Scientific evidence for the supernatural

[Patrick]

@DaleCutler

Since big bang cosmology tells us that there was a point at which all of these did not exist,

Where does big bang cosmology tells us that there was a point at which all of these did not exist?

[DaleCutler]

@Timothy_Horton

That’s nice but personal anecdotes don’t qualify as scientific evidence. Neither do unsubstantiated passages from religious texts as testimony.

You appear to have failed to notice that I did not claim it to be ‘scientific evidence’.

[Timothy_Horton]

@DaleCutler

You appear to have failed to notice that I did not claim it to be ‘scientific evidence’.

You appear to have failed to notice the title and topic of this thread.

[Jim]

@gbrooks9

But when you say we should allow for abductive evidence from outside of science… you must mean for us to use this evidence to prove a point within science, right?

I’m not sure what you mean by abductive evidence? The main thing I’m trying to do is point out that it’s confusing to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence for the supernatural. The way I see it, the only way that can be said is to clarify that statement with a distinction between direct and indirect empirical evidence.

So to say there is no direct empirical evidence for the supernatural would be correct. But without that distinction I would argue that it’s confusing and incorrect to say there isn’t any evidence for the supernatural.

The confusion comes from accepting as “evidence” empirical evidence that indirectly abductively infers a claim in science, and then implying that that same type of evidence doesn’t qualify as “evidence” when used in the same manner for a claim that is metaphysical in nature. Does that make sense?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Jim

So to say there is no direct empirical evidence for the supernatural would be correct. But without that distinction I would argue that it’s confusing and incorrect to say there isn’t any evidence for the supernatural

You still haven’t explained how even your your indirect evidence shows evidence of the supernatural.

[DaleCutler]

@Patrick

Where does big bang cosmology tells us that there was a point at which all of these did not exist?

It sure points to it, deny it all you will: see big bang cosmology.

[DaleCutler]

@Timothy_Horton

You appear to have failed to notice the title and topic of this thread.

Aw, my bad.

[Timothy_Horton]

@DaleCutler

Aw, my bad.

OK, no worries.

[Jim]

@Timothy_Horton

You still haven’t explained how even your your indirect evidence shows evidence of the supernatural.

So are you taking issue with my answer to this that I posted in the other thread where you quoted my original comment? Or have you not read what I wrote there yet?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Jim

I’m not sure what you mean by abductive evidence? The main thing I’m trying to do is point out that it’s confusing to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

@Jim,

That sentence sounds like one of those Atheist sound-bites. Atheists don’t use the word “evidence” like normal people.

Sure there is evidence… but when we start characterizing the kinds of evidence… things get complex.

For example, as a Unitarian Universalist, I am a big fan of kharma… and of survival of the soul after death. But NDE’s don’t confirm Biblical religion to the degree that they might for others. To me, they confirm SOMETHINGs … but not like they seem to for other folks…

[Timothy_Horton]

@Jim

So are you taking issue with my answer to this that I posted in the other thread where you quoted my original comment? Or have you not read what I wrote there yet?

You didn’t post an answer in the other thread or here. You seem to be dodging as hard as you can.

How are those things you listed scientific evidence for the supernatural as opposed to merely natural things we don’t fully understand yet?

If you have no answer just say so, don’t dodge.

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

How would those observations lead to the conclusion that they were created by a supernatural deity? It seems to me that one starts with the belief in a creator deity, and then assigns those observations to the creator afterwards.

I could be wrong, but the way I see it in an abductive argument whatever is the best explanation of the observations is what is being looked for. I would say that looking at all the observed data that a supernatural cause would definitely be in the running. Have I missed something?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Jim

I would say that looking at all the observed data that a supernatural cause would definitely be in the running. Have I missed something?

Yes. Your evidence the observed data actually points to something supernatural as opposed to an unknown or not fully known natural cause.

[DaleCutler]

@Timothy_Horton

…personal anecdotes don’t qualify as scientific evidence.

The events themselves do, the reporter’s testimony is not anecdotal, and the events are consistent with the M.O. of the Perpetrator, if you are a forensic scientist.

[Timothy_Horton]

@DaleCutler

The events themselves do, reporter’s testimony is not anecdotal, and the events are consistent with the M.O. of the Perpetrator, if you are a forensic scientist.

You have no reporter’s testimony. Climbing the Empire State Building is the M.O. of King Kong but the Empire State Buildiing isn’t evidence King Kong actually existed.

[DaleCutler]

It is the interpretation that you would object to.

[Jim]

@Timothy_Horton

You ignored the question about how those things were scientific evidence for the supernatural as opposed to merely natural things we don’t fully understand yet.

Ok. I’m trying to keep up with all the posts. Please be patient. Now as I suggested to @T_aquaticus in an abductive argument a supernatural cause would be in the running as the best explanation for the evidence, especially since natural causes have a hard time explaining all of these things. Does that make sense?

[Timothy_Horton]

@DaleCutler

It is the interpretation that you would object to.

Not for anyone’s personal beliefs. Only to offering that unsupported interpretation as indicative of reality everyone should accept.

[DaleCutler]

The events happened were documented, and because you don’t believe in the Perpetrator does not change the facts of the events.

[Timothy_Horton]

@DaleCutler

The events happened, were documented,

Objection your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence.