@Neithan asked: Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

[Economist]

Continued…

Let’s be a bit more precise: “not physically observable” and “cannot be verified empirically”. Yep; that makes sense. And no, it’s not the same thing as saying “it doesn’t exist.”

I did not say that it does not exist. I said that I don’t believe it. And I don’t believe because there is no evidence for it. And I will repeat, it is NOT my job to create the experiment which will substantiate the existence of the “non-physical and yet, physically active” entities. The onus is on the non-physicalists, who assert that there are “non-physical and yet physically active” entities. Hypotheses are dime a dozen. Anyone can set up new concepts, new hypotheses. (It is a good mental exercise.) But if there is no epistemological method to verify or falsify the hypothesis, it is not worthy to contemplate it.

 

[Neithan]

There is a base for all the explanations, which does not need another “level” of explanations - since it is the final layer.

How do we know what is the final layer, though? I contend that the final layer is self-explanatory, it must be so, or else there would be an infinite regress of explanations, not sequentially but absolutely, which is impossible because then you could never explain anything at all, or there could never be anything at all to be explained. It’s just nonsense. There must be a starting point as you say, but the universe, as a collection of STEM, does not qualify because it is not self-explanatory.

You cannot posit anything about the supernatural, not even what it is, and how does it work? How can you posit a hypothesis about it, and how can you verify if your hypothesis is correct or not? That is why the supernatural hypothesis is useless

I don’t know what it is, and I don’t know how it works. Why does that matter (no pun intended)? Even though I don’t know what it is or how it works, I can verify that there is something there by verifying the premises empirically and the conclusion analytically with the deductive method.

But, what is the reason FOR the supernatural? And how would that supernatural explain the natural?

Let’s say that I don’t know the reason for the supernatural. But there must be a reason there. I’m not “brutalizing” it because I’m not saying “it just is” — but I’m saying that STEM, at least, cannot be the final layer of reality. There must be something to explain it. The supernatural explains the natural by providing a cause and starting point that is not STEM. Even though I don’t know what it is, I can know deductively that something must be there.

Don’t forget, the basic principle is that every hypothesis needs to have a predictive value. Without being able to make predictions we have nothing. What kind of predictions can you make using the supernatural hypothesis? I contend: NONE .

Is it possible to make an empirically verifiable hypothesis about something that is not STEM? If not, then isn’t that begging the question?

 

[Gorgias]

It comes from concept of “possible” worlds

Actually, the definition of contingency precedes the discussion of “possible worlds” and, in fact, that very discussion requires the notion of contingency in order to proceed. So, it almost seems like you’re putting the cart before the horse, here…

In this terminology the word “contingent” does not mean that it has some external reason for its existence.

That’s fine – in other words, in a discussion of “possible worlds”, the notion of contingency speaks merely to the question of whether an entity always (i.e., necessarily) exists, or sometimes (and therefore, ‘contingently’) exists. Nevertheless, the definition that had been given to you is the classical definition, and I don’t think it warrants throwing it away merely because you’ve encountered the terms in one particular philosophical context.

The words, “necessary” and “contingent” are not good choices, but we are “stuck” with them.

Why not? What would be more appropriate terms here?

Of course to substantiate the idea that there are some “necessarily existing” entities is a heavy burden, since it would be necessary to examine each and every possible world, and verify that those entities exist in all of them.

If – and only if – you’re asserting that the “possible worlds” approach is the only valid approach to discussing the current topic. If it’s not, then the “possible worlds” approach cannot be considered to be a necessary and not merely contingent approach. (See what I did there? )

I use the word “supernatural” as a convenient synonym (or shortcut) for “non-physical, but physically active” entities

Does “supernatural” necessitate the claim “active in the physical world”? Is it unreasonable to suggest that there are supernatural entities that do not present in the physical universe?

If some entity cannot interact with the observable universe (not just here and now, but in theory!) then its existence is irrelevant.

From a materialist’s perspective, yes… I agree. However, outside that point of view, that’s an unreasonable conclusion. It seems that your assertions are contingent on an acceptance of your worldview. That’s hardly reasonable, isn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

But the word “universe” literally means everything that exists

Actually, the standard definition is the “cosmos”, or even “the body of things and phenomena observed”. By that definition, “everything that exists” overreaches.

