Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do we have evidence against the supernatural?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 106 (252128)
10-16-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by tsig
10-16-2005 8:29 AM


Re: end of the story
If the supernatural has physical evidence it ceases to be supernatural.
Well, maybe. In our universe, probably.
But I can envision a universe where supernatural events occur with regularity; where wizards or superheroes use supernatural abilities in full plain view of the public, on TV, and even in front of scientists. Of course, it sort of begs the question - if you inhabit a universe like the Dungeons and Dragons Forgotten Realms, where magic is the act of mentally channeling hidden energies from the Weave, is it really supernatural? In the context of the game it certainly is, because that's something you can't do in our universe. Is it really supernatural in theirs? Probably not.
Until we have a clear definition of the supernatural, that can distinguish between supernatural acts that have no explanation and natural but unusual acts that simply haven't been explained yet, the entire concept of the "supernatural" is so porous as to be meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by tsig, posted 10-16-2005 8:29 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by tsig, posted 10-16-2005 8:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 92 of 106 (252129)
10-16-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by mike the wiz
10-14-2005 8:48 AM


small dogma
Is the universe evidence of the supernatural? To the fundy next door it might be. But it has to be be decided as reasonable to suggest evidence should be there.
How this brillant universe is evidence for anything but itself is beyond me.
It was by viewing the sky at night and suddenly becoming aware of just how big the whole thing is, that I saw how small the dogma was.
added sub
This message has been edited by DHR, 10-16-2005 08:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by mike the wiz, posted 10-14-2005 8:48 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 93 of 106 (252130)
10-16-2005 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
10-16-2005 8:38 AM


another?
Well, maybe. In our universe, probably
Till we find another I think this universe of discourse is all we have.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2005 8:38 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2005 9:45 AM tsig has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 94 of 106 (252135)
10-16-2005 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by tsig
10-16-2005 8:44 AM


Re: another?
Till we find another I think this universe of discourse is all we have.
Well, yes, I agree, of course.
But part of the problem is that the supernaturalists don't limit themselves to our universe of reality; they're reading comic books and fantasy novels and the Bible, seeing supernatural stuff, and then bending over backwards to figure out a way for that stuff to be true.
I don't understand why the universe that we have isn't enough for those people. Even without magic and gods it's an amazing universe of wonder. It would take many many lifetimes to truly understand even one cubic meter of our planet; imagine how many cubes on how many planets there really are out there.
And that's not enough for some people? The arrogance of the believer is truly breathtaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by tsig, posted 10-16-2005 8:44 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by tsig, posted 10-16-2005 2:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 106 (252149)
10-16-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
10-15-2005 12:42 PM


Delusion
And furthermore, everybody's susceptible to delusion. A basic example would be optical illusions, such as the one RAZD posted here. The mind frequently distorts reality in everyday settings too: not so long ago, I was certain that I saw an old friend out of the corner of my eye, sitting on the train close to me. Looking up, I found that I was certainly wrong”it was somebody I had never seen before in my life.
Similarly, I remember getting quite a fright this way at least once when I was younger. I was home alone, and saw someone out of the corner of my eye. This got me thinking of ghosts and the supernatural, even though it turned out to be but a chair, jacket, and other inanimate objects, unintentionally arranged in a peculiar manner.
So, delusions (or rather, illusions) are really quite common. But normally, the most important factor in determining whether somebody reports an experience similar to the above as an "encounter with the supernatural" or not is whether that person wants to believe or not. I had a dream of my dad soon after he died (just before I was 5), and for years afterwards I was convinced that his spirit had somehow communicated to me through that dream. But I wanted that to be the case, and that definitely skewed my interpretation. Nowadays I'm not even sure that I had the dream. It seems quite conceivable that it was a false memory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 10-15-2005 12:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by tsig, posted 10-16-2005 2:31 PM Funkaloyd has not replied
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2005 11:40 PM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 96 of 106 (252188)
10-16-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
10-16-2005 9:45 AM


