An answer for borrofburi

[Anachronous Rex]

I think VyckRo actually makes a fair point, and thunderf00t slipped up in that video, or at least did not explain himself well enough.

Firstly, tf00t states the condition. If you are a christian you have to believe in witches, wizards and demons.

VyckRo, successfully establishes that there are loads of people who believe in witches, wizards and demons. Even showing that indeed there are people out their who would call themselves witches.

The effectiveness of these so called witches is of no consequence, because the initial condition was simply if you believe in them or not. Not if they actually existed or even if magic was real.

As borro said immediately above this comment, it mostly comes down to a difference of intended meaning. I don't doubt that some christians fully believe in our definition of witches (and VyckRo might be one of them) but I would guess that this only constitutes a small fraction of the Christian population. I could be entirely wrong though.

This does bring up an interesting angle on Christianity. If someone could prove that witches exist, it would help support the notion of Christianity (at least circumstantially)...

If you can prove the supernatural it is no longer supernatural.

Reality is funny like that.

 

[stratos]

I think VyckRo actually makes a fair point, and thunderf00t slipped up in that video, or at least did not explain himself well enough.

Firstly, tf00t states the condition. If you are a christian you have to believe in witches, wizards and demons.

VyckRo, successfully establishes that there are loads of people who believe in witches, wizards and demons. Even showing that indeed there are people out their who would call themselves witches.

The effectiveness of these so called witches is of no consequence, because the initial condition was simply if you believe in them or not. Not if they actually existed or even if magic was real.

As borro said immediately above this comment, it mostly comes down to a difference of intended meaning. I don't doubt that some christians fully believe in our definition of witches (and VyckRo might be one of them) but I would guess that this only constitutes a small fraction of the Christian population. I could be entirely wrong though.

This does bring up an interesting angle on Christianity. If someone could prove that witches exist, it would help support the notion of Christianity (at least circumstantially)...

yeah, but as I've said, the point is not if witches exist, it is if you believe they exist. and in that respect, witches have a lot more going for them then god does.

Which brings me to what borro said,

different definition of "exist". His definition is "people who attempt to supernaturally influence the real world", while our definition is "people who successfully supernaturally influence the real world".

Which is a non argument. We don't believe god exist yet christians are still christians. Witches do witchcraft. The "effectiveness" of their witchcraft does not detract from the fact that it is witchcraft. In the same way that we don't say christians don't exist because praying doesn't really work.

But the existence of witches is beyond the point as I stated before. The point is if christians believe in them or not. Their true existence is irrelevant.

 

[JustBusiness17]

As borro said immediately above this comment, it mostly comes down to a difference of intended meaning. I don't doubt that some christians fully believe in our definition of witches (and VyckRo might be one of them) but I would guess that this only constitutes a small fraction of the Christian population. I could be entirely wrong though.

This does bring up an interesting angle on Christianity. If someone could prove that witches exist, it would help support the notion of Christianity (at least circumstantially)...

If you can prove the supernatural it is no longer supernatural.

Reality is funny like that.

Huh... I never thought of it that way :|

 

[borrofburi]

If you can prove the supernatural it is no longer supernatural.

Reality is funny like that.

I've always found this to be pedantic for at least two reasons.

The first is: not true; if we investigate and find out that, yes, making a funny soup, drinking it, and doing a funny dance *will* make it rain, it's still supernatural (at least until we understand it better, and possibly forever).

The second is: it's a word game; you've redefined supernatural to mean "doesn't actually happen at all in reality" and natural to mean "anything we see in reality", but that's just silly because it's not what people mean when they say "supernatural", rather people mean "something that is unexplainable by (current) natural laws", and indeed witchcraft actually working would fit that definition.

I guess technically reasons (1) and (2) are essentially the same.

 

[DepricatedZero]

If you can prove the supernatural it is no longer supernatural.

Reality is funny like that.

I've always found this to be pedantic for at least two reasons.

The first is: not true; if we investigate and find out that, yes, making a funny soup, drinking it, and doing a funny dance *will* make it rain, it's still supernatural (at least until we understand it better, and possibly forever).

The second is: it's a word game; you've redefined supernatural to mean "doesn't actually happen at all in reality" and natural to mean "anything we see in reality", but that's just silly because it's not what people mean when they say "supernatural", rather people mean "something that is unexplainable by (current) natural laws", and indeed witchcraft actually working would fit that definition.