I am willing to ponder that the universe is composed of two realms, the physical realm and the non-physical one.

Are you willing to ponder that the universe is the physical realm and there’s a separate non-physical (i.e., spiritual) realm? That’s really the approach that theists accept, so if you want to enter into dialogue, it seems you either have to successfully beat us over the head that your definition is the only reasonable one, or you have to walk away from the conversation, since we’d be talking ‘apples’ and you’d be talking ‘oranges’.

Since they are the ones who propose this hypothesis, they are responsible to provide evidence for it.

And, there we have it! It always comes down to this question: ok, then, what would ‘evidence’ consist of? And, if you’re talking physical evidence (which is distinct from what the supernatural / spiritual is defined to be), why is it reasonable to demand that the non-physical be proven in terms of the physical?

You cannot blame me for using the word according to its actual meaning.

I’m not. I’m pointing out that you’re demanding that we use it according to your personal meaning, and not permitting a discussion of other reasonable ways to define it.

And for refusing to participate in creating some experiments to verify your hypothesis.

Actually, it’s my contention that it’s logically impossible to create a hypothesis that will lead to either confirmation or the ‘null hypothesis’. That’s not a “refusal to participate”; that’s a rejection of the grounds that you wish to assert.

Is it possible to make an empirically verifiable hypothesis about something that is not STEM? If not, then isn’t that begging the question?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[Economist]

How do we know what is the final layer, though?

We are talking about our respective worldviews. In mine the final later is the STEM, in yours it is some unspecified non-physical (but physically active) “something”. For the sake of simplicity I will call yours “NPYPAS” (Non-Physical Yet Physically Active System). It would be too long to type it out every time. And what do you mean by self-explanatory? How is that NPYPAS self-explanatory, especially since you cannot tell me what it is and how does it work?

I don’t know what it is, and I don’t know how it works. Why does that matter (no pun intended)?

If you don’t know anything about it, how can it be used as an explanation? It looks like as “an unknowable entity using unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. Is that something you would provide as an “explanation”?

Let’s say that I don’t know the reason for the supernatural.

Well, you said that the problem with STEM is that it cannot provide a “reason” for its OWN existence. If that is a problem for STEM, why is it NOT a problem for “NPYPAS”?

I’m not “brutalizing” it because I’m not saying “it just is” — but I’m saying that STEM, at least, cannot be the final layer of reality.

You keep on declaring that STEM cannot be the final layer, but so far did not bring up any evidence for your claim.

There is nothing “brutalizing” about “brute facts”. It is not a derogatory expression.There are infinitely many instances where we cannot provide a “final” explanation for something.

Just one example: “the virtual size of the Moon and the Sun happen to be almost exactly the same - today. This is the reason for the Solar eclipse. If the size of the Moon would be a little smaller, or if the Moon would be a little closer to the Earth, there would be no solar eclipse”. (In a few thousand years there will be no solar eclipse.)

So, one can ask: “what is the cause for the solar eclipse”? And the answer: “the actual size of the Moon and Sun and their respective distances from the Earth are the explanation.” Now, a very precocious 3 years old will ask (their tendency to ask “why” is inexhaustible. ): “But why are the size of Moon and the Sun are what they are? And why are the distances what they are?” The simple answer: “they are what they are, they are brute facts.” Right now they happen to be the proper sizes for the solar eclipse, in a few thousand years, they will not be. Yes, one could get into the intricacies of celestial mechanics, but even then the question “why are we in the proper space-time continuum today so that we can enjoy an eclipse, and our great-great-great-grandsons will not see it?”.

 

[Economist]

Continued…

It just so happens that the innermost electron-shell can up to have 2 electrons and the next shell can have up to 6? Why not 3 and 7? Ridiculous question. It is what it is. It just so happens that a Mobius strip has only one side. You cannot ask a “why”? Only 3 years old kids will keep on asking “why” almost infinitely. But real explanations must stop somewhere, and that stopping point is always “simple” or “brute” fact.

