@Neithan asked: Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

[Economist]

In another thread we started a conversation with @Neithan about the concept of theism and atheism. Neithan presented a question: Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible? And since this line of thought did not really belong to that sub-forum, we agreed to explore it here in the philosophy section. Obviously everyone is welcome to chip in.

So here comes. Let’s start with the “natural”. It designates the physical world, which can be discovered and analyzed by our senses are their extensions - as long as the information can reach us. The events which happen outside the “light cone” or inside the “Schwarzshield radius” (black hole) cannot be discovered, because there are no information-bearing elements that can be analyzed - at least according to our current knowledge.

Now, the concept of supernatural: Anything and everything that is not part of the STEM (space, time, energy and matter), but which is able to interact with the physical universe. How could that be? There are four forces, the strong and weak nucleonic forces, the electromagnetic force and gravitation. There is also a hypothesized Higgs force, but there is no evidence for it.

Any physical interaction happens with exchanging elementary particles. As such to stipulate some non-physical and yet physically active entity is tantamount to magic. There are some people who assert some paranormal existence (telekinesis, ESP, etc), but any experiment to validate that concept came back with a resounding “No such thing!” label written on it.

But that does not invalidate the existence of supernatural or paranormal. Since our knowledge of the reality is always provisional, always ready to be expanded or invalidated as our information database keeps growing, we can never say with absolute certainty that we know “everything”.

So the answer to Neithan’s question is: “Yes, it is possible that there are so far undiscovered facets of reality”. But that would need such a drastic re-evaluation of our existing knowledge that it is extremely unlikely - but not mathematically impossible - that such a state of affairs ever arises. The point is that our knowledge is not just a pile separate pieces of information. Everything is interconnected. It is impossible what our knowledge (zillions of times verified) about the laws of the electromagnetic forces is invalid, but the knowledge of quantum-mechanics still holds.

The question, however, is: does the adjective “supernatural” applicable for these theoretical expansions of our knowledge base? After all, everything that happens, happens here in nature. Another point is that the idea of “super”-natural implies “sub”-natural. Or simply “un”-natural. And that is - well, let’s just say - rather nonsensical.

 

[Neithan]

Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

This should be the thread title.

 

[Economist]

This should be the thread title.

Included…

 

[IWantGod]

Or simply “un”-natural. And that is - well, let’s just say - rather nonsensical.

It implies that physical reality itself is an artificial reality.

It is only nonsensical if you have made the mistake of assuming that to have a natural order is the same thing as naturally existing or that it is natural for reality to be physical.

We speak of a natural world primarily because things generally act according to their own nature and not according to the direct manipulation of a transcendent intellect. For example, it is not Zeus throwing lighting bolts but rather it is a completely natural process. This, both scientists and Christians can agree upon.

The metaphysical naturalist comes along and argues that not only are there natural processes, but rather physical reality is the entirety of existence itself and it exists necessarily. In other-words, physical reality naturally exists. On occasion they will also make the mistake of claiming that science supports that position.

 

[Neithan]

It seems like you have already conceded that the supernatural (something there is, that is not space, time, energy or matter) is metaphysically possible; but you believe it is highly unlikely. That is a bit of a different question, as in: do you accept that the supernatural is probable, or that the supernatural actually is, rather than is possible.

The question, however, is: does the adjective “supernatural” applicable for these theoretical expansions of our knowledge base?

Do you mean, does “supernatural” have any explanatory power? I would argue that nature does not explain itself, and we must appeal to something that is not STEM, but the source of STEM. While we have made many recent advances in the past century to understand the physical laws of nature, they don’t negate the logic of the old metaphysical arguments, and I personally find the cosmological argument a compelling reason to posit that nature requires a supernatural explanation — some non-contingent, necessary existent, that is not a part of STEM.

 

[Economist]

It seems like you have already conceded that the supernatural (something there is, that is not space, time, energy or matter) is metaphysically possible; but you believe it is highly unlikely. That is a bit of a different question, as in: do you accept that the supernatural is probable, or that the supernatural actually is, rather than is possible.