I guess technically reasons (1) and (2) are essentially the same.

I dunno. I think it's just an analysis on natural vs supernatural.

If you hold supernatural to be "something that is unexplainable by (current) natural laws" then you reduce theoretical physics to witchcraft.

Rather, it simply means that all things which exist are within nature - whereas supernatural means simply that which is above nature. The supernatural, by definition, is that which does not exist within the purview of nature.

Therefore, something which is supernatural cannot be defined within nature. If it can be defined in nature, even if we don't understand it, it is natural. Titanium, anti-matter, ion drives, nuclear fission, microprocessors, life - these are all things which exist within nature. These are all natural. They don't form naturally, but the processes which allow them to form are part of natural law.

Once we can prove something proposed to be supernatural works, then we have already found it to be natural. As an example, a powder made from white willow bark is cited as far back Hippocrates as being a pain reliever and fever reducer. The Egyptians included an incantation with the medicine. This doesn't mean that the white willow has supernatural healing powers, just that the bark contains part of the compound used in making Aspirin today.

This was a supernatural cure, the Romans labeled their herbalists as witches even.

Because sometimes, a cigar is just tobacco wrapped in a tobacco leaf.

 

[lrkun]

I think VyckRo actually makes a fair point, and thunderf00t slipped up in that video, or at least did not explain himself well enough.

Firstly, tf00t states the condition. If you are a christian you have to believe in witches, wizards and demons.

VyckRo, successfully establishes that there are loads of people who believe in witches, wizards and demons. Even showing that indeed there are people out their who would call themselves witches.

The effectiveness of these so called witches is of no consequence, because the initial condition was simply if you believe in them or not. Not if they actually existed or even if magic was real.

Thunderf00t did not make an error, because the bible is clear when it dictates that that "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch." - Bible

A Christian must believe the following and hold them to be true: (God-Bites-Witches)
1. He or she must believe in God.
2. He or she must believe in the Bible, because it is the word of God.
3. He must believe in witches, because the Bible mentions it.

or if you prefer another format of presentation: (I prefer the bullet form, it's simple, complete, easier mnemonic aid, and saves space)

If a person is a Christian, then he believes in the Bible to be the word of God.
If the Bible is the word of God, then all the words within it from beginning to the end is true.
If the Bible is true, then witches do exist, because it clearly states a passage addressing them.
If he believes in the bible, then it follows that he believes that witches, magic, and others as a part and parcel of reality.

 

[borrofburi]

Once we can prove something proposed to be supernatural works, then we have already found it to be natural.

And this is where I disagree, for two reasons. (1) you have made "supernatural" to be a completely useless word (because it doesn't describe anything, we might as well use "fantasy" only) (2) I maintain that if we found a shaman who really did speak to otherworldy spirits of, for example, the type Hytegia was always talking about, the type that can influence our real world, it would remain supernatural, at the very least until we understood it much better. It's so far out of our experience and natural laws that it really is something uniquely unexpected, and I really think the label "supernatural" would apply.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Once we can prove something proposed to be supernatural works, then we have already found it to be natural.

And this is where I disagree, for two reasons. (1) you have made "supernatural" to be a completely useless word (because it doesn't describe anything, we might as well use "fantasy" only) (2) I maintain that if we found a shaman who really did speak to otherworldy spirits of, for example, the type Hytegia was always talking about, the type that can influence our real world, it would remain supernatural, at the very least until we understood it much better. It's so far out of our experience and natural laws that it really is something uniquely unexpected, and I really think the label "supernatural" would apply.

Of course, the problem is that if a thing can be studded at all, in enters into the realm of natural science. In all honesty, I sympathize with your position; I've actually tried to go at this both ways.

The problem is, theists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. In many arguments over this issue I have been unable to prevail upon them that supposedly supernatural 'miracles' could ever be studded scientifically - even when they have observable results. Thereby suggesting that the supernatural must necessarily lie outside the realm of the natural. At the same time they insist that the supernatural does impeach upon, and even sustain, the natural in ways that are clearly observable if true (if earthquakes are caused by homosexuality, then we ought to be able to measure that.)

I think perhaps we should merely concede on all our parts that the word "supernatural" is extraordinarily unuseful and difficult to define.

 

[DepricatedZero]

if earthquakes are caused by homosexuality, then we ought to be able to measure that.

You forget, my good sir, that earthquakes are caused by BOOBIES!!!

