EPTThe LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 473
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
| ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:38 Ketara wrote: But if it doesn't exist then the word for it cannot be correctly used because everything that it is describing is either inaccurate or bullshit. yes id venture that most scientists believe that everything supernatural is bullshit. there exists no evidence for anything supernatural ever existing. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
Numy's position is that any time anybody describes something as supernatural ever, they are wrong and should have used a different word. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:41 Ketara wrote: Right that's what I'm saying. Numy's position is that any time anybody describes something as supernatural ever, they are wrong and should have used a different word. I describe supermans ability to fly as supernatural. thats not wrong. becuase its fantasy | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:40 Ketara wrote: I don't even understand what Yango is saying anymore wtf. I asked you the question: "Do you believe that there exist phenomena within the universe that are fundamentally unexplainable by science and rational thinking because they exist outside the governance of the natural laws of the universe?" To which your answer was basically "someone could say no but still believe in 'supernatural' things because the natural laws of the universe could be arbitrary". Except that deliberately and willfully ignores the "science and rational thinking" part of my question. The part that I admittedly left out was the implicit assumption that "natural laws of the universe" refers specifically to laws of the universe that can be explained through empirical observation and logical reasoning (because those are the only things that science and rational thinking can reasonably extend to). My subsequent post was meant to clarify that. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
The second project I got at this new job I just pushed out, and it's a portal to replace our current credit card payment system. Every singe credit card payment that will be handled by our company is going through this. I was the only person working on it and I had a month. Already bugs and people getting billed multiple times. Of fucking course. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:41 Ketara wrote: Right that's what I'm saying. Numy's position is that any time anybody describes something as supernatural ever, they are wrong and should have used a different word. No. lol What I'm saying is when someone calls something supernatural the chances of that being actually supernatural is realistically close to zero percent. So say something thinks there's a Ghost haunting them. The chances of it really being a ghost is almost nothing however the concept of a Ghost is inherently supernatural as it is outside of the laws of nature. So if a Ghost could ever exist it would be supernatural. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:42 ComaDose wrote: I describe supermans ability to fly as supernatural. thats not wrong. becuase its fantasy But within the context of the DC Universe is it unexplainable?!?! | ||
|
Cixah
United States11285 Posts
The personal net at the office is on fiber and the new firewall doesn't have all the things blocked yet. Small victories. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:45 Ketara wrote: But within the context of the DC Universe is it unexplainable?!?! It is explainable through a means that does not involve a combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning (and conversely is NOT explainable through a means involving those 2). It is therefore supernatural. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:43 Requizen wrote: Today is the most stressful day holy shit. The second project I got at this new job I just pushed out, and it's a portal to replace our current credit card payment system. Every singe credit card payment that will be handled by our company is going through this. I was the only person working on it and I had a month. Already bugs and people getting billed multiple times. Of fucking course. Sounds like your supernatural glue fell apart. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:45 Cixah wrote: Hahaha I'm free! The personal net at the office is on fiber and the new firewall doesn't have all the things blocked yet. Small victories. Now you will conquer Earth. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ain't even mad | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:46 TheYango wrote: It is explainable through a means that does not involve a combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning. Well a fictional universe can have it's own fictional laws of nature to explain it's fictional powers. That all falls under world building which I'm sure you know. Some authors are better than others at it. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 02 2015 01:48 Numy wrote: Well a fictional universe can have it's own fictional laws of nature to explain it's fictional powers. That all falls under world building which I'm sure you know. Some authors are better than others at it. Right, but based on my understanding of the DC universe, Superman's powers were never given an explanation governed by observations and reasoning by characters within the universe, but rather are explained by author/narrator fiat. So it by definition follows the laws of the DC Universe, but not necessarily ones that an entity living with in the DC Universe could deduce through scientific methods/thinking (which are what we care about in the discussion of "supernatural"). Who knows, maybe there's an issue where Lex Luthor explains the "science" of Superman that I don't know about. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/ here's spinoza for example "The will of God is identical with the laws of nature. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Necessarily, God's will is inviolable. Therefore, Miracles cannot happen. " voltaire "A miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws. By the very exposition itself, a miracle is a contradiction in terms: a law cannot at the same time be immutable and violated." theen there's Hume who said it was impossible to rationally believe miracles which can be summed up as so "The argument against a miracle, from the nature of the case, is as strong as any argument from experience could possibly be. The argument for a miracle, from testimony, is at best a strong but somewhat weaker argument from experience. In any case where two arguments from experience point to contradictory conclusions, the stronger argument must prevail. A conclusion is credible only if the argument supporting it is not overcome by a stronger argument for a contradictory conclusion. Therefore, The argument for a miracle, from testimony, cannot even under the most favorable circumstances render belief in a miracle credible. " (of course like pretty much all philosophical claims there's people who object to those particular claims.) That article posts arguments in favor of it to. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
The trouble with this crude argument is once again in the definition of “miracle,” which here goes beyond a mere violation concept in adding immutability, which generates the contradiction. One retort that historically proved attractive is to accept the violation concept but deny that the laws of nature are immutable; instead the truly immutable laws are higher laws—laws that govern not only the behavior of physical entities but the interactions of physical and non-physical entities—and what appear to us to be violations of the laws of nature are really nothing less than instances of a higher law. (Trench 1847:14–17; cf. Venn 1888: 433 ff) Which is actually basically the same argument Ketara is making. My position though is that the understanding of the term "supernatural" has moved past the understanding of 17th-19th century philosophers/logicians, so while they're somewhat useful to the discussion, they aren't actually discussing the same thing. Most of their definitions aren't grounded in the presence/absence of scientific reasoning to explain phenomena because "scientific reasoning" itself was not a pervasive concept in the way people approached philosophical problems. But any modern debate about the term "supernatural" would likewise raise "science" in some respect. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On September 02 2015 02:01 TheYango wrote: From that same article, a counter-argument to Voltaire's statement is made: Which is actually basically the same argument Ketara is making. My position though is that the understanding of the term "supernatural" has moved past the understanding of 17th/18th century philosophers/logicians, so while somewhat useful to the discussion, aren't actually discussing the same thing. I'd agree with that to a certain extent. I was trying to find something more directly relevant and more recent but that was the closest I could fine. I posted it before I read the whole thing and thought it might have some more modern stuff but after reading it yeah most of the arguments are not from a scientific perspective. I have a book that might have something more recent, I'll go check it does have one argument from 1966 though "The basic propositions are: first, that the present relics of the past cannot be interpreted as historical evidence at all, unless we presume that the same fundamental regularities obtained then as still obtain today; second, that in trying as best he may to determine what actually happened the historian must employ as criteria all his present knowledge, or presumed knowledge, of what is probable or improbable, possible or impossible; and, third, that, since miracle has to be defined in terms of practical impossibility the application of these criteria inevitably precludes proof of a miracle. " | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23466 Posts
On September 02 2015 00:14 Scip wrote: Dude lol if this discussion doesn't die before evening in the Eu timezone prepare to get ripped a new one I'm going to let my peers handle this I too, err on the side of scepticism. | ||
| ||
