3 ms·
That sounds like circular reasoning to me - you seem to be saying that if we can observe something it must therefore be entirely natural. That doesn't follow,
by NateEag 7y ago
That sounds like circular reasoning to me - you seem to be saying that if we can observe something it must therefore be entirely natural.
That doesn't follow, though. The obvious example would be that if Jesus actually rose from the dead by a miracle, then people who were present could see him and put their hands on his scars.
Is the supernatural inherently not scientifically testable?
Absolutely.
It does not follow that it could never be observed at all, if it exists.
- krapp 7y ago> That sounds like circular reasoning to me - you seem to be saying that if we can observe something it must therefore be entirely natural. I'm saying that we have yet to have observe something which can be proven to be supernatural. Asking whether evidence exists that a phenomenon is strictly natural presumes there exists evidence of something other than nature to classify against. As yet, such evidence to the contrary doesn't exist, so for the time being, all evidence of any phenomenon is of its natural state by definition. >It does not follow that it could never be observed at all, if it exists. The unfortunate paradox of needing to provide evidence of the supernatural is that any such evidence would, by definition, need to be natural, and would contradict the premise. So if it can be observed to begin with, that's evidence that it isn't supernatural.
- lytol 7y agoWell, then it's certainly camera shy.