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

[Economist]

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

1 Corinthians 13:11 said (Kind James version): “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

 

[Neithan]

But I am not amenable to assume […] that there is a causative agent independent of the universe.

Why not, if the reasoning is sound? Why simply shut down this possibility? That’s not rational — it ends this discussion, or any discussion about the supernatural (as an explanation of nature) before it can begin.

“Contingent” means that it is not existentially independent; it’s existence requires an explanation depending on other things existing. All of STEM is contingent in this way. The universe is, too, because it is all of STEM — what is the other attribute that makes the universe different, other than the mere assertion that it is a brute fact? It still looks like special pleading.

My mathematical knowledge is very limited so I can learn a lot more about it. I don’t know about the difference between “existential” and “constructive” proofs. The supernatural is not necessarily a mathematical object, though.

Preternatural means “beyond nature” but to clarify our semantics I would include anything that is theoretically immaterial or non-physical (angels, demons, ghosts) but is not posited as the existential source of physical, material (STEM) nature. [i.e. the supernatural would be the source of nature and preternature, whatever that is.]

The “point” of positing the supernatural is a rational and logical one, because nature is not sufficiently explained — and a brute fact does not seem to explain it, if it’s also STEM. The supernaturalist follows the logic where it leads, and does not accept that something can exist, “just because.” The world of nature does exist, but it’s not a sound conclusion to say it’s all that exists, just because nothingness is impossible.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

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

1 Corinthians 13:11 said (Kind James version): “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 18

 

[Babaganoush]

Your neural network is constantly changing yet you exist through it all, so no it isn’t the difference in neural network. Your frontal lobe changes from birth until death. New neurons are created and old ones destroyed. Yet you existed for the last however many years, and you will continue to exist until you die. People have brain surgery and have parts of their brain removed, yet we presume that the same person wakes up afterward even if they might be a little different emotionally or in some other way.

You don’t know a human is conscious other than by analogy. The only thing that tells you another person is conscious is that they are like you, or they are analogous to you.

Saying they exhibit the traits of consciousness is meaningless. A machine can be created to imitate a human in every respect; that doesn’t make it human or even conscious. It makes it a good machine. You can’t show or make the conclusion that it is conscious. All you can say is that it seems to be.

The fact is that there is no scientific definition of what is consciousness, or what beings or objects exhibit consciousness.

Any scientist means every scientist in the world. They don’t know what consciousness is. They don’t have a definition of it or a definition of what traits comprise consciousness. They can’t demonstrate that it even exists. Yet everyone knows they exist, even if they deny the existence of everything else.

You can say it is a product of the brain, but that is problematic for the same reasons already mentioned.

 

[Economist]

Why not, if the reasoning is sound?

The reasoning is not sound. But I already explained it, so it is useless to repeat it.

“Contingent” means that it is not existentially independent; it’s existence requires an explanation depending on other things existing.

That is the colloquial usage, which is different from the philosophical usage.

The “point” of positing the supernatural is a rational and logical one, because nature is not sufficiently explained — and a brute fact does not seem to explain it, if it’s also STEM.

I am aware that this is your position - but it is just your opinion. I already explained the problem of the difference between a collection and its elements. The elements can have attributes that the collection does not have, and the collection can have attributes that the elements do not have. That is why you cannot extrapolate from the elements to the whole. Also has been explained. No need to repeat it.

As a matter of fact, for your side it is God, who is a brute fact. Who “just exists”, and does not require an explanation, who is the ontological foundation of everything. We both start with a brute fact, the difference is that mine is available to our senses and its laws are explainable to us, we can verify its existence, we can make predictions about it, and we can lead our lives according to the knowledge we obtained.

The world of nature does exist, but it’s not a sound conclusion to say it’s all that exists, just because nothingness is impossible.

As I said, you are welcome to present your argument for your side, but it needs to include more than an empty assertion. I am patient. But so far any and all attempts to verify the existence of the supernatural failed. You are also welcome to fabricate new ones. Just make sure that it includes the details.

