Posted: Aug 24, 2018 10:09 pm
by Cito di Pense
What's the default position? Is it that there isn't anything supernatural or that there will always be stuff that isn't fully-understood? I beg to differ with you if you're saying these two points have anything to do with one another. It's the woo-heads who invert it and say "Because there is stuff that isn't well-understood, we must allow for the supernatural as a possibility". That isn't an argument, because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

I appreciate that it's easier to tear down a crummy argument than it is to make a good one of your own. Here you have failed to form an argument, and are only getting yourself mixed up by the inversion of a bad argument. That inversion is: "Even though there is stuff that is not well-understood, we need not allow for the supernatural." To turn that into an argument, explain why you can't just omit what looks like the premise there, and say, "We need not allow for the supernatural full stop," which is what I've been saying for awhile, now. It was the goat-roasters who admitted the supernatural because they were scared shitless by all the stuff they didn't understand.