= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hydkyll comments on Questions on Theism - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (188)
Hm, substitute 'miracle' with 'supernatural phenomenon', then.
("supernatural" still in this sense: A "supernatural" explanation appeals to ontologically basic mental things, mental entities that cannot be reduced to nonmental entities.)
So the question of whether lightning is a supernatural phenomenon or not is now about an empirical fact, not about my own ignorance. If the lightning is due to electrically charged regions in clouds, it's natural. If it's due to Thor's rage and only a god can produce it, it's supernatural.
And of course even if we think that lightning is a supernatural phenomenon it could still be Zeus and not Thor ;)
I think there are supposed to be non mental "supernatural" artifacts as well. Like Thor's hammer.
I find "miracles" and "supernatural" basically placeholders for "we don't follow the rules". It's basically magic. Harry and I still think there would be rules, just new ones.
In the context of the OP, I think miracles are "magic from an entity". He wills it, it is done. The miraculous part isn't the ontologically basic mental thing, but the lack of understanding of how the ontologically mental thing can produce physical effects.
Well played. But there's a huge difference in how you should update given a phenomonon we don't yet understand that seems to have no religious connotation and given one that only occurs in conjunction with prayer. If the leaders in lighting occured ten times more frequently any time someone invoked Thor, I'd call it evidence for Asgard. If there's no religious correlation, I'd call it evidence that we need better meterology.
Ok, now define "ontologically basic".