Absence of a naturalistic explanation does not imply a supernatural one

[bluehillside Retd.]

Well, obviously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, obviously.

Does it implytherefore, a naturalistic explanation?

Your Flannel time starts......Now.

[Shaker]

Which part of "If we don't know, we don't know and shouldn't pretend we do by plugging the gap with any old guff" don't you get, Vlad?

Also, in the phrase 'naturalistic explanation' the first word is, strictly speaking, redundant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which part of "If we don't know, we don't know and shouldn't pretend we do by plugging the gap with any old guff" don't you get, Vlad?

How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.

If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.

[Nearly Sane]

How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.

If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.

Stop lying

[Shaker]

How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.

Absence of evidence.

Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.

Yes - my preference that beliefs are grounded in fact and not fantasy.

If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.

I wouldn't have thought I'd have had to - I'd have hoped that having had it explained to you by so many different people so many times for so long you'd get it by now.

But seeing as it's you ... guess not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Does it implytherefore, a naturalistic explanation?

Your Flannel time starts......Now.

No. All it implies is that you have no naturalistic explanation. It implies nothing whatever about whether an explanation is therefore supernatural, about whether it's therefore natural and one day we'll know what it is, or about whether it's natural and we'll never know what it is.

It's simple enough reasoning I'd have thought.   

[Shaker]

Vlad,

No. All it implies is that you have no naturalistic explanation. It implies nothing whatever about whether an explanation is therefore supernatural, about whether it's therefore natural and one day we'll know what it is, or about whether it's natural and we'll never know what it is.

It's simple enough reasoning I'd have thought.

Well ... one would have thought so, but ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.

No, his "opinion" is based on sound reasoning. The argument, "if there is no natural explanation the cause must therefore be supernatural" is entirely false, and therefore is itself "any old guff". What you happen to populate its outcome with is neither here nor there - a bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop lying

I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.

If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 "if there is no natural explanation the cause must therefore be supernatural" is entirely false

Are you sure you should be saying that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you sure you should be saying that?

Yes. Why is this difficult for you?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.

If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.

Stop lying

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.

If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.

Why are you lying again? Having no naturalistic explanation to hand tells you one thing, and one thing only - that you have no explanation to hand. That's basic reasoning - nothing to do with "it seems guff to me". "No naturalistic explanation implies a supernatural explanation" guff to anyone possessed of a functioning intellect.

[Shaker]

Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.

We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.

Naturalism has a methodology; supernaturalism doesn't. (Goodness knows we've asked enough times!). So, this being the case - with no methodology for assessing claims - it's actually the supernaturalist who is forced into choosing whichever unevidenced, untested and even in principle untestable pseudo-explanation he happens to prefer.

[floo]

Well, obviously.

I second that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.

We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.

Naturalism has a methodology; supernaturalism doesn't. (Goodness knows we've asked enough times!). So, this being the case - with no methodology for assessing claims - it's actually the supernaturalist who is forced into choosing whichever unevidenced, untested and even in principle untestable pseudo-explanation he happens to prefer.

Quite so. It's even worse than that though in a way. Vlad seems to think he does have a method - ie, that the absence of a naturalistic explanation therefore implies a supernatural one – only that method turns out to be just a very bad piece of reasoning. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes. Why is this difficult for you?

If it's not natural and it's not supernatural then what is it?

If you are saying ''I don't know but it isn't supernatural'' then you are back to the turd that has to be frantically and continually polished....surely.

We could list your possible position......none of them put your ''reasonableness'' in a decent light.

Appeals to pre naturalistic positions on thunder and Thor don't help you much.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.

We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.

Yes Love of tools would explain the mutual admiration you hold for each other.

Knowing when your tool isn't doing the job and is in fact f***ing things up is absolutely crucial.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

Quite so. It's even worse than that though in a way. Vlad seems to think he does have a method - ie, that the absence of a naturalistic explanation therefore implies a supernatural one – only that method turns out to be just a very bad piece of reasoning.

Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.

You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.

[floo]

Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.

You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.

And what exactly do you mean by, 'non natural'?

[Walter]

Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.

You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.

oh Jesus crist !

[Shaker]

Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.

You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.

No he isn't; and the regularity with which you repeat this bespeaks either terminal obtuseness or dishonesty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If it's not natural and it's not supernatural then what is it?

And there he goes with the fallacy of the false binary. What makes you think that not having a naturalistic explanation available implies that the explanation must therefore be non-natural?

For that to work you’d have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every possible naturalistic explanation there is or ever could be. 

If you are saying ''I don't know but it isn't supernatural'' then you are back to the turd that has to be frantically and continually polished....surely.

And then he goes for the old one-two with a straw man fallacy to follow. No-one says''I don't know but it isn't supernatural''. What the rationalist actually says is that the absence of a natural explanation tells you nothing whatever about whether a non-natural explanation must therefore be the correct one.

We could list your possible position......none of them put your ''reasonableness'' in a decent light.

Appeals to pre naturalistic positions on thunder and Thor don't help you much.

Of course they do. Your big mistake here is to assume that our current level of knowledge of possible naturalistic causes tells us anything about what naturalistic causes there might be, whether or not we ever discover them. Yours is the identical reasoning of the Thor-ist – he didn’t have a natural explanation for thunder, so he invoked a non-natural one to plug the gap.

It’s just very bad thinking.

Again.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.

No they weren't, but it doesn't matter much either way. Use "supernatural" or "non natural" as you please.

You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.

Spectacularly wrong - that's only a "problem" because it's a straw man of your invention. What's actually said is, "There is no natural explanation and therefore we don't know".

One possible answer is that there is a natural answer and we'll find it in due course.

Another possible answer is that there is a natural answer, but we'll never have the wit or the tools to know what it is.

Another possible answer is that the explanation is non-natural (albeit that any such claim would be so beset with definitional problems that it's hard t see how it could ever be demonstrated).

You're really struggling with this aren't you.