No, I don’t believe it. I believe that there are so far undiscovered forces of nature, but I don’t believe that there can be “paranormal” forces, or “let there be light, and there was light”. Of course there are many “things” out there, which are not composed of particles, and those are the concepts, ideas and abstractions. However these are all “inert” things, and they only exist in our minds.

Do you mean, does “supernatural” have any explanatory power?

It does not. I will translate it: “and unknowable entity, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen.” And that is not an explanation.

While we have made many recent advances in the past century to understand the physical laws of nature, they don’t negate the logic of the old metaphysical arguments, and I personally find the cosmological argument a compelling reason to posit that nature requires a supernatural explanation — some non-contingent, necessary existent, that is not a part of STEM.

If that is what you believe, that is fine. Of course it immediately raises the question: how does that “nebulous” non-physical “stuff” exist, and how does it “explain” its own existence. By the way the expression: “explains itself” is linguistically nonsensical. A proper way would be: it needs no explanation or its existence is self-explanatory. Of course, no chain of explanations can go indefinitely, there must be a starting point, which is self-evident, or a “brute fact”.

As far as I am concerned, none of this is helpful. The concept: “universe” designates everything that exists. Elementary linguistics. The negation: “nothing” is not metaphysically possible. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontologically existing entity. You cannot point at something and declare: “you see - that IS nothing”. And as such, the universe necessarily exists, since the opposite is impossible.

Now, I don’t deny that it is possible that the universe consists of two parts, a physical and a non-physical realm. I see no reason for this assumption, but it cannot be ruled out. How could one discover the non-physical realm, if there would be no interaction between the two? The answer, one could not. The physical realm depends on the laws of nature, the forces, the particles and the laws governing their activities. But, of course the theist hypothesis is that there IS an interaction between the two realms. And that is where the problem arises. It is called the interface question. If the two realms interact, then the interface belongs to both, and as such the non-physical could be “unmasked” - in the physical part of the existence. So the non-physical realm could be discovered by us, if existed.

 

[Neithan]

Of course, no chain of explanations can go indefinitely, there must be a starting point, which is self-evident, or a “brute fact”.

Would the brute fact be a part of nature? I don’t think it could be, because then it would be a part of STEM, which is part of the chain of explanations.

By the way the expression: “explains itself” is linguistically nonsensical. A proper way would be: it needs no explanation or its existence is self-explanatory.

OK nature is not self-explanatory. It is contingent and unnecessary; but that would require a non-contingent, necessary thing, or else there would not be anything at all (which, as you observe, is not metaphysically possible). Can the “brute fact” satisfy this?

The concept: “universe” designates everything that exists. Elementary linguistics.

That’s begging the question, though. You can re-define words to include your assumptions; but if the universe is all STEM, it is not self-explanatory.

 

[Economist]

Would the brute fact be a part of nature? I don’t think it could be, because then it would be a part of STEM, which is part of the chain of explanations.

It is the starting point in the chain of explanations. That is why it is a brute fact.

OK nature is not self-explanatory.

Why not?

It is contingent and unnecessary.

Which meaning of “contingent” and “unnecessary” do you use here? The phrase “necessary existence” means that it cannot not exist. The universe satisfies this criterion - because its negation would be “nothing”, which is just an abstraction, not an ontologically existing state of affairs.

Any particular element within the universe could not exist - logically! There is no logical necessity for electrons to exist, they simply exist. It is logically possible that all the elementary particles could be substituted by their “anti” counterparts (positrons vs. electrons, anti-protons instead of protons, etc.) but that is not the case. Why not? Just not. This is a brute fact, for which there is no explanation, and which does not require an explanation. As I said, explanations cannot extend to infinity, there must be a starting point.

One of the fundamental errors in all the so-called philosophical “proofs” for God’s existence that they try to extrapolate from the particular to the whole. And that is not obvious. True, from the premise that all the tiles are white, it does follow logically that the whole floor is white, but from the fact that every tile is square it does NOT follow that the whole floor is square. As such the extrapolation is not automatically correct.

You can re-define words to include your assumptions; but if the universe is all STEM, it is not self-explanatory.

I am not RE-defining words, only use their actual meaning. Now, the definition (the universe is everything that exists) allows for the existence of some non-physical and yet physically active entities (supernatural or “spiritual” beings). Since these hypothesized entities (allegedly) interact with the physical universe, they can be detected. Can you devise an epistemological method to detect them?

