How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[boatsnguitars]

I suspect the disagreement continues to be that I see science and philosophy being inseparable, and support each other in determining facts.

I explicitly just said (non-foundational) philosophy and science are equal, in that sense, and work together (with all other forms of knowledge).

I can't get past why someone would - when putting data into their Logic Gonkulator - would think that science wouldn't play a vastly more important role in determining facts than historical stories, tales, myths, etc. I'm sure you argue that you use logic to weed out bad data, but you have not shown a method to do that - other than appeal to your logic.

Why would science play a more important role when the hinge factor isn’t scientific? Sometimes it is, and science plays it role; sometimes it isn’t and to put science above whatever that hinge is, would be irrational. This isn’t “my logic,” as the method but just logic, the logic we all share.

And, I have to question that logic when you propose that a very obvious mythical tale of a Dying and Rising God, or the existence of a Supernatural Realm, etc, are to be taken seriously because your belief in those tales makes those tales more believable.

I made no such argument. It’s not to be taken seriously because it is my belief, but because of the rational case for it.

(and ignore the scientific fact that no supernatural 'energy' has every been proven to exist).

How is that a scientific fact? Science is the study of the natural. How can it say anything for or against supernatural ‘energy’? We apply logic, the logic everybody has at their disposal, and clearly see that such a thing is illogical.

Your logic appears to be:
1. I was told a story of Supernatural events
2. I believe them
3. Therefore, I am justified in believing in Supernatural things, which - in turn - makes the Bible more believable, which - in turn - makes me justified in believing in Supernaturalism.

I have never used that “logic” in any post to you.

That is, you don't have direct experience of the Supernatural, yet, you let stories of it infect your reasoning. That doesn't sound logical - nor is it prudent, given that you don't seem to appreciate the weight of Material evidence.

How do you know if I’ve had direct experience of the supernatural or not? That couldn’t be proven one way or the other, even to someone who believes in the supernatural. Thus, my supernatural experiences, if they actually are such, have no weight in a discussion like that, whereas history, science, philosophy, etc. do as we try to make sense of reality.

Science is not just the study of the natural. Yes, it does that very well - as all admit. It is a process that leads to facts (true things about our world - which would include the Supernatural if it were to ever exist).

See, I think you have a fundamentally different view that is influenced by your religious teachings. Science, the process, is philosophical in nature - yet employs objective means to test the philosophical underpinnings of it's methodology.

If Jesus rose from the dead today, in a lab, there is no doubt that science would be able to determine that his resurrection would have been natural, supernatural, or unknown. (Perhaps Subnatural, or hypernatural, or metanatural, or whatever).

The problem for supernaturalists is they don't have one case where they have positive evidence for the supernatural, nor do they even have a process to test for it (while science does - for example, putting pictures on the tops of cabinets in hospital rooms to test NDE).


I think it's just a cowardly cop out by Supernaturalists to claim - without merit - that can't test the supernatural. How do you know? There is no supernatural, so how do you know it's untestable?

In fact, answer that: How do you know the Supernatural is, in fact, untestable?

[The Tanager]

Science is not just the study of the natural. Yes, it does that very well - as all admit. It is a process that leads to facts (true things about our world - which would include the Supernatural if it were to ever exist).

Why do you believe this? What rational support is there for this position?

I think it's just a cowardly cop out by Supernaturalists to claim - without merit - that can't test the supernatural. How do you know? There is no supernatural, so how do you know it's untestable?

In fact, answer that: How do you know the Supernatural is, in fact, untestable?

My claim is that the supernatural is un-physcially-testable by physical tests. I think we can know this with 100% certainty because it’s true by definition. You can’t run physical tests on non-physical things. A supernatural thing is non-physical. Therefore, you can’t run a physical test on a supernatural thing.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #732]

My claim is that the supernatural is un-physcially-testable by physical tests. I think we can know this with 100% certainty because it’s true by definition. You can’t run physical tests on non-physical things. A supernatural thing is non-physical. Therefore, you can’t run a physical test on a supernatural thing.

While such a claim that such a "thing" as "non-physical" exists, there is no manner in which to test the claim without a real example being placed on the table of discussion to at least attempt to show good faith that such claims should be taken seriously.

Otherwise, why should such proclamation even be regarded as serious claim, rather than simply (and more appropriately) unsubstantiated opinion?

What is there to debate re that?