I would also be interested in presenting an example of a non-physical , and yet physically active corollary of your worldview, for example a “demon”. Allegedly there are methods to invoke a demon, there are methods to detect a demon, and there are method to expel a demon. A perfect example of demonstrating a supernatural entity. There are some people, who are supposed to be able to perform some invocations and “nudge” a demon to manifest itself. Then there are the exorcists, who are supposed to be able to detect a demon, and also exorcise them. What could be simpler? Go for it.

 

[Economist]

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Sorry, I am not interested in “heaven”, if we are required in practicing blind, childish, childlike faith. If God gives us the ability to reason, and then requires us to give up that ability for the BLIND, unquestioning faith, then this God does not deserve any “worshiping”. Childish faith or childlike faith are the same… blind faith. If you like it, you are welcome to practice it, but it is not my cup of tea. I will stick to my tried and tested method, which you called “overthinking”.

Any scientist means every scientist in the world.

That is a tall order to prove.

A machine can be created to imitate a human in every respect; that doesn’t make it human or even conscious.

The question is how do you differentiate the imitation from the real McCoy? This is another very interesting question… which should also be explored in its own thread.

You don’t know a human is conscious other than by analogy. The only thing that tells you another person is conscious is that they are like you, or they are analogous to you.

Exactly. Human is as human does. And I also have neuroscience on my side, and the study of the brain and the neural networks substantiates the position about the brain and consciousness.

 

[Vico]

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.

In Catholic theology, natural includes the natural body and naturally immortal soul of man and naturally immortal angelic pure spirits. Supernatural surpasses natural – the mere powers and capacities of human and angelic natures.

 

[Babaganoush]

That is a tall order to prove

Ok, give me a scientific definition of consciousness and we can start from there.

 

[Babaganoush]

The question is how do you differentiate the imitation from the real McCoy? This is another very interesting question… which should also be explored in its own thread.

The answer is you can’t. Science can’t recognize consciousness. It is something you assume.

Exactly. Human is as human does. And I also have neuroscience on my side, and the study of the brain and the neural networks substantiates the position about the brain and consciousness.

Actions don’t make something human and it doesn’t make it conscious either.

 

[Neithan]

I already explained the problem of the difference between a collection and its elements. The elements can have attributes that the collection does not have, and the collection can have attributes that the elements do not have. That is why you cannot extrapolate from the elements to the whole. Also has been explained. No need to repeat it.

The cosmological argument does not necessarily make the part-to-whole fallacy because it does not rely on that inference for validity or soundness; that is a common misunderstanding of it and certain ways that it has been formulated. [To be really clear: if you think the argument makes a part-to-whole fallacy then that is a straw man version of it.] If the universe is STEM, then it is contingent and we don’t need to extrapolate from the elements to the collection: the collection is itself contingent — metaphysically contingent. To say it is a brute fact does not explain it — or anything.

The supernatural (I would avoid the word “god” for now because you’ve stated in other threads the meaning of that word is not clear) is not a brute fact because we aren’t claiming there is something without an explanation, only that there is some source of nature that cannot be nature (STEM) itself.

That is the colloquial usage, which is different from the philosophical usage.

OK but do you understand what I am trying to say? Contingency is something that could be otherwise than it is, in a metaphysical way. The universe is metaphysically contingent, so it does not explain why there is something instead of nothing.

And about how to demonstrate the existence of demons, let’s focus and leave that for a different discussion, since that’s an epistemological question about possible preternatural entities rather than the supernatural source of nature as a metaphysical possibility.

 

[Economist]

The universe is metaphysically contingent, so it does not explain why there is something instead of nothing.

This was also explained: “nothing is just a concept, not an ontologically existing entity”. The proposition that “there could be nothing” is nonsensical, so the follow up question: “why is there something rather than nothing?” is also nonsensical.

I have been asking you to present some evidence for some non-physical, yet physically active entity, which can be substantiated at the interface between the non-physical and the physical realm. So far you did not. Can you provide one?

 

[Neithan]

This was also explained: “nothing is just a concept, not an ontologically existing entity”. The proposition that “there could be nothing” is nonsensical, so the follow up question: “why is there something rather than nothing?” is also nonsensical.