Fantasies
And that's not enough for some people? The arrogance of the believer is truly breathtaking.
Their arrogance is robbing them of the real world. They are trapped in the prison of their beleifs and they invite all of us to join them in happy submision to their fantasies.
No thanks, make mine real.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 10-16-2005 9:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 97 of 106 (252193)
10-16-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Funkaloyd
10-16-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Reality
I had a dream of my dad soon after he died (just before I was 5), and for years afterwards I was convinced that his spirit had somehow communicated to me through that dream. But I wanted that to be the case, and that definitely skewed my interpretation. Nowadays I'm not even sure that I had the dream. It seems quite conceivable that it was a false memory.
I had the same experience. In fact I had a series of dreams where he seemed to be learning something and then a last one where he said goodby. Seemed more me coming to terms with his death than anything supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-16-2005 10:35 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 106 (252207)
10-16-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by robinrohan
10-15-2005 8:11 PM


Re: the natural system
quote:
God is either a being or an abstraction. If one claims that abstractions are real, then God has to be real, since a being is real.
That is a glaring example of a false dichotomy. You could argue that God could be concieved of as an abstract entity of as a concrete but neither would require that God exists. The highest prime number is concieved of as an abstract entity, but does not exist. Unicorns are concieved of as a concrete entity and do not exist.
However it is certainly not the ccase that God must be an existing concrete entity or an existing abstract entity as you state. That assertion simply begs the question of God's existence by assuming that God must exist. And since God's existence is assumed at that stage it has not been shown that the exidtence of abstract entities entails that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by robinrohan, posted 10-15-2005 8:11 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by robinrohan, posted 10-17-2005 7:08 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 106 (252300)
10-16-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Funkaloyd
10-16-2005 10:35 AM


Re: Delusion
And furthermore, everybody's susceptible to delusion. A basic example would be optical illusions, such as the one RAZD posted here. The mind frequently distorts reality in everyday settings too: not so long ago, I was certain that I saw an old friend out of the corner of my eye, sitting on the train close to me. Looking up, I found that I was certainly wrong”it was somebody I had never seen before in my life.
If I was interested in really getting into the nitty-gritty of claims about evidence for the supernatural, which I'm not, I might sort all proposed evidence into one of two categories:
1) Reported phenomena that, if true, have an entirely legitimate, plausible, mundane explanation - swamp gas, optical illusions, mistaken identity, coincidence, hoaxes, dreams. For instance "thinking about a specific person and having them immediately call on the phone", or the examples you gave, or acts by stage magicians or the employment of their techniques.
2) Reported phenomena that, if true, have no mundane explanation. For instance, direct, interactive contact with spirits. Mental communication with another party, or with God, or demons. Broad-daylight manifestations of psychic power.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of people's experience with the "supernatural" falls into the first category, so it can be dismissed. As for the second, I've already made the case that many many more people suffer from mental illness than have supernatural experiences with no mundane explanation; it's not a stretch to conclude that every one of the (made-up figure) 300,000 Americans with these unexplainable stories is either lying or is one of the 54 million Americans (not made up) who suffer from mental illness per year.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-16-2005 11:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-16-2005 10:35 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 106 (252482)
10-17-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
10-16-2005 3:13 PM


Re: the natural system
And since God's existence is assumed at that stage it has not been shown that the exidtence of abstract entities entails that God exists.
Sounds to me like you are saying that something might be real but not exist. I've heard that before. Tillich said, notoriously, "God does not 'exist'" (but is nonetheless real).
I didn't understand it when I read that, and I don't understand it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 10-16-2005 3:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 10-18-2005 2:59 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 101 of 106 (252595)
10-18-2005 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by robinrohan
10-17-2005 7:08 PM