Because “epistemology” is the “king”. Without a sufficient epistemological method all we have is assumptions, or hypotheses. Of course they are extremely valuable, but not sufficient. We need a method to separate the wheat from the chaff, to eliminate the incorrect hypotheses from the good ones.

And this is where the proverbial substance hits the fan. The atheist or naturalist performs the appropriate experiment and if the result conforms with the prediction, the hypothesis is substantiated - but NEVER proven! (The word “proof” is reserved to axiomatic or deductive systems, while the inductive or open systems use the concept of substantiation, and the result is always temporary, subject to review if necessary.) What kind of experiment can the theist offer to substantiate the existence of the supernatural?

 

[Neithan]

It is the starting point in the chain of explanations. That is why it is a brute fact.

I’m curious about this brute fact. Is it within space, time, energy, matter? How do we know it when we see it? Is it self-explanatory? How can something that is STEM be self-explanatory?

Nature is not self-explanatory because all of STEM is contingent, and requires an explanation for its existence. If the brute fact does not explain its existence, it seems anti-rational and anti-scientific. “Just because.”

The cosmological argument does not require a part-to-whole syllogism in the classic sense. If everything STEM is contingent, then there is no part-to-whole inference. We are looking for something that isn’t there. The supernatural would not be so much “outside” as something that nature requires. To say the universe as a whole “just is” even though everything in it is contingent, is special pleading.

As for an epistemological method to detect immaterial substances and how they interact with matter (interface problem), I would leave that for now lest this get too unwieldy and focus here on the metaphysical possibility of the supernatural, even though we don’t know what that is. It is possible to know that something is, without knowing what exactly it is. I would encourage you to move everything that nature does not require for an explanation but is not STEM into the “preternatural” category and leave the “supernatural” as a descriptor only for that which nature requires for its existence.

 

[Techno2000]

Do you accept that the supernatural is metaphysically possible?

If you don’t believe in the supernatural…then the Devil has got you right where he wants you.

 

[Pattylt]

Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is?

 

[Techno2000]

Do you realize how ridiculous this statement is?

And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Babaganoush]

As far as I can see all things can be explained through science, except for consciousness and individuality. As long as we don’t consider our own existence as part of the question then the existence of a metaphysical reality becomes meaningless. The question is, how do I exist, and also how do other people exist. We are all presumably non-repeatable and distinct. So what is it that makes us distinct? It’s not our dna, there are twins with identical dna. It’s not the combination of atoms or the particular cells, because they are all replaced over time. It’s not memories, because we were distinct prior to our memories. You can say you are your brain but that says nothing because how is it that your brain produces you rather than someone else.

The only possible explanations I can think of are the western religious concept of a soul and consequently God. Or the denial of distinction between individuals, and consequently I would always exist. So either God is the brute fact or I am the brute fact. I lean toward the former because all of my experience and all of the facts point to distinction between individuals. Either way, a materialist approach doesn’t work.

 

[Economist]

I’m curious about this brute fact. Is it within space, time, energy, matter? How do we know it when we see it? Is it self-explanatory? How can something that is STEM be self-explanatory?

Not “within”. It simply IS. What does the expression “self-explanatory” MEAN? As I said, I am amenable to ponder the hypothesis that the universe (everything that exists) contains two parts, the physical and the non-physical. I am even willing to consider that the non-physical is primary, and it somehow created the physical. But that hypothesis needs to be substantiated. How does that non-physical exist? What are its attributes? How does the non-physical effect the physical? These are fundamental questions, and need answers.

But I am not amenable to assume that there is something outside the universe, or that something existed before the universe, or that there is a causative agent independent of the universe.

To say the universe as a whole “just is” even though everything in it is contingent, is special pleading.

Not special pleading, rather understanding that the “container” (or set) has different attributes than the “elements” that make up the container. For example, a library is composed of books, and every element (book) has an author, a publisher, etc … and every book is composed of pages, has some text on those pages. Yet, the container (the library) does not have those attributes, but it has a lot of different ones, which the individual books do not have. So you need much more than saying that the collection is contingent. What does the word “contingent” mean?

