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

[Economist]

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 are mistaken. The null-hypothesis would be a successful substantiation (NOT proof!) for the existence of this non-physical causative agent. The failure of the experiment would be the alternative hypothesis. Of course the failure would not conclusively demonstrate the lack of supernatural, merely make it less probable.

Are you able to devise such an experiment?

If not, that is no problem for me, since I am comfortable with the idea that STEM is all there is. And it is not a problem for you either, since you already believe, and need no further evidence for it. By the way, this method is not limited to the questions about the supernatural. Any hypothesis requires an epistemological method to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As such, it looks like we reached a stopping point. Thank you for presenting your ideas. It would be wonderful if you could substantiate your beliefs, but sometimes a half loaf of bread is what one must settle for. The best we can hope for is a respectful disagreement. Live long and prosper as Spock said.

 

[Gorgias]

The null-hypothesis would be a successful substantiation (NOT proof!) for the existence of this non-physical causative agent.

No, it would be the demonstration of a lack of existence of a hypothesized relationship.

Of course the failure would not conclusively demonstrate the lack of supernatural, merely make it less probable.

Correct. It wouldn’t necessarily say “no supernatural”, as much as materialists might like to claim otherwise.

Are you able to devise such an experiment?

I would assert that it would be impossible to establish the null hypothesis in this case – that is, that the failure to measure the spiritual proves it doesn’t exist – because there’s no reason to suspect that we can predict when the interface events occur.

It would be wonderful if you could substantiate your beliefs

I can. You’re asking, though, whether I can substantiate them empirically. Unfortunately, I fear, it’s impossible to do that in a way that would be satisfactory to a materialist.

Half a loaf, indeed!

 

[Neithan]

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.

An explanation makes clear the reason for being, as in the basis or cause, for something to be. A self-explanatory “basis” is the most fundamental ground of being: so basic that we cannot meaningfully conceive of it any other way (I recently learned about “pataphysics” but I think we can dismiss that). It is metaphysically non-contingent, the absolute ground of any logically possible explanation for reality. STEM does not satisfy this because it is not conceptually certain and could ontologically have very different intrinsic properties; in fact to call it a brute fact is admitting that it is metaphysically contingent.

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”?

I don’t know how; but I’m arguing that the natural universe, as a collection of STEM, is metaphysically contingent, therefore any possible explanation must be supernatural. You’re arguing that there just is no explanation. My position is rationally consistent, yours is arbitrary.

 

[Economist]

Correct. It wouldn’t necessarily say “no supernatural”, as much as materialists might like to claim otherwise.

I am a materialist, and I stick with my assertion: “the lack of evidence makes the null-hypothesis - there IS some physically active non-physical entity - unlikely.” One more time: the null-hypothesis is NOT the assertion that there is NO non-physical entity. You keep on misstating the nature of the null-hypothesis. I wonder, why? It is impossible to substantiate a general negative, however it is possible to refute a specific negative.

Now, if one deals with a general negative, and performs a zillion experiments, all of which comes back: with “sorry, no dice” then eventually one should accept, that the original hypothesis was wrong. Suppose the hypothesis is: “taking aspirin will make your lost arm regrow”. How many failures would make you suspicious and ponder: “well maybe aspirin does not make my lost arm regrow?”

I can. You’re asking, though, whether I can substantiate them empirically . Unfortunately, I fear, it’s impossible to do that in a way that would be satisfactory to a materialist.

The empirical substantiation WOULD be satisfactory - if it happened.

Of course the believers like to use a “get out of jail” card, - they append the phrase: “if it be thy will” - in Arabic: "insh’Allah or “God willing”. And then if something positive happens, they can try to claim: “God honored our prayer”, and when nothing happens, they can claim: “it was not God’s will”, in Arabic: “mash’Allah”. A good, secular equivalent is: “let’s toss a coin, if it is heads, I win, if it is tails, you lose!” Thanks, but no thanks.

Half a loaf, indeed!

The “half a loaf” was a reference to the mutually respectful conversation.

 

[Economist]

STEM does not satisfy this because it is not conceptually certain and could ontologically have very different intrinsic properties;

Even if the intrinsic properties would be different (instead of matter, it would be anti-matter" - it would still be STEM.

I don’t know how; but I’m arguing that the natural universe, as a collection of STEM, is metaphysically contingent, therefore any possible explanation must be supernatural. You’re arguing that there just is no explanation.