Re: the natural system
quote:
Sounds to me like you are saying that something might be real butnot exist.
That is absoluely false. What I am saying is that the concrete/abstract dichotomy is quite distinct from the dichotomy between existence and non-existence.
When we talk of whether something does or does not exist we mean that there is or is not an entity that matches the meaning of the word we use. Thus if we say that "God exists" we mean that there is an identity that may be accurately identified with our conception of God. If the conception is of a concrete entity (as is usually the case with "God") then anything that matches that must also be a concrete entity. If it is of an abstract (e.g. the highest prime number) then anything that matches must also be an abstract.
I have avoided using a real/not-real dichotomy because that would further confuse the issue. An abstract entity could be said to exist yet not to be real (I beleive that the "non-Realist" God of the Sea of Faith could be classified in this category) - yet it is not clear that other abstracts (e.g. colours) would be placed in this category (surely "blue" should be thought of as real ?). Yet a concrete entity would only fit in the "not-real" category if it did not exist. Not to mention the potential issues with other uses of "real" (eg the "Real Numbers"))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by robinrohan, posted 10-17-2005 7:08 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 102 of 106 (252598)
10-18-2005 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Ben!
10-02-2005 2:31 PM


Ben,
I haven't read beyond this point in the thread but it's bedtime. I'll probably regret this but I'll throw this out now and read more tomorrow.
You said about the concept of an afterlife, "In the way that it has absolutely NO effect on any natural thing. In other words, it's not measurable in any way, at least as far as I can see. It seems really that simple--definitional. Maybe one step, a simple syllogism."
I just want to point out that believers in an afterlife often believe that it has effects and will point to things just as disasters or good things as being examples of those effects. So for believers the supernatural is an explanation of the manifestation of desired as well as undesired events, also low probability events.
Many of them find the scientific explanations difficult even impossible to comprehend. I will say at this point that the supernatural exists as a primitive explanatory mechanism that is often more satisfying to the way many human brains function than is rational scientific theories.
Best of luck on educating believers in the supernatural! I don't envy you your mission.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Ben!, posted 10-02-2005 2:31 PM Ben! has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 103 of 106 (252600)
10-18-2005 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ben!
10-02-2005 2:39 PM


It is untestable; you can't have evidence for it or against it (as far as I can tell).
As I was walking up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd go away.
~Hugh Mearns
Thought is immaterial? What is thought? Perhaps the IPU is thought, as real as thought, or as unreal as thought as the case maybe.
Are you and I thoughts? If we drop that thinking then what? Immateriality seems important to me but I don't see how it can be science at this point, though it might in some sense be mathmatics.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ben!, posted 10-02-2005 2:39 PM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by 1.61803, posted 11-01-2005 5:14 PM lfen has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 104 of 106 (256065)
11-01-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by lfen
10-18-2005 3:33 AM


Is It Science?????????no.
"He thrust his fist against a post
and insist he's seen a ghost."
IT by Stephen King
I am beginning to think that the uncertainty principal prevails on every level of existance. No sooner than I think I understand something does new questions further confound the inquiry.
Intellectuals often question how blind faith can be so arrogant as
dismiss science. The answer IMO is ignorance is bliss.
Who is smarter? The man who worries about the workings of nature; or the idiot who merrily goes about his way in sublime ignorance reaping the rewards of his hypertensive, nuerotic brethren?
Are thoughts material? Are non living things concious?
Does existance depend on an observer?
And how come everytime I think of something I compare it to something else of which I was not thinking of prior to not thinking of it?
"ISSNT DAT VEEERED!!" Gold member from The Spy who Shagged me

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by lfen, posted 10-18-2005 3:33 AM lfen has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5834 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 105 of 106 (273688)
12-28-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Phat
10-03-2005 2:07 PM


We need not clearcut the northwest...just allow those who have seen Bigfoot to tell us about him. Do we have to know the entire Universe in order to prove God?
How we know those people who have seen bigfoot aren't liars or charlatans? Especially if they are trying to get money from me.....................................

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 10-03-2005 2:07 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024