Is it possible to make an empirically verifiable hypothesis about something that is not STEM? If not, then isn’t that begging the question?

Of course it can, as long as that non-STEM interacts with the STEM. If there is no interaction, then “who cares”? What would be the point of contemplating a question for which there is no answer? Somewhere in the Magellanic cloud there might be a stellar system. with some planets, which carry some life-forms. Whatever those hypothetical ET’s do has no interaction with our Earth, being 163,000 light years away. So we could not care about those activities, because they have no bearing on our existence.

On the other hand the assumed NPYPAS has some hypothetical a two-way interaction with our reality, so we are entitled to present questions about this interaction.

 

[Economist]

Does “supernatural” necessitate the claim “active in the physical world”? Is it unreasonable to suggest that there are supernatural entities that do not present in the physical universe?

Sure it is possible, but in that case their existence is irrelevant.

From a materialist’s perspective, yes… I agree. However, outside that point of view, that’s an unreasonable conclusion. It seems that your assertions are contingent on an acceptance of your worldview.

You are mistaken. If the two realms have no interaction, then the non-physical realm is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with having a materialist worldview.

Are you willing to ponder that the universe is the physical realm and there’s a separate non-physical (i.e., spiritual) realm?

That is exactly what I proposed, using slightly different terminology . I said that I am willing to contemplate that the universe has two realms, one physical and one non-physical. And I added that I am willing to contemplate that the non-physical is “primary”. What else do you need?

And, if you’re talking physical evidence (which is distinct from what the supernatural / spiritual is defined to be), why is it reasonable to demand that the non-physical be proven in terms of the physical?

If there is any interaction between the two realms, then there is an interface. And since the interface belongs to both realms, it is most reasonable to expect the physical part to provide physical evidence. Let’s also remember, that we are physical beings and that all our information receiving “channels” are physical. I am talking about our senses. We do not have a separate I/O system to access DIRECTLY the world.

Actually, it’s my contention that it’s logically impossible to create a hypothesis that will lead to either confirmation or the ‘null hypothesis’.

I did not present any “null-hypothesis”. The proponents of the NPYPAS assert the physically active but not physical realm, so it is their job to provide the evidence for their claims.

 

[Neithan]

In mine the final later is the STEM, in yours it is some unspecified non-physical (but physically active) “something”. For the sake of simplicity I will call yours “NPYPAS” (Non-Physical Yet Physically Active System).

That’s going farther than is needed to answer the thread title. I’m simply saying it is something metaphysically supernatural, as in, not STEM. Self-explanatory is something that is not metaphysically contingent. It might be the supernatural, it might be another layer beyond that — the Übersupernatural, or it might be the Großübersupernatural; who knows, but at some point there must be a self-explanatory something or else we are aribtrarily cutting short the rationale for reality. It’s not rational to say there are brute facts with no explanation. Perhaps this is an axiomatic assumption we either accept or do not accept; but I would argue that it is not rational to reject it and doing so demands radical skepticism.

You keep on declaring that STEM cannot be the final layer, but so far did not bring up any evidence for your claim.

The cosmological argument (which, I repeat, does not commit the part-to-whole fallacy because the universe as a collection is metaphysically contingent) provides empirically verifiable premises and a deductive method. Isn’t that evidence? It deduces that STEM is not the final layer.

Brute facts are anti-scientific. There is always room for a causal hypothesis or the inductive method doesn’t work. Even now, physicists are not satisfied with the four fundamental forces as we understand them and are looking for a theory of everything. If they accepted brute facts they would shrug and say, “That’s just how it is.”

I’m also not claiming that the supernatural has a two-way interaction with nature as you conceive of NPYPAS; I’m simply positing that there is a cause or reason for nature that cannot be STEM — that matters, doesn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

Sure it is possible, but in that case their existence is irrelevant.

Maybe “unimportant to you personally”, but I don’t think “irrelevant” follows.

If the two realms have no interaction, then the non-physical realm is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with having a materialist worldview.

Hang on a second – where are you getting that I said that the two realms have no interaction?