[boatsnguitars]

My claim is that the supernatural is un-physcially-testable by physical tests.

How could you possibly know this?!?!

Can I make claims like that, too?

There is something called the "Subnatural" that under girds all of reality, including the Natural and Supernatural. It is the "Ground of All Being." It is what made God possible (if there is a God), and what causes Causation. It is completely, perfectly undetectable to both the Natural and Supernatural. It is something a God would believe in, but not be able to prove, as they exist in it's substrate without any ability to test it.

So, can I claim that and sound reasonable?

[The Tanager]

My claim is that the supernatural is un-physcially-testable by physical tests. I think we can know this with 100% certainty because it’s true by definition. You can’t run physical tests on non-physical things. A supernatural thing is non-physical. Therefore, you can’t run a physical test on a supernatural thing.

How could you possibly know this?!?!

Read the bolded part (that you left out in your quote) above again. That is how we can know this. It is logically impossible, by the very concepts themselves, to physically test the non-physical. Things that are logically impossible cannot exist.

Can I make claims like that, too?

There is something called the "Subnatural" that under girds all of reality, including the Natural and Supernatural. It is the "Ground of All Being." It is what made God possible (if there is a God), and what causes Causation. It is completely, perfectly undetectable to both the Natural and Supernatural. It is something a God would believe in, but not be able to prove, as they exist in it's substrate without any ability to test it.

So, can I claim that and sound reasonable?

How is that like the claim that it’s logically impossible to physical test non-physical objects? I could understand you saying this if you were trying to critique my claim that the supernatural exists, but that isn’t the claim we were just talking about.

As a critique of my claim that the supernatural exists, it is also misguided since that is nothing like how I argue for the supernatural. I don’t appeal to mystery. I started to defend my argument for the supernatural in the “Who Made God?” thread, but you found yourself in an illogical fix by philosophically arguing that philosophy is useless, so we couldn’t go any further.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #735]

It is logically impossible, by the very concepts themselves, to physically test the non-physical. Things that are logically impossible cannot exist.

In this case, the example is that one cannot physically test something which does not exist - because it is logically impossible to do so.

However, what evidence supports the claim that non-physical things exist, that we should regard these as being "logically possible".
Indeed, what logic makes these things logically possible?

So sure - it is indeed logically impossible to test things which do not exist, and it is also illogical to refer to things that do not exist as "possibly existing as "non-physical objects"" since the concept strongly appears to be self-contradictory.

If one is simply meaning "something is invisible and thus hard to detect", (Natural) then this is a different concept to "something which exists but is non-physical". (Supernatural)

[boatsnguitars]

My claim is that the supernatural is un-physcially-testable by physical tests. I think we can know this with 100% certainty because it’s true by definition. You can’t run physical tests on non-physical things. A supernatural thing is non-physical. Therefore, you can’t run a physical test on a supernatural thing.

How could you possibly know this?!?!

Read the bolded part (that you left out in your quote) above again. That is how we can know this. It is logically impossible, by the very concepts themselves, to physically test the non-physical. Things that are logically impossible cannot exist.

Can I make claims like that, too?

There is something called the "Subnatural" that under girds all of reality, including the Natural and Supernatural. It is the "Ground of All Being." It is what made God possible (if there is a God), and what causes Causation. It is completely, perfectly undetectable to both the Natural and Supernatural. It is something a God would believe in, but not be able to prove, as they exist in it's substrate without any ability to test it.

So, can I claim that and sound reasonable?

How is that like the claim that it’s logically impossible to physical test non-physical objects? I could understand you saying this if you were trying to critique my claim that the supernatural exists, but that isn’t the claim we were just talking about.

As a critique of my claim that the supernatural exists, it is also misguided since that is nothing like how I argue for the supernatural. I don’t appeal to mystery. I started to defend my argument for the supernatural in the “Who Made God?” thread, but you found yourself in an illogical fix by philosophically arguing that philosophy is useless, so we couldn’t go any further.

Gravity isn't physical, yet it is tested by physical objects. Force, Mass, Energy, Space, Time, Age, prowess, agility, speed, etc....

Of course I expect you to hold the line that the Supernatural can't be tested: since it doesn't exist, and you know this, you know claiming it can be tested would reveal this. By claiming it is an exception - you special plead - you can continue the farce.

I argued philosophy alone is useless. You claimed otherwise with no evidence or philosophical argument.

