This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Refuting supernatural

QuestioningKat's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by QuestioningKat

Comment 18 by Slightly Permanent :

Just because something isn't visible/tangible, doesn't mean it isn't there. The limited scope of human perception amuses me in it's infinite arrogance. For instance, if somebody breaks wind silently, we may smell it but not be aware of it's initial point of creation and emission. It's a rather crude analogy, I am aware of that - but it's late and I require rest.

Not sure of your view here...We know about our digestive system and whether or not we know the exact person who caused the gas, we understand this phenomenon. Smell is still considered evidence as much as sight and touch.

Are you trying to say that just because the supernatural isn't visible or tangible doesn't mean it isn't there? If so, why jump to that conclusion? Out of all the explanations why assign it to a supernatural cause? What is arrogant is jumping to the conclusion that something supernatural is the cause rather than searching for a more likely answer.

One argument is as follows: If someone claims that they have a dog and you see no evidence of the dog in the person's home or elsewhere - no bowl, no toys, no fur, no scratch marks on the floor, no dog smells, no leash, no photos of the dog, no stools, no dog, nor anything that supports the person's claim that they have a dog, you really have no way of confirming that they have a dog because no evidence was given. You could question where the dog is and get a far fetched answer. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:18:31 UTC | #949029