I said that I am willing to contemplate that the universe has two realms, one physical and one non-physical. And I added that I am willing to contemplate that the non-physical is “primary”. What else do you need?

That the spiritual realm is part of the universe. That assertion is what leads to erroneous conclusions in this context.

If there is any interaction between the two realms, then there is an interface. And since the interface belongs to both realms, it is most reasonable to expect the physical part to provide physical evidence.

I am absolutely cool with that assertion!

However, it does not follow, from “there’s an interface”, that you can say “we should be able to predict the operation of the interface.” And, if you can’t predict it, you can’t assert that a lack of experimental results proves the null hypothesis. So, your attempt at experimentation will fail, by definition, by its very limitations.

I did not present any “null-hypothesis”.

Sure you did: the null hypothesis means “my experiment did not produce results, and therefore, I conclude that the hypothesized event does not exist.”

 

[Economist]

The cosmological argument (which, I repeat, does not commit the part-to-whole fallacy because the universe as a collection is metaphysically contingent) provides empirically verifiable premises and a deductive method. Isn’t that evidence? It deduces that STEM is not the final layer.

First, you have this empty assertion that the universe as a collection is metaphysically contingent, - which is still empty, no matter how many times are you going to repeat it. And second, the deductive method is only applicable in axiomatic systems and NOT in open, inductive systems.

There is always room for a causal hypothesis or the inductive method doesn’t work.

That would lead to an infinite descent, if there would be no starting point.

 

[Economist]

Maybe “unimportant to you personally”, but I don’t think “irrelevant” follows.

Not JUST to me, personally. If something does not have an interaction with the physical universe, it is irrelevant for the whole physical universe.

Let me show a thought experiment. There is the physical universe. I am part of this universe. Every night I go to sleep, and most nights (probably every night) I have some dreams. Whatever happens in my dreams has no bearing on the universe. Most nights I don’t even remember those dreams. Whatever I dream about “stays” within that dream. It has no effect on the universe.

Moreover, my dream does not and cannot have any effect on someone else’s dreams.

However, it does not follow, from “there’s an interface”, that you can say “we should be able to predict the operation of the interface.”

And that is your problem, in a nutshell. If something is part of the physical realm, then there is SOME empirical method to deal with it. The “how” to deal with it, is your problem. And one more time, I do not present any “null-hypothesis”.

Sure you did: the null hypothesis means “my experiment did not produce results, and therefore, I conclude that the hypothesized event does not exist.”

Again, I did not present any experiment and as such, no null-hypothesis. Just quote whatever you thought I presented a “null-hypothesis”.

 

[Neithan]

First, you have this empty assertion that the universe as a collection is metaphysically contingent, - which is still empty, no matter how many times are you going to repeat it.

OK so you don’t assent that the universe, as a collection of STEM, is metaphysically contingent? In that case, are you asserting that the universe has some attribute that is not STEM? If the universe=all STEM, then how is it different from STEM? You mentioned earlier an analogy of library and books. A library is more than books. But a collection of hardcover books is a collection of hardcover books.

And second, the deductive method is only applicable in axiomatic systems and NOT in open, inductive systems.

I’m not describing a formal mathematical proof, but a logical certainty based on empirically verifiable premises and a valid conclusion. The analytical reasoning is deductive, but the synthetic reasoning is abductive. I’m submitting this as evidence that STEM is not the final layer.

That would lead to an infinite descent, if there would be no starting point.

Let me add: There is always room for a causal hypothesis of a metaphysically contingent thing. The starting point is the rationally self-explanatory thing, not an arbitrary brute fact.

 

[Economist]

OK so you don’t assent that the universe, as a collection of STEM, is metaphysically contingent?

Of course not. I don’t agree that STEM is contingent at all - and now I am using the word contingent as you use it. The basic conservation laws are so firmly established, that they would require some truly incredible experiment to doubt about them. The basic physical elements cannot be created or destroyed. The so-called “nothing” is merely a concept, it does not and cannot exist ontologically. So the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” is exactly as nonsensical and invalid as asking “why does the Mobius strip have two sides”.

