@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I am not asserting there are segments of existence that ARE unexplainable…and as for segments that MAY BE unexplainable…choose whatever you want. THERE MAY BE segments that are unexplainable.
Based on what rationale have you arrived at this wishy washy position? "There may be"? Since you aren't claiming that there "are" things unexplainable, just that maybe sorta kinda dunno there might be somewhere dunno elsewhere something yada yada, you're giving the concession that no such segment of reality with such a quality of "unexplainability" has been observed. Otherwise, you'd drop your first clause. Being that you don't even care to argue in support of such a segment, am I to accept that some other "segment of reality" exists whose supernature is ellusive to reason? Why?
Frank Apisa wrote:
YOU, on the other hand, ARE asserting “nothing is unexplainable.” That assertion is what I am questioning.
But you're not questioning it. You're playing at semantics.
I'm asserting that things have explanations. I account for error in our own limitations instead of attributing a "unexplainable" property to things yet explained.
You're asserting that maybe some things don't have explanations. This is a far more grand claim.
Frank Apisa wrote:
The burden of proof (or burden of providing ample evidence) falls on you, not on me. I am not taking the position that there are “unexplainable”** components to REALITY…I am just questioning your blanket assertion that there are none…under any circumstances.
**Obviously, one could suggest that even stuff that cannot be explained by natural means could be explained by “other than natural or supernatural” explanations. If that is what you are getting at, I stand corrected. I have a very, very difficult time supposing that is what you are about here.
I disagree. I think you do have a great burden of proof. I've given examples of previously "unexplainable" things that--big surprise--become explainable. You can't demonstrate the existence of single thing which eludes such a rationale.
As for your aside, I already addressed this. Supernatural explanations, are just that: Explanations--poor ones. Calling something "unexplainable" is far more a ridiculous claim. It's the sort of logic employed by the religious to reject logical explanations.
Certainly the universe is full of mystery, but it's mystery to us in our limited exploration in the micro and macro. We don't need to dress up what we don't know as being magical or supernatural. Nature is good enough.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Other than by arbitrarily defining “everything” as stuff that can be explainable…show me why I should accept your (seemingly self-serving) assertion that nothing is unexplainable.
You're misusing arbitrary again, and what exactly is self-serving about my position?
Why you should accept it is simple. You already do. Without second thought, you accept the natural explanation of electricity, disease, and the weather. You do this painlessly. The pain comes with cognitive dissonance trying to force the idea that somewhere something maybe kinda sorta might not be immediately explainable given our ability, so maybe we should jump to the totally hasty conclusion that these theoretical things are the
unrealestate of the supernatural; the "segments of existence" that defy what you have no struggle accepting otherwise. You don't struggle to accept what explanations we do have readily available based on adequate observation and communicated with a well adapted language. You're not mystified by a light bulb.
Frank Apisa wrote:
This thread is (was) discussing why people “believe” in the supernatural. For my purposes, I translated that to mean, why I am unwilling to exclude the possibility of (what we would consider) the supernatural.
That "what we would consider" is no small detail to overlook. Again, think about what we have considered supernatural in the past. Ask yourself if you could ignore modern science's conclusion that the sun is a giant fission reactor made of gas. Could you instead conclude that it is supernatural? If you cannot, then there's no real muscle behind your position because you (despite saying otherwise) very much can and do exclude the possibility of the supernatural. You don't believe the sun is a literally a supernatural being, do you?
Why the ability to discard reasoning is held up as noble is beyond me. The idea of being open to all things isn't a great measure of critical thinking. I think you can exclude the supernatural without absolute knowledge.
Do I know if there is supernatural? No.
Have I been convinced to believe in the supernatural? No compelling case has been made--No.
I.e. - You don't know 100% the tooth fairy isn't real. But hey, have an open mind! We shouldn't exclude it! Might as well call it a draw!
A
R
T
