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


← Refuting supernatural

Genericguy's Avatar Jump to comment 162 by Genericguy

Comment 161 by Schrodinger's Cat :

The problem with 'supernatural' is that it is no more than a semantic fudge. It's a concept that manages to mean 'exists' and 'doesnt exist' depending on what stage of the crazy loop of argument for it one is at. One minute it means outside nature....which to all extents and purposes means 'does not exist'....but then 5 minutes later the supporter is arguing for it as if it had literal existence.

The purpose of my being here is to establish a set of rules, lacking ambiguity and speculation, that can be used to determine a subjects title of natural or supernatural. Unfortunately, although i understand it is most likely true, equating supernatural and non-existence is based on speculation. We can never prove a supernatural entity/realm does not exist. Personally, i have never heard a supernatural claim that actually met the criteria of supernatural, but a true supernatural entity/realm would lack, even the ability, to influence nature. Because of this, we can never have knowledge of its existence. Although i will live my life assuming it does not exist, it could possibly exist. It's existence is not dependent upon our knowledge of it.

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:56:56 UTC | #949994