An Infinite Past?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Seems to me that the only determination that could be made is that the change couldn't be attributed to any known cause.

I would agree to that.

Methodology couldn't account for an event that can't be reproduced at will - or so I had thought.

It seemed that Seer's issue was that he had some hypothesis upon which science cannot speak. I am unaware of the specifics of that hypothesis, as well as the method by which Seer came to it, but I thought he might like a chance to offer his own position rather than simply pointing to the perceived limitations of others.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Why not? The process of elimination. If there is no natural cause why can't we pose a supernatural cause? Even if we do not know the mechanism?

The fact that we do not know of a natural cause is not equivalent to the actual absence of a natural cause. That would be an Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy.

But supernatural events or spiritual properties would not be open to specific methodologies. How could they be, so you hobble me from the get go.

If there is no way to demonstrate that such hypotheses are sound, why insist upon their consideration?

[seer]

The fact that we do not know of a natural cause is not equivalent to the actual absence of a natural cause. That would be an Argumentum ad Ignorantium fallacy.

No, I think it would be a pretty good bet to assume the supernatural. Why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events? For instance if you can show me a reasonable natural cause for a recent experience of mine, I would take it out of supernatural consideration:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...re-A-Violation

If there is no way to demonstrate that such hypotheses are sound, why insist upon their consideration?

But you are making me play by your rules, something I have already rejected.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, I think it would be a pretty good bet to assume the supernatural. Why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events?

So you are advocating for a God of the Gaps style of argument?

But you are making me play be your rules, something I have already rejected.

Not at all! Quite the opposite. You are rejecting a set of "rules" for evaluating your claim. I'm asking you to provide a set which you would prefer. I assume that you are not simply saying that a person should accept your hypotheses as sound solely because you have proposed them; in which case, I invite you to describe the "rules" by which you would prefer to operate.

[seer]

So you are advocating for a God of the Gaps style of argument?

Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events?

Not at all! Quite the opposite. You are rejecting a set of "rules" for evaluating your claim. I'm asking you to provide a set which you would prefer. I assume that you are not simply saying that a person should accept your hypotheses as sound solely because you have proposed them; in which case, I invite you to describe the "rules" by which you would prefer to operate.

Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events?

We don't. However, if we are to posit a supernatural cause, how are we to demonstrate this hypothesis to be sound?

Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.

I believe the hypotheses would be that God interacts in history. I am not assuming that materialism is the default position, nor am I insisting that you play by a materialistic set of "rules." I am perfectly willing to entertain a supernatural hypothesis, and I am asking you to define whatever set of rules you would like to support that position.

The only "rules" that I am asking you operate under are those of Logic. I do this only because I assumed that your goal is to have a rational dialectic, rather than the simple assertion of contrarian positions. If this assumption was in error, I welcome correction.

[seer]

We don't. However, if we are to posit a supernatural cause, how are we to demonstrate this hypothesis to be sound?

I believe the hypotheses would be that God interacts in history. I am not assuming that materialism is the default position, nor am I insisting that you play by a materialistic set of "rules." I am perfectly willing to entertain a supernatural hypothesis, and I am asking you to define whatever set of rules you would like to support that position.

The only "rules" that I am asking you operate under are those of Logic. I do this only because I assumed that your goal is to have a rational dialectic, rather than the simple assertion of contrarian positions. If this assumption was in error, I welcome correction.

But again, let's say that is my hypotheses, God interacts in history. Where can I go from there? What would proofs could I possibly offer to support that hypotheses apart from eyewitness testimony, or personal experience? This would not lend itself to scientific investigation, which is what I assume you are after.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But again, let's say that is my hypotheses, God interacts in history. Where can I go from there? What would proofs could I possibly offer to support that hypotheses apart from eyewitness testimony, or personal experience? This would not lend itself to scientific investigation, which is what I assume you are after.

Since you've already rejected investigation by the physical sciences, that's not what I'm after, at all. I'm asking you how it is that you intend to support your position. You can appeal to eyewitness testimony or personal experience, if you'd like, but I will admit that these things are not often very convincing-- as I'm sure you'd agree, in numerous cases for supernatural hypotheses. For example, a Buddhist supporting the idea of reincarnation, or a Norse Heathen testifying to the utility of magic runes, or a Scientologist proposing the existence of body thetans.

Again, I am completely open to the idea of supernatural causation, but considering that we both agree it cannot be demonstrated through our normal means of determining causation, I am curious as to how you intend to support your own hypotheses. If you offer up a position, it is not the responsibility of your audience to do the work involved with supporting that position. I have no idea how to support such a claim, which is why I do not make it. However, you have made such a claim, and I'll reiterate my presumption that you did so with the intention of maintaining a rational dialogue. So, again, I'll ask: how would you demonstrate the veracity of your claims? And, if you cannot think of any method by which to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, why do they even merit discussion?

