What evidence is there for the supernatural?

[tonyrey]

So you agree that human beings are the highest forms of existence of which we are aware?

Originally Posted by wanstronian
“Highest” is too subjective a term. Most intelligent? Yes. Highest level of consciousness? Yes.

With the power of self-control, control of their own environment, initiative, hindsight, insight and foresight?

Do you regard every human being as a person?
Yes.

Even a mentally defective human being?

Do you think only human beings are persons?
Strictly speaking, yes.

So rational beings on other planets are not persons?

If it’s “mindless automaton,” then clearly that’s not what I mean. What I am saying is that there is no evidence that they are anything more than what is contained within their biological form.

In that case why postulate a mind? Do you regard the mind as the activity of the brain?

When is extrapolation is justified?
When you have the objective means to support the process.

Are we justified in believing that there may be rational beings apart from ourselves?

If a man threatens to kill you you will rely on a scientific explanation rather than an appeal to his conscience and reason?
I’d do the latter of course, but I’d do it because we have generations of empirical evidence and experience that this man (probably) has conscience and reason.

But you rely on the fact that he has a conscience and the power of reason?
Do you rely on science to choose a life partner? Or whether to commit suicide?

So anything subjective is unreliable?
As an axiom, yes.

So you regard your own thoughts and decisions as generally unreliable?

If the person providing the explanation is someone you know and trust, and the explanation being provided fits with accepted knowledge and probability, then it’s reasonable to trust their explanation.

Does “accepted knowledge” include knowledge of human nature that cannot be verified scientifically?

When has the Big Bang been repeated?
I say the theory is supported by repeatable experiment.

Which experiment(s)?

The Big Bang theory does not prophesise another Big Bang - it predicts what would happen if there were. The obvious (and accepted) problem is that we won’t be there to see whether the prediction is true, should another Big Bang occur. This is partly what makes it only a theory.

But you still regard it as scientific?

For an explanation to be considered ‘fact’ or ‘truth’ it needs to be backed up by evidence.

Only physical evidence? Why is only physical evidence valid?

Materialism overlooks the power of the mind - as demonstrated by the yogi.
Well, for a start that sounds like a circular belief - until you can prove that the mind is not a product of the brain!

Why do you assume that the mind is the product of the brain - given that our starting point is the mind? How can you control your thoughts if they are caused by physical events? How does a biological machine differ from a biological automaton?

Secondly, exactly what do the yogi demonstrate that adds any weight to your argument?

It demonstrates the power of thought not caused by any external events. Mental activity alone can have physical effects which cannot be normally otherwise achieved - like entering a state of suspended animation.

Can you really define the incredibly complex aspects of what makes a ‘self?’

I define the self as a conscious, rational, sentient entity with the ability to control itself.

Physicalism is “the theory that all reality must eventually be expressible in the language of physics.” (OED).

Why do you single out physics as the fundamental reality?

The truth of gravity relates to the objects under scrutiny in a particular gravitational experiment by virtue of the description of the objects in the documented results of the experiment.

So the truth amounts to a correct description, i.e. the correspondence of a statement or belief to reality?

So you consider there has been moral progress?
I consider that there has, yes.

What is the criterion of moral progress?

My supposition is that they have for as long as ‘reality’ has existed.

So there have always been tangible and intangible aspects of reality?

I consider the current effective limits of nature to be that which we can observe and test. That’s not to say that we will not continue to discover more and more, or that the actual limits of nature are not bigger than we currently know - but then we move from fact and theory, to hypothesis.

So the term nature is indeterminate? What is now considered supernatural may become accepted as natural?

 

[James_S_Saint]

“Supernatural” merely means “above the natural” or physical.

Gravity is a physical phenomenon. But it “obeys” an exact principle. That principle is not physical. The principle is “above” the physical in that the physical “obeys” the principle. The actual, real, accurate principle is of the “divine world”.

One only knows that a principle exists by seeing the physical result of it.

Or as Moses once put it, “Man cannot see God, but merely His footprints.” (or something to that effect).

 

[tonyrey]

“Supernatural” merely means “above the natural” or physical.

And that reality is all we need to recognise and appreciate!

 

[edwest2]

“Supernatural” merely means “above the natural” or physical.

Gravity is a physical phenomenon. But it “obeys” an exact principle. That principle is not physical. The principle is “above” the physical in that the physical “obeys” the principle. The actual, real, accurate principle is of the “divine world”.

One only knows that a principle exists by seeing the physical result of it.

Or as Moses once put it, “Man cannot see God, but merely His footprints.” (or something to that effect).

Gravity does not obey a physical principle? Light consists of energy packets called photons and exhibits the characteristics of a wave and particle. Electromagnetic radiation is actual radiation. It is real energy.

Supernatural things are often far more complex but no less tangible:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2147622/posts

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

“Supernatural” merely means “above the natural” or physical.

Gravity is a physical phenomenon. But it “obeys” an exact principle. That principle is not physical. The principle is “above” the physical in that the physical “obeys” the principle. The actual, real, accurate principle is of the “divine world”.

One only knows that a principle exists by seeing the physical result of it.

Or as Moses once put it, “Man cannot see God, but merely His footprints.” (or something to that effect).

I think that the word has a different meaning. I think the general use today is more of a “Things that are not natural”… or in other words “things that shouldn’t be possible according to modern understanding”.

 

[Matthias123]

I think that the word has a different meaning. I think the general use today is more of a “Things that are not natural”… or in other words “things that shouldn’t be possible according to modern understanding”.

I think humanity in general is suffering from some pride. We know much, but potentialy very little. We need to make assumptions about things in order to come to conclusions. If those assumptions end up being a mistake, then we are way off.

