That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained, so if he invokes the supernatural as an explanation he is not contradicting himself. He doesn't think that scientific explanations are the only explanation as the cartoon does. So, the cartoon (and you) are committing the fallacy of begging the question; of assuming what needs to be proved. That's not very open-minded, is it?

That doesn't seem right to me. If a person says that something cannot be explained scientifically, he isn't saying that it cannot be explained, so if he invokes the supernatural as an explanation he is not contradicting himself. He doesn't think that scientific explanations are the only explanation as the cartoon does. So, the cartoon (and you) are committing the fallacy of begging the question; of assuming what needs to be proved

Oh ok

I see

well I think the point the creator is making is that appealing to the supernatural = laziness

Because you can just make up whatever you want

It's lazy

Goddidit answers are always lazy

how do we know when God does something

we don't

that's why Goddidit is lazy

Oh ok

I see

well I think the point the creator is making is that appealing to the supernatural = laziness

I disagree, I think the point he is trying to make is that there is no "super-natural", everthing can be understood and become natural, and thus people should always study things scientifically rather than accepting super-natural notions. Kinda like: If you see a car floating around, all you know is that the car was floating and you dont know how, if you dont know how, you shouldnt assume it was ghosts, god, or anything from the like, nor the fact the car was floating can endorse such beliefs.

I disagree, I think the point he is trying to make is that there is no "super-natural", everthing can be understood and become natural, and thus people should always study things scientifically rather than accepting super-natural notions. Kinda like: If you see a car floating around, all you know is that the car was floating and you dont know how, if you dont know how, you shouldnt assume it was ghosts, god, or anything from the like, nor the fact the car was floating can endorse such beliefs.

you don't disagree with me, that's what I mean

I would go further to say that when someone evokes the supernatural for an explanation, they are really often confusing themselves into thinking they have an explanation when really, they have said nothing about the event.

When person X say: 'A ghost moved my lamp', they are in effect saying 'something made my lamp move, I am certain it was a creature I know is an ontological possibility'

A creature is ontologically possible if and only if it is verifiable in principal. Furthermore; a creature is supernatural if and only if it is not verifiable, otherwise it is natural and has some measurable effect (sense data is measurable in terms of biochemistry). You can sense something if and only if it is natural and in the domain of science.

So if you claim that the creature was supernatural, or has no possible scientific explanation, your sentence automatically reduces to 'Something made my lamp move, I know that nothing did it'. This is a result of the confusion caused by language like 'supernatural being' which is a contradiction but does not seem like one to someone who is not well versed in science or they do not have a clear meaning behind what they say.

In short, supernatural claims are symptomatic of muddled or unclear thinking resulting in unclear communication. If you do not have a clear conception of a 'ghost', then saying 'a ghost did it' as some sort of final answer is essentially a contradiction.

But what if a person has a clear conception of a ghost?

What is a "clear conception of a ghost"?

I feel a BS warning coming on.