We agree that there is something, and not nothing. You believe that the universe “just is” a brute fact. I contend that a brute fact is not an explanation. If the supernatural has more explanatory power, isn’t it a more rational conclusion?

I have been asking you to present some evidence for some non-physical, yet physically active entity, which can be substantiated at the interface between the non-physical and the physical realm. So far you did not. Can you provide one?

Intentionality. But this is not supernatural: it’s part of the mind-body problem.

 

[Economist]

We agree that there is something, and not nothing. You believe that the universe “just is” a brute fact. I contend that a brute fact is not an explanation.

That fact that the universe exists is not an explanation, per se. The universe makes explanations possible. An explanation is a rational line of arguments which will allow us to understand something new by reducing it something that we already know. Knowledge and explanations form a huge, hierarchical set of ideas, all interconnected. Without physics you cannot explain chemistry. Without chemistry you cannot explain biology. And so on.

I wonder what is your usage of “explanation”?

If the supernatural has more explanatory power, isn’t it a more rational conclusion?

The supernatural has absolutely no explanatory power: The expression of “An unimaginable entity, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”, is not an explanation.

Intentionality. But this is not supernatural: it’s part of the mind-body problem.

Intentionality is just another idea of paranormal powers, and there is no evidence for that either. No matter how hard you try to use your mind to bend a spoon, it will not bend if you cannot hold it in your hands. This is not “supernatural”, merely a non-physical “thing” attempting to influence the physical realm.

Of course there is no mind-body “problem”, the mind is simply the activity of the brain. And this also has been demonstrated by innumerable actual experiments. The fact is that the whole physical realm is at your disposal to investigate, to make hypotheses about to experiment and verify / falsify your hypotheses is something that you cannot perform when you ponder the non-physical realm. Sure you can set up a hypothesis, that using your mind-powers alone you can perform certain physical activities, but these hypotheses will crumble immediately when you try to test them.

 

[Neithan]

I wonder what is your usage of “explanation”?

To make clear the cause or reason for something. “Make clear” could be something like you say: to reduce it to things we know. Isn’t this similar to how deduction works? We infer from things known to something that must be true if those things are true. There is nothing in STEM that we can use to make clear the cause or reason for STEM.

The expression of “An unimaginable entity, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”, is not an explanation.

The supernatural is a reason for nature, so there is more of an explanation there, simply considered, than “it just is,” which is no reason at all.

 

[Economist]

To make clear the cause or reason for something. “Make clear” could be something like you say: to reduce it to things we know. Isn’t this similar to how deduction works? We infer from things known to something that must be true if those things are true.

Acceptable. Though it is not just deductive but also inductive. The deductive method is only applicable for the axiomatically based sciences. The inductive method is based on basic principles, not axioms. The principles are validated, though not “proven”. For example the principle of “preservation of matter / energy” is validated literally millions of times every second.

There is nothing in STEM that we can use to make clear the cause or reason for STEM.

Of course not, because it is the basis for all explanations. What is the “cause” or “reason” for the supernatural? You and I both use the same methodology. There is a base for all the explanations, which does not need another “level” of explanations - since it is the final layer. In my view it is the STEM, in your view it is something “supernatural”. The fundamental difference is that we are all aware of the STEM, and we keep on discovering new facts and hypotheses about it. Our knowledge just keeps on growing and growing.

You cannot posit anything about the supernatural, not even what it is, and how does it work? How can you posit a hypothesis about it, and how can you verify if your hypothesis is correct or not? That is why the supernatural hypothesis is useless.

The supernatural is a reason for nature, so there is more of an explanation there, simply considered, than “it just is,” which is no reason at all.

That is just another empty claim. But, what is the reason FOR the supernatural? And how would that supernatural explain the natural? Of course one can posit a supernatural “explanation” for the celestial bodies, by stipulating that some angels push the planets around, but that is not much of an “explanation”. The natural explanation of gravity allows us to make predictions about the planets. One can posit an explanation for mental diseases by stipulating evil spirits or demons… but how can that hypothesis be verified? The theory of microbes causing illnesses has been verified.

