Vlad,
Again, check your definitions of supernatural Hillside.
No,
you check it. Look, I’ll even do it for you:
Supernatural: “The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) is defined as being incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature, characteristic or relating to ghosts, gods or other supernatural beings or to appear beyond nature.” (Wiki)
It does
not mean, “phenomena for which no scientific explanation is to hand”.
A universe can pop out of nothing but once or it can be eternal and set in motion by something or self perturbed. Also nothing else can pop out of nothing since the universe is here. Something not seen in nature. These events fit the description Hillside.
No they don’t because you’ve gone not one jot of one iota of one step towards explaining why the Big Bang (or anything else for that matter) is “incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature”.
The turd you are trying to polish is to claim that I am suggesting that all of the things as yet unknown to science are supernatural.
That’s exactly what you said, here in fact:
But if we can establish a unique event for which there is no law and no scientific explanation then it is by definition.a supernatural event.
(Reply 207).
It’s your “turd”, not mine. Your only options are to stick with your mistake or to resile from it. You cannot though just pretend that you didn’t say it.
You on the other hand have suggested that things not explained by science are merely waiting in sciences in tray and you gave the example of thunder..........a poor analogy for how the universe is.
Stop lying – it’s dull. What I said perfectly clearly is that science may or may not find the ultimate answers but, in the meantime, the lack of a scientific explanation says nothing whatever about a supposed supernaturalism.
Thunder by the way was a good example of the point I was actually making, namely that lots of phenomena haven’t been understood (and so were thought to be supernatural) and later were understood (and so ceased to be thought supernatural). Thunder is one of them, hence Thor.
I am happy that there are things that can be explained by science and things which never can be and the explanation of what the universe is either appeared out of nothing or eternally self perturbed belongs to the latter and is , in fact, supernatural because there can be no data to hand, ever.
And again you get this flat wrong. That “there can be no data to hand, ever” is just your assertion and, even it turned out to be correct, “no data to hand” just means no data to hand – it does
not mean “therefore operating outside natural laws”.
In terms of science and the big bang even if we know what happened to within a billionth of a second. We know apparently that the laws of nature break down. There is also the problem of having nothing to observe. Nothing ......or eternity. There cannot be a scientifically observed law of universes since there is only one observed and can be by definition only one.
None of which says anything whatsoever about the event therefore being “supernatural”. “Don’t know” and “supernatural” are
not synonyms.
Why is this so difficult for you?
That's an interesting point.
We know that there can never be one thunderclap because more than one has been observed, there can therefore be laws of thunderclap, we can examine a few and arrive at an explanation.
Way to miss the point Sparky. Yes of course there's been more than once clap of thunder, but it was a thought experiment – hence the “if”.
The point of course was that, if a phenomenon – any phenomenon – happens only once that does not make it “supernatural”. All it makes it is difficult or impossible to investigate with the tools of science.
I think we can therefore say yes.....That would come under the definition of supernatural.
Then you continue to think wrongly – that’s not what the word means at all.
What you are actually proposing is an alternative universe (Carroll-ing) and there can only be, for science, one universe. Even in it's own, supernatural universe your single thunderclap would be by definition, supernatural since there could never be a law, nor could it be investigated, the equipment would be unavailable and not set since the event could not be predicted and the laws of that universe would need to be temporarily changed or suspended for it to happen since it would be ''one thunderclap''.
That’s a lot to get wrong in one paragraph. I’m proposing no such thing, and again “supernatural” does not mean “not accessible to the tools of science”. To be supernatural, something would necessarily have to operate
outwith the naturalistic paradigm in which science operates.
You are making a leprechaun type argument
No, the leprechaun argument concerns the effect on an argument when it leads to “God” and to leprechauns equally – something else you’ve never managed to grasp.
Leprechauns are ridiculous, they are also unfalsifiable, God is also unfalsifiable therefore God is ridiculous.
QED.
That’s not the argument at all. Some arguments (like the negative proof fallacy) work equally “well” for “God” and for leprechauns. Therefore those arguments are probably bad ones.
Do you get it now?
Finally?
Here you are taking a single example of natural repeatable thing measurable by science and subject to observed law, putting it in a situation where it would be unrepeated, singular, impervious to science and not have a law attached to it while wishing to retain it's ''naturalness.''
Of course it would have “laws attaching to it”. That there aren’t people or methods to hand to identify them is a different matter entirely.
You really, really need to start fresh here with a better understanding of the term "supernatural" to understand where you keep careering off the rails.