If the universe=all STEM, then how is it different from STEM?

The fact that ontological existence is STEM, it does not follow that everything is composed of particles. Concepts, ideas, attributes, relationships, activities are not composed of particles, but they all rely on the ontological foundation of STEM. Without actual, physical elements there is no such “thing” as “in front of” or “behind”.

You mentioned earlier an analogy of library and books. A library is more than books. But a collection of hardcover books is a collection of hardcover books.

And yet the collection of hard cover books does NOT have a hard cover. I happened to use the example of a floor, which is composed of white, square tiles. From that it follows logically that the whole floor is white, but it does not follow that the whole floor is square. So, even if every physical component would be contingent, it would not follow that the collection, the universe is also contingent.

Let me add: There is always room for a causal hypothesis of a metaphysically contingent thing. The starting point is the rationally self-explanatory thing, not an arbitrary brute fact.

What is the difference? And why is the brute fact arbitrary? How is the NPYPAS self-explanatory? After all you said that you have no idea what it is, and does it work?

I suggest this conclusion: the NPYPAS is assumed of being physically active, even though it is not composed of physical elements. Since it is supposed to be active, and is assumed to be able to interact with the physical universe, you can develop an experiment to substantiate this assertion. That is the way to show the validity of of your premise.

 

[Gorgias]

Not JUST to me, personally. If something does not have an interaction with the physical universe, it is irrelevant for the whole physical universe.

I believe in Jesus’ words, and therefore, I believe that each of us has a guardian angel. My guardian angel has no interaction with me. He’s hardly irrelevant.

I believe in what the Bible says, and therefore, I believe that the saints in heaven pray for us. There’s no physical interaction between me and the saints in heaven. Still, they’re hardly irrelevant.

I get what you’re saying… but, with all due respect, you’re so heavily invested in your worldview that you don’t realize the assumptions that come with it. You don’t recognize that all of the statements you’re making really only work when you realize that they’re all (implicitly) prefaced with “if you believe that the only reality is the material universe, then…”. That’s cool if that’s what you believe, but it colors your view in ways that it seems that you don’t even recognize.

Whatever I dream about “stays” within that dream. It has no effect on the universe.

Moreover, my dream does not and cannot have any effect on someone else’s dreams.

Not so fast. Your dream has an effect on you, and you have an effect on others. What you dream – and how you react to it – might very well effect others and their dreams!

And that is your problem, in a nutshell.

Actually, it’s yours. I’m already cool with the spiritual realm. You’re the one trying to come to terms with it.

If something is part of the physical realm, then there is SOME empirical method to deal with it.

Sure. But there’s not necessarily an empirical method that’s guaranteed to be able to observe it. You pointed that out yourself, when you spoke of the insides of black holes – physical, but unobservable. Yet, you don’t claim that they don’t exist. Double standard much?

And one more time, I do not present any “null-hypothesis”.

I would recommend that you research what the term null hypothesis means. You seem to be using it in a way that betrays a misunderstanding of the term.

 

[Economist]

I believe in Jesus’ words, and therefore, I believe that each of us has a guardian angel. My guardian angel has no interaction with me. He’s hardly irrelevant.

Well, it looks like that we have a different concept of what is irrelevant. If your guardian angel does not interfere on your behalf (like yanking you away from an oncoming vehicle) and as such does not “guard” you, then WHAT is its relevance? Of course your belief has an impact on you, but only if you act on it. But if you don’t?

If you believe that the saints pray for you, and those prayers influence “something” (not God, since God is immutable!) so that this “something” will have a positive physical effect on you - that is your prerogative. Unfortunately there is no evidence for it. There are superstitious people who believe in all sorts of things, like lucky charms, or avoiding walking under ladders, or avoiding black cats… and they behave accordingly. They may very well believe that these actions have a beneficial effect on their life, and they are very honest about that belief. Do you take them and their superstitions at face value?

Not so fast. Your dream has an effect on you , and you have an effect on others . What you dream – and how you react to it – might very well effect others and their dreams!