Don’t forget, the basic principle is that every hypothesis needs to have a predictive value. Without being able to make predictions we have nothing. What kind of predictions can you make using the supernatural hypothesis? I contend: NONE.

 

[Gorgias]

That is the colloquial usage, which is different from the philosophical usage.

What would you give as the philosophical definition of ‘contingent’, then?

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.

OK – so, the “universe” is what we would call the “created universe” – that is, only those physical things that can potentially be experientially encountered. (Incidentally, your assertion that the universe contains the supernatural isn’t how theists would define it. The supernatural isn’t part of the universe. So, “everything that exists” isn’t the right definition, I don’t think: “everything that is physical” would be.

Incidentally, if you locate the supernatural inside of the universe, you’ve got a problem: your only means of observation are those that can capture physical phenomena. Therefore, you’ve set up a situation in which it is impossible to observe the supernatural. When you do that, and then conclude “the supernatural doesn’t exist”, you’re not really operating in good faith.

In one word, it is the ontological foundation is the universe.

No… its foundation is the physical universe. Important distinction…

Of course the interaction COULD be caught it the interface, but so far there was no experiment that could verify this interface.

The problem is that you have no idea when or how the supernatural might exhibit itself, so you cannot predict (i.e, “make a valid hypothesis”!) when it will occur. And without this, you cannot claim that you’ve established the null hypothesis.

On the contrary, every experiment denies the existence of this interface.

I’m picturing things like “prayer experiments”. These generally are set up with poor foundations. It might make for an interesting discussion to discuss particular experiments that you’re thinking of…

So, its ontological foundation is something that is not observable, which cannot be verified.

Let’s be a bit more precise: “not physically observable” and “cannot be verified empirically”. Yep; that makes sense. And no, it’s not the same thing as saying “it doesn’t exist.”

 

[STT]

I am wondering that how supernatural and natural realities exist at the same time, interacting sometime and stay separate other time.

 

[Anrakyr]

“Anything scientifically advanced enough will appear as magic.”

 

[IWantGod]

“Anything scientifically advanced enough will appear as magic.”

Oh, how nice of you to notice me.

 

[Economist]

What would you give as the philosophical definition of ‘contingent’, then?

It comes from concept of “possible” worlds, employed by many philosophers.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/

A possible world is a state of affairs, which is different from the actual state of affairs is some way or another. If an entity appears in every possible world, then we call that “necessary” existence. If an entity appears in some possible worlds, but not in all of them, then that entity has “contingent” existence. In this terminology the word “contingent” does not mean that it has some external reason for its existence. The words, “necessary” and “contingent” are not good choices, but we are “stuck” with them.

Of course to substantiate the idea that there are some “necessarily existing” entities is a heavy burden, since it would be necessary to examine each and every possible world, and verify that those entities exist in all of them.

I use the word “supernatural” as a convenient synonym (or shortcut) for “non-physical, but physically active” entities; which are not composed of particles and forces, yet are able to interact with the physical world. That would include gods, angels, demons, extrasensory perception, telekinesis, paranormal forces, ghosts, poltergeists and so on.

OK – so, the “universe” is what we would call the “created universe” – that is, only those physical things that can potentially be experientially encountered.

First of all the expression “created” assumes things not in evidence. And not everything that is physical can be discovered by the senses (and their extensions). The empirical observation is limited to the events which are inside the “light cone” or outside the “Schwarzshield radius” of a black hole. As such not everything that is physical is observable empirically. Of course that makes those entities irrelevant. If some entity cannot interact with the observable universe (not just here and now, but in theory!) then its existence is irrelevant.

But the word “universe” literally means everything that exists, so I use it according to its actual meaning. I am willing to ponder that the universe is composed of two realms, the physical realm and the non-physical one. It is the assertion of the non-physicalists that the non-physical is primary, and that it created the physical realm. That is a hypothesis, which needs to be substantiated. Since they are the ones who propose this hypothesis, they are responsible to provide evidence for it.

You cannot blame me for using the word according to its actual meaning. And for refusing to participate in creating some experiments to verify your hypothesis. It is your hypothesis, you deal with it.