you are callous…I struggled with that originally, until I recognized that your arguments are purely logical, which can be callous and direct, but also productive in terms of understanding science and truth. Now, I find that we see things very much the same on our opposite sides of faith. I welcome your assessments, I know they are thoughtful and precise, but I had to develop mental “calluses” first.
3 Likes
Nope. You are wrong there. But I’ll give you a chance:
Prove you are right by using the word “divine” in a sentence about the limits of science… and we can all read it and offer you our opinions.
I will add:
That doesn’t mean that the absence of scientific knowledge proves divine intervention, it merely proves absence of knowledge.
1 Like
I would contest that word. I try not to be actively cruel, though sometimes I fail. But I also try not to mince words.
2 Likes
There is a divine purpose for the limits of science, humans will never understand the full scope of nature as God created it.
(Isaiah 55:8-9, Ecclesiastes 3:14-15/12:12-14, Acts 17:29, Romans 1:25, James 1:16-18)
Frankly, what you describe looks like a Venn diagram with just one circle.
Virtually everyone agrees that humans will never understand the full scope of nature. But that isn’t what’s at stake.
The question is does God employ ONLY natural lawfulness in the universe?
Or does God employ a combination of natural lawfulness AND “divine non-lawful” processes, sometimes referred to as “miracles”, or as “de novo” creation.
This was the intended order of statements for @gbrooks9 challenge
1 Like
I agree with this, but I think it’s unfortunate that the conversation involves a dictionary being used to define ‘supernatural’ as ‘beyond scientific understanding.’ I want to explain why this dictionary citation just avoids the claim I made in my earlier post but first would suggest we look again at what ‘supernatural’ means and can mean in our language. From the OED, the first definition of the adjective:
Belonging to a realm or system that transcends nature, as that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings; attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature; occult, paranormal.
First note the text in bold (my emphasis). It is not universally true that the word intends a necessary “beyond scientific understanding” stipulation. That’s an important point insofar as we want to discuss this topic based on dictionary definitions.
Then note this addition just below the definition:
Originally in Christian contexts with reference to the divine.
Meaning that the roots of the word are not about science but about “the divine.”
1 Like