[The Tanager]

Gravity isn't physical, yet it is tested by physical objects. Force, Mass, Energy, Space, Time, Age, prowess, agility, speed, etc....

Why do you think gravity isn’t a physical force?

Of course I expect you to hold the line that the Supernatural can't be tested: since it doesn't exist, and you know this, you know claiming it can be tested would reveal this. By claiming it is an exception - you special plead - you can continue the farce.

Of course I don’t believe what is logically impossible. You can address that or continue this empty rhetoric.

I argued philosophy alone is useless. You claimed otherwise with no evidence or philosophical argument.

Okay, then you used philosophy alone to argue that philosophy alone is useless. That still puts you in a logical fix that has halted our ability to explore my case (which isn’t philosophy alone) for the supernatural.

[boatsnguitars]

Gravity isn't physical, yet it is tested by physical objects. Force, Mass, Energy, Space, Time, Age, prowess, agility, speed, etc....

Why do you think gravity isn’t a physical force?

Gee, you got me there... It's a description of a physical process. The word "gravity" isn't physical, but it is, and the concept are because the material world exists.

Why, it's almost as if it's like consciousness: it emerges from the fact that Matter exists; not despite it.

Now you: explain what the Supernatural is.

Of course I expect you to hold the line that the Supernatural can't be tested: since it doesn't exist, and you know this, you know claiming it can be tested would reveal this. By claiming it is an exception - you special plead - you can continue the farce.

Of course I don’t believe what is logically impossible. You can address that or continue this empty rhetoric.

So you don't believe in the Supernatual now?

I argued philosophy alone is useless. You claimed otherwise with no evidence or philosophical argument.

Okay, then you used philosophy alone to argue that philosophy alone is useless. That still puts you in a logical fix that has halted our ability to explore my case (which isn’t philosophy alone) for the supernatural.

Do we really need to go into all the examples where philosophy guessed one thing about the universe, only to be disproved by science? It seems you really lost the thread on this.

Explore away. Why you can't admit the value of science is beyond me.

Aristotelian Cosmology: Aristotle's cosmological model, which posited a geocentric universe with Earth at the center, held sway for centuries. It wasn't until the Renaissance and the work of astronomers like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei that the heliocentric model was established, effectively disproving Aristotle's geocentrism.

Vitalism: Philosophers and scientists historically proposed the idea of vitalism, which suggested that living organisms possessed a "vital force" or unique life essence that could not be explained by physical and chemical processes alone. Advances in biology, especially through the work of scientists like Louis Pasteur, led to the development of the theory of germ theory and the understanding that life processes could be explained through chemistry and biology, effectively refuting vitalism.

Descartes' Dualism: René Descartes proposed a mind-body dualism, which posited that the mind and body were distinct substances. While this theory remains philosophically debated, scientific research in neuroscience and psychology has shed light on the complex relationship between the mind and the physical brain, casting doubt on the absolute separation of these two entities.

Newtonian Physics: Isaac Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation were groundbreaking and incredibly successful in explaining the physical world for centuries. However, in the early 20th century, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity challenged some of Newton's ideas, particularly in extreme conditions of high speeds and strong gravitational fields. Einstein's theories provided a more accurate description of the universe in these conditions and expanded our understanding of physics.

Phlogiston Theory: In the 18th century, the phlogiston theory suggested that substances contained a "fire-like" element called phlogiston that was released during combustion. Antoine Lavoisier's work on the conservation of mass and the discovery of oxygen led to the downfall of the phlogiston theory and the development of modern chemistry.

Freudian Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory of psychology, which emphasized the importance of unconscious processes and early childhood experiences, was influential in psychology and philosophy for a long time. However, modern psychology and neuroscience have largely moved away from Freudian ideas, relying on more empirical and scientifically testable approaches to understanding the mind.


But, philosophize away, Philosophy Boy! Ignore the material world and I'm sure you'll come up with all the answers! ahahah

[The Tanager]

Now you: explain what the Supernatural is.

You aren’t out of your logical fix yet, so there is no moving forward. Go into the scientific proof where philosophy was wrong about the logical fix you are in. I think science is extremely valuable, but it can’t be illogical. I’m open to being shown you aren’t in a logical fix, either with science or philosophy, alone or mixed together.

Until then, you remain of the belief that my philosophical arguments (that work off of scientific and historical data) cannot give us truth, so there’d be no point in me explaining how we can know the supernatural exists and some characteristics of it.