You don’t even know the “what”, not just the “how”. And you have no explanation for the non-physical. The playing field is level in this respect. The two approaches are the mirror images of the other. And there is still a difference: we all experience the physical, and do not experience the non-physical.

 

[Neithan]

Even if the intrinsic properties would be different (instead of matter, it would be anti-matter" - it would still be STEM.

You are open to the possibility of the non-physical, so it’s conceptually possible that there could be the non-physical. The universe is STEM. STEM is physical. Metaphysical contingency is something that could possibly be conceptually otherwise. Therefore, the STEM universe is metaphysically contingent.

You don’t even know the “what”, not just the “how”. And you have no explanation for the non-physical. The playing field is level in this respect. The two approaches are the mirror images of the other. And there is still a difference: we all experience the physical, and do not experience the non-physical.

The playing field is not level. I am arguing for rational consistency of reality — that there is something where there is an explanation; you are arguing for an arbitrary dead end. I don’t see how these are mirror images: your view would actually lead to an epistemology of radical skepticism, because then you are denying that reality is rationally consistent, and therefore unhinging your reasoning ability from any sense experience you might think you are having about reality. Such a metaphysical assertion is self-defeating for anyone who claims that they can state anything meaningful about metaphysics.

I don’t need to know what the supernatural is, and I don’t need to know how it works. Just that it is something that is not STEM. All I’m attempting to show is that something metaphysically contingent cannot be the fundamental explanation for reality. We agree that there must be a starting point, but I am arguing that that starting point must be a metaphysical explanation or we have no justified reason to assert any metaphysical explanations at all.

 

[Gorgias]

You keep on misstating the nature of the null-hypothesis. I wonder, why?

I suspect we’re trying to say the same thing, but are looking at it from different angles.

The hypothesis is “there exist spiritual entity/entities who interact with physical entities in the physical universe.” If we attempt experiments to prove this hypothesis, we’ll either succeed or fail. If we fail, we have to ask, “have we demonstrated that 'it is not true that there exists such spiritual entities?”. Maybe we’re using the term differently, but that’s our null hypothesis – that the hypothesis itself has been demonstrated to be false.

My take on it is that the experiments, no matter how carefully designed, will fail to even have the ability to be carried out properly. The reason they must fail is that, by definition, cannot be carried out scientifically. Since spiritual entities are not part of the physical universe, we therefore cannot observe spiritual beings themselves, and as a result, we cannot create reasonable predictions of their behavior. Therefore, we can never work from hypothesis through experiment to conclusion.

(This is a different situation than that of entities in the physical realm that are ‘difficult’ to observe (e.g., quantum particles, the insides of black holes). These – since they are part of the physical universe – therefore obey the physical laws of the universe, and their behavior thus can be predicted. We can’t say that about spiritual entities, however.)

We can conduct experiments, of course, with whatever tenuous hypotheses we wish to construct. However, the best we can hope for is an unexpected positive result; no matter how many negative trials take place, we can’t say that they prove the null hypothesis.

Suppose the hypothesis is: “taking aspirin will make your lost arm regrow”. How many failures would make you suspicious and ponder: “well maybe aspirin does not make my lost arm regrow?”

This works very well with entities in the physical realm which are observable! However, with respect to spiritual entities which we cannot observe, we can’t draw valid conclusions based on our ‘suspicions.’

And then if something positive happens, they can try to claim: “God honored our prayer”, and when nothing happens, they can claim: “it was not God’s will”, in Arabic: “mash’Allah”. A good, secular equivalent is: “let’s toss a coin, if it is heads, I win , if it is tails, you lose !” Thanks, but no thanks.

LOL! Some will claim “God’s will”, but I’m sure you’d agree with me that this isn’t something that’s able to be tested empirically. So, again: no possible valid experiment.

 

[Economist]

The hypothesis is “there exist spiritual entity/entities who interact with physical entities in the physical universe.”

Yes, exactly well stated. It is a positive hypothesis.

If we attempt experiments to prove this hypothesis, we’ll either succeed or fail.

Yes.

If we fail, we have to ask, “have we demonstrated that 'it is not true that there exists such spiritual entities?”.

This is where we disagree. That is NOT the question to ask.

The proper way is the exact opposite: “have we demonstrated that ‘there exist such spiritual entities’?” And the answer is no, we have not. But that is OK. Sometimes the first attempt fails. And then we stay open to the possibility that our experiment was somehow incorrectly designed, or improperly carried out. So we devise another experiment, and try to make it more foolproof. And then another, and another… The problem is that each and every experiment fails. The question is: when do you stop and say… “OK, our hypothesis was wrong”?