If and when I do remember my dreams, and if I share them with others, then, yes. Which is very rare. This example was to show that the “non-physical” dreams cannot have a direct impact on the physical reality. If you and your neighbor happen to dream at the same time, neither dream can influence the other.

Actually, it’s yours. I’m already cool with the spiritual realm.

So am I. I am merely curious if you (or anyone else) can present some evidence for it.

Sure. But there’s not necessarily an empirical method that’s guaranteed to be able to observe it .

If you can’t find a “guaranteed” method, then it remains unsubstantiated. Fortunately there are many facets of this “spiritual” realm. And some of them can be investigated by Catholic experts - allegedly!

I would recommend that you research what the term null hypothesis means. You seem to be using it in a way that betrays a misunderstanding of the term.

Really? So you think I wasted those decades I spent studying statistics, sciences and philosophy? But be as it may, your assertion was that I already stated a null-hypothesis. Would you enlighten me WHAT was that null-hypothesis? Oh, and the concept of null-hypothesis in not restricted to statistics.

 

[Neithan]

Of course not. I don’t agree that STEM is contingent at all - and now I am using the word contingent as you use it.

OK but do you understand what I am trying to say? Contingency is something that could be otherwise than it is, in a metaphysical way.

If STEM is metaphysically non-contingent, then it’s existentially self-explanatory. Since we are always exploring STEM, finding how it works, and even different ways of understanding it (theory of everything) then it’s not self-explanatory. We can theorize differently even about fundamental forces. You can even posit something like NPYPAS which wouldn’t make sense if STEM is not metaphysically contingent. There are theories about a multiverse where STEM or something other than STEM might be. This very discussion for example could not be conceptually possible if STEM is not metaphysically contingent. Even though we disagree, we are assenting to different metaphysical worldviews. Are we confusing physical with metaphysical contingency?

So the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” is exactly as nonsensical and invalid as asking “why does the Mobius strip have two sides”.

Another obscure mathematical reference that I had to Google. At least I’m learning some jargon. What we are looking for is an explanation of how something is possible, something considered metaphysically. The Möbius strip can be explained, at least analytically, as a spacial-temporal extension of material: a spacial-temporal extension of material with a particular form that depends on other things existing in order to explain it. It is metaphysically contingent. So we move on to what those other things are that make the Möbius strip possible if we are looking for something that is not metaphysically contingent. It is not a brute fact, because there are no such things as brute facts.

So, even if every physical component would be contingent, it would not follow that the collection, the universe is also contingent.

And yet the collection of hard cover books does NOT have a hard cover.

Actually, yes, it does. It’s a hard cover made up of a lot of hardcover books. That depends on arrangement of form, though, only because there is also paper in there, lol. We could say the collection has a hard and paper cover. So let’s say it’s a collection of plastic things. The collection is plastic. You are saying the universe is a collection of STEM things. The universe is STEM.

[Continued below…]

 

[Neithan]

And why is the brute fact arbitrary? How is the NPYPAS self-explanatory? After all you said that you have no idea what it is, and does it work?

The brute fact is arbitrary because it’s not a reasonable explanation. It’s not an explanation at all. It’s just deciding that the explanations stop somewhere, “because it is.” And I don’t know what the NPYPAS is, but that’s your idea for empirically verifying a hypothetical two-way interaction of something that could be entirely natural or dependent on STEM. If nature=STEM, than we must posit something supernatural (independent of STEM) for an explanation. We can know that there is something, without knowing what it is.

Since it is supposed to be active, and is assumed to be able to interact with the physical universe, you can develop an experiment to substantiate this assertion. That is the way to show the validity of of your premise.

The supernatural (non-STEM something) is a valid conclusion from premises arrived at by induction (the physics of STEM). If we are dividing analytic from synthetic reasoning, the conclusion is abductive because it’s not an axiomatic proof; but it at least rules out STEM as a possible explanation for itself.

NPYPAS is assuming something in the universe. We are looking for a rational explanation of the universe because the argument I’m trying to describe is that a collection of STEM is metaphysically contingent. Do you see how your suggested experiment is begging the question?