A modern example is the Big Bang Theory. Some new discoveries in cosmic microwave background radiation is in conflict with a homogeneous and isotropic universe. So there is potential (very little thought) that the whole big bang model might fall apart.

I am not anti-reason when I say this, or anti-science – but I think that human reason shouldn’t be overated.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think that the word has a different meaning. I think the general use today is more of a “Things that are not natural”… or in other words “things that shouldn’t be possible according to modern understanding”.

No, no, no, Pele – you got that wrong. If supernatural was just “not natural”, then Joan Rivers and Pamela Anderson would be the most “supernatural” people on Earth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not anti-reason when I say this, or anti-science – but I think that human reason shouldn’t be overated.

I disagree; human reason should be overrated.

(Sorry all – I’m in a goofy mood.)

 

[liquidpele]

No, no, no, Pele – you got that wrong. If supernatural was just “not natural”, then Joan Rivers and Pamela Anderson would be the most “supernatural” people on Earth.

I think you’re on to something here! Remember in Men in Black where all the celebrities were really aliens?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think you’re on to something here! Remember in Men in Black where all the celebrities were really aliens?

Explains what Aretha meant by singing “You make me feel like a natural woman”, too. I knew that song had to make sense somehow.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I think that the word has a different meaning. I think the general use today is more of a “Things that are not natural”… or in other words “things that shouldn’t be possible according to modern understanding”.

That would be “magical”, or “miraculous” if the outcome was considered very good.

Some day the word “supernatural” might really refer to anything more green than it should be. But as this is a religious forum and we are discussing how things relate to God and Gospel, we have to discuss the prior intention of such words.

Very many words have to revert to their more original meaning in order to make sense of Biblical things.

{and someone check what’s in PS’s coffee}

 

[liquidpele]

Very many words have to revert to their more original meaning in order to make sense of Biblical things.

That would be true if we were talking about the bible’s use of the word. From the original post, it seems clear we are talking about the use of the word in modern times and how EVENTS can change from what would be called supernatural to natural.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That would be “magical”, or “miraculous” if the outcome was considered very good.

Some day the word “supernatural” might really refer to anything more green than it should be. But as this is a religious forum and we are discussing how things relate to God and Gospel, we have to discuss the prior intention of such words.

Very many words have to revert to their more original meaning in order to make sense of Biblical things.

{and someone check what’s in PS’s coffee}

Theist: God is supernatural.
Atheist: There is no supernatural.
Theist: Well, then, I suppose God is not supernatural.
Atheist: Aha! You just said “God is not”. I win.
Theist: You know the rules of physics, those ones that you can’t explain?
Atheist: They are all perfectly rational, and explain reality.
Theist: But they are themselves unexplained. Call that “the fabric of reality”.
Atheist: OK. That’s the fabric of reality. Has a nice ring to it.
Theist: Next time you look for God, look there.
Atheist: Where?
Theist: Into the fabric of reality itself. He’s not hiding.
Atheist: You just like saying “fabric of reality.”
Theist: Do you need a Q-Tip?

You should really try this coffee.

 

[James_S_Saint]

That would be true if we were talking about the bible’s use of the word. From the original post, it seems clear we are talking about the use of the word in modern times and how EVENTS can change from what would be called supernatural to natural.

“Events” are never supernatural, the are said to be caused by the supernatural.

The supernatural has always meant (by the reasonably educated), that which is “above (super) the natural”;

Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Note than in Webster’s their (2) refers to what appears to be supernatural, which is a language error in itself in that naming an appearance with the same word as the actuality leads to false presumption.

None the less, we are discussing the actual, not merely the appearance of it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Theist: God is supernatural.
Atheist: There is no supernatural.
Theist: Well, then, I suppose God is not supernatural.
Atheist: Aha! You just said “God is not”. I win.
Theist: You know the rules of physics, those ones that you can’t explain?
Atheist: They are all perfectly rational, and explain reality.
Theist: But they are themselves unexplained. Call that “the fabric of reality”.
Atheist: OK. That’s the fabric of reality. Has a nice ring to it.
Theist: Next time you look for God, look there.
Atheist: Where?
Theist: Into the fabric of reality itself. He’s not hiding.
Atheist: You just like saying “fabric of reality.”
Theist: Do you need a Q-Tip?

You should really try this coffee.

Haha… I have used that very same argument many times.

{checking my own coffee, now}

 

[geometer]

Supernatural means above the natural. It is about higher nature. All things on earth have come down from above. When one is born of the spirit one descends from heaven and is reformed from the crown of the head to the souls of the feet.

However, when confonted with a supernatual event, most people respond like Charlote in Gone with the Wind; “I can’t think about that now, if I think about that now, I’ll go crazy, I’ll think about that tomorrow, for tomorrow is another day!.”

 

[James_S_Saint]

Supernatural means above the natural. It is about higher nature. All things on earth have come down from above. When one is born of the spirit one descends from heaven and is reformed from the crown of the head to the souls of the feet.

But then the challenge is to present “evidence” of this.

My claim is that you must first understand the word before you bother to seek evidence. This is even more true concerning “God”.

So I guess I have to ask, what would be considered real evidence by the inquirer?

 

[geometer]

But then the challenge is to present “evidence” of this.

My claim is that you must first understand the word before you bother to seek evidence. This is even more true concerning “God”.

So I guess I have to ask, what would be considered real evidence by the inquirer?

Well, I certainly can not do more than Jesus did. He was the evidence, that one can be born again, just like Philip was also the evidence. I would be just another one of those. But somehow the person who hears about the evidence must be drawn by God to hear it as wonderful news, and through the love of God given courage to ask.

 

[James_S_Saint]

But somehow the person who hears about the evidence must be drawn by God to hear it as wonderful news, and through the love of God given courage to ask.

Yep, therein lies the problem.

But then once people had to be saved by perfect innocence too. Things Will change.