Maybe we’re using the term differently, but that’s our null hypothesis – that the hypothesis itself has been demonstrated to be false.

Your null-hypothesis is that “there is/are non-physical and physically active entities”. I do not have a corresponding negative hypothesis, which would be “there is/are NO non-physical and physically active entities”. I am just an observer, sitting on the side lines, without any “skin” in game.

This is a different situation than that of entities in the physical realm that are ‘difficult’ to observe (e.g., quantum particles, the insides of black holes). These – since they are part of the physical universe – therefore obey the physical laws of the universe, and their behavior thus can be predicted.

That is very interesting. We do not know ALL the laws of the universe. But we know one thing, the universe is predictable. We know this not as an unquestionable axiom, just as very well demonstrated principle.

We can’t say that about spiritual entities, however.

Well, that is not the usual assertion on the side of the believers. They assert many attributes and actions pertaining the non-physical entities. And that is where they run into problems. The more they assert, the more they are exposed to the ramifications of their assertions.

No believer - that I know of - asserts that the behavior of the non-physical entities is totally chaotic, unknown and unknowable.

 

[Economist]

This works very well with entities in the physical realm which are observable! However, with respect to spiritual entities which we cannot observe, we can’t draw valid conclusions based on our ‘suspicions.’

If that is case, you just declared that any assumption about the behavior of the non-physical is based on thin air. The non-physical is totally unpredictable. I don’t think that this is the usual approach.

And one more thing. I can make lots of predictions about the non-physical, and those predictions will be borne out by the experiments. Millions and millions of predictions and every one will be correct. All I have to do is make a prediction which is easy to verify, and the outcome is obvious.

I had a co-worker, who had a young daughter. The kid was hoping to be able to go out and play in the snow. So the mother told her to pray that there will be snow during the night. So she did… and lo and behold… it happened. The mother told the kid: “You see, God fulfilled your wish.” Of course, there is some fly in the ointment… can you guess what it was? I am sure you can. You see, it is very easy to make predictions about the supernatural and it will always come back with the label “correct prediction” stamped on it. It is equally easy to make other predictions and none of them will be fulfilled. So, yes, the non-physical is very predictable.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that each and every experiment fails. The question is: when do you stop and say… “OK, our hypothesis was wrong”?

And that’s the problem that I’m attempting to identify: the issue isn’t with the hypothesis, it’s with the application of the method itself.

I am just an observer, sitting on the side lines, without any “skin” in game.

That’s a nice dodge, and I get that you utilize it in an attempt to absolve yourself of any obligation (to acquiesce or to deny) with respect to the experiment, but your status of “observer” involves you in the attempt. Welcome to the game…

But we know one thing, the universe is predictable.

And this is precisely where our discussion about the definition of “universe” is critical. If you claim – without any substantiation – that spiritual entities must be considered part of the universe, then you’ve just asserted that they must follow the laws of the universe. If, on the other hand, we assert (as I do) that spiritual beings aren’t part of the universe, then no such obligation entails. And therefore, I have no obligation to concede that physical experiments on non-physical beings must necessarily have the ability to succeed.

No believer - that I know of - asserts that the behavior of the non-physical entities is totally chaotic, unknown and unknowable .

Of course we do. Ask the question in the opposite direction: “is the behavior of spiritual entities predictable?” You’ll get the answer you’re claiming doesn’t exist.

 

[Economist]

And that’s the problem that I’m attempting to identify: the issue isn’t with the hypothesis , it’s with the application of the method itself.

I see. So your problem is with the applicability of the epistemological method of “hypothesize”, “verify” and “accept” when the verification supports your hypothesis? I am not aware of any other method to separate the correct hypotheses from the incorrect ones. Do you have a different approach?

It looks like that you overlooked my point that I am able to make valid predictions about the non-physical entities and those predictions will be borne out by examining the evidence.

By the way, only in the axiomatic systems we speak of “theorems” and not “hypotheses”. Only in the open, inductive systems do we use the phrase “hypothesis”.

 

[Gorgias]

I see. So your problem is with the applicability of the epistemological method of “hypothesize”, “verify” and “accept” when the verification supports your hypothesis?

No. My problem isn’t with the method per se, but with its applicability vis-a-vis causes that exist outside the physical realm.

