“Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not.”
An observation is an observation?
Stayed up all night working that one out?
Thing is, science depends on repeatable observations. one guy saying ‘i saw a leprechaun’ isn’t really an observation until everyone can see him. Until we can develop a method or describe a place where we can dependably see one.
“And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.”
Why would you presume that? The entire THEME of leprechauns is that they cannot be caught easily. and since magic is involved, if we can’t film one, it may be that they exist, but they cannot be videoed. We cannot use the lack of leprechauns on Youtube as compelling evidence that they cannot exist.
“The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......”
Well, that’s backwards.
We need a repeatable method of interaction before we can objectively determine if the divine is real. and again, because it’s supernatural, we can’t be SURE that we’ll be able to contact the divine if the divine doesn’t want to.
“and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.”
No, it’s under the definition of science as purely naturalistic. it doesn’t deal with the supernatural.
“These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.”
But you just hand-wave the concerns of the supernatural.
“I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.”
And the magic believer insists that his choice won, even if we can’t see his marker.