 

[Gorgias]

If your guardian angel does not interfere on your behalf … then WHAT is its relevance?

He prays for me. That’s relevant.

How am I to know when there’s an “interface event”, such that this intercession leads to something that might be measurable (if, for instance, I knew that there were some evil that might befall me but doesn’t)?

Economist:

If you believe that the saints pray for you, and those prayers influence “something” (not God, since God is immutable!) so that this “something” will have a positive physical effect on you - that is your prerogative. Unfortunately there is no evidence for it.

Unfortunately for whom? Me, for whom prayers are being offered to God? Or for you, who want empirical evidence for prayers?

Economist:

There are superstitious people who believe in all sorts of things, like lucky charms, or avoiding walking under ladders, or avoiding black cats… and they behave accordingly. They may very well believe that these actions have a beneficial effect on their life, and they are very honest about that belief. Do you take them and their superstitions at face value?

The value of my belief isn’t the degree to which I am honest in that belief. It’s in the truth value of the propositions believed. The difference between belief in God and belief in superstitions isn’t whether they can be proven empirically, but whether they’re real. I believe God’s real. That’s value.

I am merely curious if you (or anyone else) can present some evidence for it.

Empirical evidence?

You have yet to demonstrate why it’s reasonable to ask for empirical evidence for non-physical entities.

Really? So you think I wasted those decades I spent studying statistics, sciences and philosophy?

I hope not.

Economist:

your assertion was that I already stated a null-hypothesis . Would you enlighten me WHAT was that null-hypothesis?

Sure!

We both start with a brute fact, the difference is that mine is available to our senses and its laws are explainable to us, we can verify its existence, we can make predictions about it

Economist:

I would also be interested in presenting an example of a non-physical , and yet physically active corollary of your worldview

You are requesting an experiment that demonstrates the physical effects of a non-physical being. That experiment would substantiate the claim that the spiritual realm exists; you are literally asking us to prove the hypothesis “the spiritual realm exists”, and the null hypothesis would be conclusion that the experiment has conclusively failed to demonstrate the hypothesis.

You’re welcome.

(p.s., I get what you’re doing – you want to say that you’re not asking for an experiment, but that we need to provide one. That’s still a request for an experiment proving the existence of the spiritual realm, as much as you might wish to claim that you’re not doing any such thing. )

 

[Economist]

If STEM is metaphysically non-contingent, then it’s existentially self-explanatory.

I wonder where does this principle come from? And what do you mean by “self-explanatory”? An explanation is a process which allows us to reduce a new concept to some previously known idea. Self-explanatory means that it is so obvious, that it needs no explanation.

Previously you said that you have no idea what the supernatural might be, or how does it work. So how could the supernatural be “self-explanatory”?

 

[Economist]

How am I to know when there’s an “interface event”, such that this intercession leads to something that might be measurable (if, for instance, I knew that there were some evil that might befall me but doesn’t)?

If you cannot know, then to say that there is some interaction is an unfounded statement. But it is a general consensus that God and angels and demons exist and they are active in our lives. If you don’t believe it, that is fine.

Unfortunately for whom? Me, for whom prayers are being offered to God? Or for you, who want empirical evidence for prayers?

For both of us. For me because I am left with holding an empty bag, and for you, since you are unable to spread the good news, which you are required to do, according to the words of Jesus. By the way, you seem to operate under the misconception that prayers are the only way to get some empirical evidence for the “supernatural”.

The difference between belief in God and belief in superstitions isn’t whether they can be proven empirically, but whether they’re real. I believe God’s real. That’s value.

I respect your belief, but your belief has no bearing on whether that belief accurately reflects reality or not. That is the why epistemological methods are so important, they are designed to separate “true” beliefs from “false” beliefs. For the superstitious people their beliefs about “black cats” is also valuable.

You have yet to demonstrate why it’s reasonable to ask for empirical evidence for non-physical entities.

It has been covered many times before - even in this thread. If that non-physical entity has a physical effect, then it is reasonable to ask for physical evidence. After all we can only gain new information about the external reality via our senses (or their extensions). (Please don’t try to bring up the abstract or axiomatic sciences. )