I am not aware of any other method to separate the correct hypotheses from the incorrect ones. Do you have a different approach?

There is no better method that we know of, when dealing with causes and effects that are physical. However, when asking the question regarding causes that exist outside that realm, it ends up looking like an example of the old aphorism “for a person who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I’m merely asserting that this hammer doesn’t appear to be up to the job at hand. It’s a good hammer… but it doesn’t do a good job flipping burgers, for instance…

It looks like that you overlooked my point that I am able to make valid predictions about the non-physical entities and those predictions will be borne out by examining the evidence.

I’m claiming that you cannot make valid predictions, due to the nature of the entities you’re making predictions about. (Your claim wasn’t about “valid predictions”, it was about invalid predictions (e.g., God making it snow for a little child).) If you want to make the shallow claim that “we can all make predictions”, then you’re cheapening your argument. Science isn’t about making unsubstantiated positions, but that’s what you seem to be claiming here.

Maybe that’s the direction this discussion should take. How might we suspect that we would be able to make valid predictions regarding entities that exist outside our material universe?

 

[Economist]

No. My problem isn’t with the method per se, but with its applicability vis-a-vis causes that exist outside the physical realm.

Why so? The method does not exploit the physical nature of the realm.

There is no better method that we know of, when dealing with causes and effects that are physical. However, when asking the question regarding causes that exist outside that realm, it ends up looking like an example of the old aphorism “for a person who has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” I’m merely asserting that this hammer doesn’t appear to be up to the job at hand. It’s a good hammer… but it doesn’t do a good job flipping burgers, for instance…

I was not asking for a better method regarding the physical realm. You say that this method is inapplicable for the non-physical, but did not present any argument why it would not be? And you did not present a better, more reliable method for addressing the claims about the non-physical realm. Using your example: “what is the alternative for the hammer”?

I’m claiming that you cannot make valid predictions, due to the nature of the entities you’re making predictions about.

On what grounds do you claim that the prediction was not valid? The prediction is valid, if it is borne out by the facts. A prediction is invalid if it is NOT borne out by the facts. And this distinction does not exploit the physical nature of the realm.

Your assertion was that the non-physical realm is totally unpredictable, that anything can happen at any time; that we are unable to make any valid predictions about the non-physical realm. This seems to be (actually it IS) in total contradiction to the Catholic stance that God is ALWAYS good, the devil is ALWAYS evil.

Moreover, the non-physical realm is much wider than the questions about God. It encompasses the paranormal, telekinesis, ESP, aura reading, magical healings at Lourdes and a whole lot of other assertions. Do you deny the applicability of the hypothesize, experiment, verify (or scientific) method for those claims, too?

Now, I will clarify my stance. It is impossible to make valid predictions, which do NOT refer to the physical reality. No one can make a prediction about hell, or heaven or the next result of the heavenly soccer game between the angels and the demons. But as long as the OUTCOME of the prediction refers to something that happens in the physical realm, then we can make predictions and can verify if the prediction was correct or not.

But that does not subtract from the validity of the method.

 

[Techno2000]

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?

Guardian angels protect you from fallen angels, and if God permits, they can help you in the material world also.

 

[Techno2000]

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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Economist]

Guardian angels protect you from fallen angels, and if God permits, they can help you in the material world also.

And you have evidence for this?

 

[Wozza]

Economist:

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

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Mmm. Shiny.

 

[Economist]

Mmm. Shiny.

Photoshop is our friend.

 

[Techno2000]

Wozza:

Mmm. Shiny.

Photoshop is our friend.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Our Lady of Zeitoun Egypt 1968

Witnessed by Millions: The Confounding Apparition of Our Lady of Zeitoun

 

[Wozza]

Did you know that haloes have been used in Roman, Asian and Greek art for many centuries? It wasn’t that those considered to be holy actually had a ring floating around their head. It was just a convention to separate those in the picture who were considered to be holy from those who weren’t.

Christian iconography started using them around the 4th century and stopped around the 17th.

Whoever set up the piccies of Mary at Zeitoun assumed that that was what she was supposed to look like so put one around her head. Or maybe Mary thought she ought to wear one as it was expected of her.

Either way, with millions reported to have seen her for hours at a time many times over a period of months, you’d think we’d have some better piccies. Even some film. We have better pictures of Armstrong and Aldrin on the moon a few months later. But if those are all you have…

I wonder why nobody went up onto the roof to get a better picture.