What is Supernatural?

Hi slevesque, no worries on the time. Answer when you can. I'm not saying nature and reality are the same thing, I'm saying that your experience of reality is within the limits of nature - that's what makes it one and the same for humans living in this universe.You do not approach reality in any other way. You use your sensory functions to experience reality. You believe there is some other realm that is supernatural, but you lack not only the evidence to prove this, but the ability to experience it given your senses. I just make the connection based on our experience of reality.Only nature exists, because it is only nature that we experience - therefore - there is never a need to provide a supernatural explanation to a phenomenon. Provide one single piece of evidence of an unnatural cause and I'll concede.Further, this is not essentially atheistic, this is how we experience reality without of course wishful thinking and non-evidenced beliefs. There could still be a god living in a realm outside of reality, but you can't know that being a sentient being that uses it's senses to experience reality.So why should I find it worth while to entertain such beliefs that are unevidenced? Not at all. One was a belief, a belief without any evidence or phenomenon that required an answer.Methodological naturalism, if one is being honest and removing beliefs from the equation, should lead to the understanding that all we could ever know via experience is nature, our reality. Whether this is all there is is pointless to ask because we cannot and do not experience reality in any other way. My points are objective, yours involve belief, and you're telling me that mine won't cut it? Simple then, define supernatural.....- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Not according to my 74 year old father. - Oni

Cool. But I have never seen any evidence to think this is the case. In fact, I have only seen evidence to the contrary. Further, "soul" (or as you put it "whatever") is just that - whatever you want it to be. Since it has no material quality, and I am only able to experience that which has a material quality, I cannot know (or ever know) the validity of it's existence.But - since ALL humans work under these same limits, it is also beyond anyone elses ability to experience and thus know - hence belief in folklore and tales of the supernatural are needed, because evidence one will NEVER have.Kinda makes you wonder how they even knew to come up with the question? RAZD never answered it, maybe you can. No. Well let me not be so dismissive - maybe. Maybe there is a part of us that is immaterial. But your mind is not, that we know for sure. Your brain is not, that we know for sure. Consciousness is not, that we know for sure. All those things are composed of material stuff.So where would this immaterial area be? Well, it's immaterial, it doesn't "be" anywhere. It is everywhere and anywhere you decide for it to be since you (or the devil's advocate in you) is the one supposing it. I grant you carte blanche. Just don't expect anyone to accept this theory without any physical evidence. We are humans and are limited to the laws of nature. Because we live in a physcial reality. Anyone claiming to know a non-physcial aspect of reality within our physcial reality is full of shit.It cannot be experienced. It cannot ever be known to beings that experience reality the way we do. Makes you wonder how they even came up with the question?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

This is a false dichotomy. First of all, natural as compared to what? Supernatural? Well, what does that word mean? This is the whole point of this thread!You have not, in fact no one as of yet, has/have explained what the alternative to what we normally experience is.We have a definition of natural, one that we can all agree on. It is the reality that we experience. It is science. It is the laws of physcis. Etc.Now, give an example of the alternative, something concrete that we can all agree on (in the same way that we agree on nature) and we can begin to compare.Right now all you are saying is things are either natural or they are "some made up word that is undefined". Supernatural means absolutely nothing in this thread right now. You have not defined it. It is nature -vs- nothing else.That's the whole point of this thread. I asked slevesque, now I'll ask you, define supernatural and lets stop this stupid merry-go-round of philosophical nonsense!- Oni

