Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • If they were indeed different fundamental "laws," they would simply be newly discovered natural laws, not supernatural. - Why? Why can't there be supernatural laws? What's the problem? Commented Apr 27, 2024 at 0:44
  • Your reasoning slips into circular logic - using the idea that supernatural forces are "predictable due to different reasons" to justify being able to predict them. This is tautological. - I'm not arguing that the supernatural is in fact predictable, I'm just entertaining an epistemic possibility. Commented Apr 27, 2024 at 0:46
  • Feel free to respond by posting an answer to this question: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/112439/66156 Commented Apr 27, 2024 at 10:52
  • The problem that you are adding unneeded entity "supernatural". There is Universe and there are laws. New undiscovered laws are just added to the big picture, that's all. And it is being done all the time btw since the beginning of human thought. You can entertain yourself with any "supernatural" but it's the same if you entertain yourself with elves and gnomes, cause "why not". Feel free, but don't expect others to take part in your fantasies. :) Commented Apr 28, 2024 at 23:07
  • Would you like to post an answer to this question: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/112439/66156 ? Commented Apr 29, 2024 at 1:35