Plantinga and other philosophers like the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence. But these words are NOT the same as the colloquial usage. They are related to the concept of “possible worlds”, which mean a state of affairs that is different from our existing world in some detail.

As for an epistemological method to detect immaterial substances and how they interact with matter (interface problem), I would leave that for now lest this get too unwieldy and focus here on the metaphysical possibility of the supernatural, even though we don’t know what that is. It is possible to know that something is, without knowing what exactly it is.

That is also acceptable. In mathematics there are two kinds of proofs, “existential” and “constructive”. There are instances, when we can prove that “there is a number for which something holds…” but we don’t know what that number IS. It is far inferior to the constructive proofs, but they exist, provided that we can - theoretically !!! - create a constructive version.

But that does not help at all. What are the attributes of this “non-physical” existence? How does it interact with the physical? And the word you used: “preternatural” is another expression that needs to be defined, or “explained”. Moreover, why and how does the non-physical stand alone, and "explains itself?

Continued below…

 

[Economist]

Let me give a short summary.

1. The naturalists accept the worldview that everything that exists is either composed of particles / forces and the non-physical attributes, relationships and activities of the material foundation. We can directly and indirectly observe them, create hypotheses about them, set up experiments and verify the validity of those hypotheses. This worldview has been tested and verified literally innumerable times, and has not been found wanting. In one word, it is the ontological foundation is the universe.
2. The theist’s approach is different. Its basic assumption is a non-physical foundation, which is not observable either directly or indirectly, but something that supposed to be able to interact with the physical reality. Of course the interaction COULD be caught it the interface, but so far there was no experiment that could verify this interface. On the contrary, every experiment denies the existence of this interface. So, its ontological foundation is something that is not observable, which cannot be verified.

So, what is the point? What and how does it help?

 

[Economist]

If you don’t believe in the supernatural…then the Devil has got you right where he wants you.

I am always open to receive a visit either from God or the “devil”. So far they both declined the invitation. And that is not my fault.

 

[Economist]

As far as I can see all things can be explained through science, except for consciousness and individuality.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

 

[Babaganoush]

Evidence for what? That science can’t explain consciousness or individuality? Any scientist will admit that they can’t explain it. It isn’t a controversial point. They don’t know what consciousness is. They can’t even demonstrate that consciousness exists. Otherwise we would have much better tests than the turing test to demonstrate whether a machine is conscious.

 

[Techno2000]

Let me give a short summary.

1. The naturalists accept the worldview that everything that exists is either composed of particles / forces and the non-physical attributes, relationships and activities of the material foundation. We can directly and indirectly observe them, create hypotheses about them, set up experiments and verify the validity of those hypotheses. This worldview has been tested and verified literally innumerable times, and has not been found wanting. In one word, it is the ontological foundation is the universe.
2. The theist’s approach is different. Its basic assumption is a non-physical foundation, which is not observable either directly or indirectly, but something that supposed to be able to interact with the physical reality. Of course the interaction COULD be caught it the interface, but so far there was no experiment that could verify this interface. On the contrary, every experiment denies the existence of this interface. So, its ontological foundation is something that is not observable, which cannot be verified.

So, what is the point? What and how does it help?

You’re overthinking everything, what is needed is simple childlike faith.

 

[Economist]

Any scientist will admit that they can’t explain it.

Who are those “any scientists”?

The brain consists of two parts, the white cells and the grey cells. The information processing that happens in the grey cells is the conscious part. The overwhelming information processing happens in the white cells, which are not accessible to the grey cells. If we would have to consciously regulate our hearts, or the lungs, or the stomach acids, etc… we would not last more than a few seconds. The information processing capacity in the grey cells is very small, less than a few bytes per second. The information processing capability in the white cells is much, much more!

As for the individuality, the answer is the different configuration of the neural network. A simple operation of severing the frontal lobe from the rest of the brain (called lobotomy) gets rid of the “personality”.

A machine is conscious if it can exhibit the traits that are associated with consciousness. How do you know if a human is conscious? As long as it exhibits the traits we associate with consciousness, we accept that this human is conscious.