"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir at sympatico.can> wrote in message news:<jbysxveflzcngvpbpna.hq2i1i0.pminews at news1.sympatico.ca>...
> On 17 Dec 2003 07:42:51 -0800, keith wrote:
>> >Supernatural or natural seems to me to just be a sort of explanation
> >*for* the experience.
> >
> >Keith
>> So you claim X has a supernatural origin or cause. So? You can't prove that
> it does -- nor can you prove that it doesn't. The claim therefore is
> irrelevant, except perhaps to other believers. (But some of those other
> believers might disagree with you; and some of those might be so exercised by
> your heretical claim that they'd want to kill you.....)
Actually I didn't claim in the above that *anything* was supernatural
(I am a Christian though so I do make the claim sometimes). I was just
trying to get a handle on your statement that we can only experience
things as natural. You say we can't prove an event was supernaturally
caused, which requires a clarification of what it means to *prove* a
claim. I'd say that every proof depends on some presupposed assumption
and that if a person is sufficiently skeptical he won't accept that
presupposition and will not be convinced by the proof. *And*, given
that he doesn't accept the presupposition it be irrational for him
*too* be convinced by the proof. If that's what you mean, I agree we
can't prove supernatural causation. Of course by the same principle we
can't prove *natural* causation either. Anyway, to say that a claim is
irrelevant raises the question "relevant to what?". If the claim is
true it *is* relevant to the truth, but if it can't be proved it is
irrelevant to the task of convincing a skeptic. So in what sense did
*you* mean to use the word?
Keith