 

[borrofburi]

And this is where I disagree, for two reasons. (1) you have made "supernatural" to be a completely useless word (because it doesn't describe anything, we might as well use "fantasy" only) (2) I maintain that if we found a shaman who really did speak to otherworldy spirits of, for example, the type Hytegia was always talking about, the type that can influence our real world, it would remain supernatural, at the very least until we understood it much better. It's so far out of our experience and natural laws that it really is something uniquely unexpected, and I really think the label "supernatural" would apply.

Of course, the problem is that if a thing can be studded at all, in enters into the realm of natural science. In all honesty, I sympathize with your position; I've actually tried to go at this both ways.

The problem is, theists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. In many arguments over this issue I have been unable to prevail upon them that supposedly supernatural 'miracles' could ever be studded scientifically - even when they have observable results. Thereby suggesting that the supernatural must necessarily lie outside the realm of the natural. At the same time they insist that the supernatural does impeach upon, and even sustain, the natural in ways that are clearly observable if true (if earthquakes are caused by homosexuality, then we ought to be able to measure that.)

I think perhaps we should merely concede on all our parts that the word "supernatural" is extraordinarily unuseful and difficult to define.

Eh, something like that. I am of the opinion that if, for instance, there really were spirits that could influence our natural world, we could test them, but they wouldn't always respond, and it'd be very finicky without a clear cause and effect. Yes, if it influences our world, then science could and should study it and understand it, and thus supernatural would be investigated. But I think to say "the supernatural doesn't and can't exist by definition" is to miss the point: we consider the idea of binding otherworldly spirits to be supernatural, can that exist? Yes, it can, and maybe if it did exist you could argue that makes it "natural", but when you say "the supernatural can't exist" the meaning of that statement, especially colloquially, is that "otherworldly spirits can't exist" (even though, technically, what you're saying is that if otherworldly spirits did exist they'd be natural). It's this word game I object to.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Of course, the problem is that if a thing can be studded at all, in enters into the realm of natural science. In all honesty, I sympathize with your position; I've actually tried to go at this both ways.

The problem is, theists seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. In many arguments over this issue I have been unable to prevail upon them that supposedly supernatural 'miracles' could ever be studded scientifically - even when they have observable results. Thereby suggesting that the supernatural must necessarily lie outside the realm of the natural. At the same time they insist that the supernatural does impeach upon, and even sustain, the natural in ways that are clearly observable if true (if earthquakes are caused by homosexuality, then we ought to be able to measure that.)

I think perhaps we should merely concede on all our parts that the word "supernatural" is extraordinarily unuseful and difficult to define.

Eh, something like that. I am of the opinion that if, for instance, there really were spirits that could influence our natural world, we could test them, but they wouldn't always respond, and it'd be very finicky without a clear cause and effect.

True, but there are plenty of things in the natural world that are like this as well... from neutrinos and quantum mechanics to animal and behavioral psychology.

But I think to say "the supernatural doesn't and can't exist by definition" is to miss the point: we consider the idea of binding otherworldly spirits to be supernatural, can that exist? Yes, it can, and maybe if it did exist you could argue that makes it "natural"

Indeed it would. To argue otherwise would be to say that everything unknown to us is supernatural. Dinosaurs were supernatural before 1842 (or thereabouts), until quite recently Lithium-ion batteries were supernatural. The supernatural, like miracles, is impossible by definition; only that which can happen does happen.

but when you say "the supernatural can't exist" the meaning of that statement, especially colloquially, is that "otherworldly spirits can't exist" (even though, technically, what you're saying is that if otherworldly spirits did exist they'd be natural). It's this word game I object to.

If I were interested in being colloquial I wouldn't be posting here.

Look, I'm not interested in games, but theists often play 'supernatural' to mean, "it influences reality, but science can't detect it." They then feel free to jump to whatever bombastic assertion they like about what caused what natural event because, after all, we can't prove them wrong even if we have an entirely adequate explanation that does not require intervention.

They have no explanation for how such a thing might work, and no justification for asserting that it even exists at all. The word is functionally indistinguishable from magic, and refers to nothing particular.

Now if... if you could demonstrate some sort of existence separate from the natural laws and properties we observe in the universe, that at least would be something. Provided of course it did not interact in any way with us (otherwise it would necessarily be natural) It still wouldn't justify the 'super' moniker, a better descriptor be 'paranatural,' but at least it would be something.