[seer]

Since you've already rejected investigation by the physical sciences, that's not what I'm after, at all. I'm asking you how it is that you intend to support your position. You can appeal to eyewitness testimony or personal experience, if you'd like, but I will admit that these things are not often very convincing-- as I'm sure you'd agree, in numerous cases for supernatural hypotheses. For example, a Buddhist supporting the idea of reincarnation, or a Norse Heathen testifying to the utility of magic runes, or a Scientologist proposing the existence of body thetans.

Well yes, that is why asking for a hypotheses is ultimately meaningless because in the end it will rely on personal experience or testimony - convincing or not.

Again, I am completely open to the idea of supernatural causation, but considering that we both agree it cannot be demonstrated through our normal means of determining causation, I am curious as to how you intend to support your own hypotheses. If you offer up a position, it is not the responsibility of your audience to do the work involved with supporting that position. I have no idea how to support such a claim, which is why I do not make it. However, you have made such a claim, and I'll reiterate my presumption that you did so with the intention of maintaining a rational dialogue. So, again, I'll ask: how would you demonstrate the veracity of your claims? And, if you cannot think of any method by which to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, why do they even merit discussion?

First, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My point has been, and is, there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation. I linked to a real event of my own experience. Does the fact that I can't demonstrate its veracity to an audience make it any less real? Any less a fact of history than any other fact of history?

[tabibito]

Would this be an acceptable scenario.

You are with someone who commands a mountain to rise from its position and fall into the sea. The mountain duly rises and falls into the sea. You ask the person how he did that, and he says that it is an authority granted him by God.

Would such an event meet requirement, or would you dismiss the claim and insist that there is a perfectly natural but unknown explanation for the event?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well yes, that is why asking for a hypotheses is ultimately meaningless because in the end it will rely on personal experience or testimony - convincing or not.

First, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My point has been, and is, there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation. I linked to a real event of my own experience. Does the fact that I can't demonstrate its veracity to an audience make it any less real? Any less a fact of history than any other fact of history?

Again, I'd have to ask what your purpose is in even mentioning such an event, if you are not trying to convince an audience that they are mistaken in regards to a position.

You wanted to demonstrate that there is no logical reason to assume all phenomena have or need natural explanations. In support of that claim, you proffered an event in your own life which you believe has no natural explanation. That very much seems like you are trying to convince someone of something.

Again, I am assuming that your interest was in actually engendering a rational dialogue. If I was wrong, and you were simply voicing a contrarian position with no intention that anyone actually give your position credence, I apologize.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Would this be an acceptable scenario.

You are with someone who commands a mountain to rise from its position and fall into the sea. The mountain duly rises and falls into the sea. You ask the person how he did that, and he says that it is an authority granted him by God.

Would such an event meet requirement, or would you dismiss the claim and insist that there is a perfectly natural but unknown explanation for the event?

I would not claim to know whether the cause was natural or not.

Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, allow me to modify your example for the purpose of an Ad Absurdum response. Let's say that you are with someone who commands a mountain to rise from its position and fall into the sea. The mountain duly rises and falls into the sea. You ask the person how he did that, and he says that it is an authority granted him by God. However, unbeknownst to you, the gentleman is lying and has actually developed a perfectly natural method by which to produce the effect.

Would you be justified in claiming that, since you could not explain the phenomenon naturally, it must therefore have been supernatural?

[tabibito]

That is the expected response.

So - now you are with the same person. He approaches someone whose right leg is missing from mid thigh level. The person you are with approaches the maimed person and commands that he be made whole. The person's leg is restored in full before your eyes. You ask the person how he did that, and he says that it is an authority granted him by God. Does your response remain the same?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That is the expected response.

So - now you are with the same person. He approaches someone whose right leg is missing from mid thigh level. The person you are with approaches the maimed person and commands that he be made whole. The person's leg is restored in full before your eyes. You ask the person how he did that, and he says that it is an authority granted him by God. Does your response remain the same?

Yes, my response is the same. I would not have enough data, at that point, to be able to say whether the occurrence was natural or supernatural.

Listing a series of hypothetical extraordinary events does not, in any way, provide a method for distinguishing natural events from supernatural events. That is, of course, unless you are defining "supernatural" as simply being synonymous with "extraordinary occurrence with no known cause." However, I do not suspect that this is the case.

[seer]

Again, I'd have to ask what your purpose is in even mentioning such an event, if you are not trying to convince an audience that they are mistaken in regards to a position.

I only mentioned it to point to the fact that not all events have a natural explanation. Whether that is convincing to you or not is immaterial, it is still a fact of history as any other fact of history.

You wanted to demonstrate that there is no logical reason to assume all phenomena have or need natural explanations. In support of that claim, you proffered an event in your own life which you believe has no natural explanation. That very much seems like you are trying to convince someone of something.

No, I did want to demonstrate anything, only that I know from personal experience natural explanations are not always necessary. The other point is that there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation. Especially in light of the fact that our knowledge is so limited and finite.

Again, I am assuming that your interest was in actually engendering a rational dialogue. If I was wrong, and you were simply voicing a contrarian position with no intention that anyone actually give your position credence, I apologize.

Credence according to whom? You? Is your personal experience the rule to which we all must bend?