The Epistemology Challenge for the Supernatual

[ShortbusMooner]

Things that go 'bump' in the night... ;)

[TheEfkk]

Richard Carrier defines the supernatural as the belief that there exists ontologically basic mental entities. This fits with gods and most other woo-woo etc.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@TheEfkk

As far as I know all mental states equate to a physical state. No such thing as a mind absent of any physical substance.

[TheEfkk]

@TheAtheistPaladin I agree. That is why we do not believe in the supernatural. But it is a roughly positive definition, that can be tested (and has arguably much, much more evidence against it than for it).

[rozeboosje]

I think you arrived at the correct conclusion about 1 1/2 minutes in: the BS is not worth talking about XD

[TruthSurge]

my questions exactly. If we cannot detect it in any meaningful and obvious way, then ... why even believe there is something there? it has no influence on our daily lives.

[frabjous79]

Interesting points, but I guess I don't understand why the definition can't use negatives.

[wideosvatcher]

how do i know supernatural stuff? ma and pa told me......oh granny too they never lied so there ya go

(sarcasm)

[OpenAirAtheist]

Or I could send link through skype lol great vid man: )

[OpenAirAtheist]

Thefunkytheist really should be watching this! Send to him!!!!

[TheAtheistPaladin]

@OpenAirAtheist

I think he is subed. So if he doesn't say anything in a day or two then I will send.

[pyrrho314]

if you don't define it, you can't investigate if it exists. The supernatural cannot be investigated if it's really "beyond our reach". But more simply, most refuse to define God, and so there is no quesiton if he exists.