Sorry, but your answer then and now is not helping matters any. I do appreciate your attempt though. ...is the same as this: Our universe is all we know. It is our reality. This is all you can EVER experience. The 2 cannot be seperated.Everything that exists is the universe.And limiting it to what we can "do science on" is fallacious. We couldn't do science on lots of things 500 years ago. Would you have seperated an atom from nature then? You can see what a mistake it is today, though, right? Why would you impsoe this same logic today when you can see how wrong it has been in the past? It's almost as though now we need a definition for god...These are just words you're using, they mean nothing. There is no universal concept of "god" that you can place in different realms and give it attributes assigned by you - or the religion you happen to believe in. If it can't be universally accepted (and of course it can't because again, it's just a belief) then all we have is a word that changes attributes throughout time. It can mean anything at any given time.God, the word, has lost all meaning.The same with "supernatural." You can't just place it in different realms and give it attributes that you couldn't possibly evidence in anyway. This is almost nonsensical. A concept imagined is a concept imagined in reality by beings able to do so. NO ONE can imagine something that isn't within the framework of what they experienced, of the reality and world that they know (example: 10,000 years ago someone would not have been able to imagine an ipod, but they could imagine the sun being pulled by a chariot).So EVRYTHING imagined fits firmly within the framework of reality. We have neural representations, but they have restrictions. Even when people imagine aliens they still fit within a framework.In fact, I challenge you to imagine an outside of the universe and what it would look like. Care to honestly describe what you picture? Can you site one example (except for the word "god")...? No slevesque, all you have done is presented certain cultural beliefs and ascribed them qualities that are still unevidenced and undefined. If reality is anything else, then you need to provide evidence for that. As it stands, nature is all we experience and thus all we can EVER know. The problem is you're defining one undefined word with another undefined word and using that as your argument.God is not the answer because that word is meaningless. Outside of nature makes no sense because no human has ever experienced that, let alone, now wants to use it as answer.This where your position continues to fall apart.In a nutshell, supernatural is anything you can imagine it to be. From an eclipse 5000 years ago, to today, abiogenesis. It is a word, like the word "god," that means anything at any given time. It is useless. It is pointless to even try to defend (at least IMO) and those who are advocating this are failing to establish what they mean, besides using other useless and meaningless terms.I think Taq summed it up: What is red? Not blue.What is supernatural? Anything that is not natural.Oh, ok........- Oni

No dude. What he's saying is that the logic you are using runs the risk of cancelling out that which you are trying to argue for.If you say existence may require a god, then if that god exists, by your own logic, god would require a god too (or at least some other means of creation).It's the same thing as saying "complexity requires a creator." Well, then if that creator is complex too, which it has to be to create complex things, by that very logic the creator requires a creator, too. See?Bluegenes was just pointing out the error of the logic you are using.- Oni* sorry Bluegenes, I posted then saw you replied.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Again, this is not my reasoning, this is your reasoning. I don't even know what the term "god" is, so how on earth could this be my reasoning?Don't jump so quickly on the defensive and try to understand what I'm saying first.I'm just showing you how your reasoning leads to infinite regression. No it is not. The topic is "What is Supernatural".Your side topic may be, "does existence require a creator?" And again, if it does, and if that creator exists, then by the same logic it too requires a creator. Don't you see how it's the same position?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Leave god and the validity of his/her existence out of this for a second...it leads to infinite regression by the very logic being used.If it wasn't "god" and instead a turtle, then the turtle would require a creator, and that creator its own creator and so on and so on.You choose to believe that something refered to as "god" was the first cause to the universe, but that is not relevant to the point. I assume nothing about the word "god," it has no meaning to me. I'm simply pointing out the error of your logic. Who created the creator? If the creator exists then by the same logic requires a creator as well. You can try to spin it all you want but you can't avoid the logical error you are making.- Oni

Well said.I actually do place a lot of importance on dreams myself. I've tried many different mind altering states (both natural and with drugs) and it can be awesome. Extremely awesome. I've studied a lot as well on dream states, REM and consciousness, etc. I honestly find approaching it without supernatural elements to be a lot more fascinating than imagining supernatural realms and things like that. Reality and nature are so much more intriguing than invisible things that can't be experienced, but only believed in. IMO. I only put it harshly because its you and me rapping here, I'd be more sensitive with others. Yeah, we could always tell them why they're prove to beliefs, but they never listen. - Oni

Hi ICANT, Why do you insist on repeatedly asking questions that have no evidence in any direction? That, for all intent and purposes, are meaningless?If all you want is someone's gut feeling on the issue then you should leave it out of science threads. They didn't invent it, the evidence pointed to it. Why do pretend to understand any of this? Does it make you feel like you're gaining an understanding of it by just throwing a couple of scientific terms around? You're trying to raise an issue with some of the theories of the greatests minds in physics, as though you could actually do that!Why do you think the people who are experts in these fields on this site won't reply to you? You could actually learn some of this stuff, but you are too arrogant in what you think you know to see that you don't know shit.- Oni

Dude, you introduced the argument, I'm just showing you how it is a logical error.I am not claiming to understand everything, but I am claiming I recognize how your argument is flawed. What gives you any confidence that the word you use called "god" has any bearing on existence?I don't assume anything about existence, other than I am currently experiencing it. How it got here is limited to what the evidence is. There is no evidence for god, nor is there evidence of how existence got here. No need to assume anything on either.My only point is that your argument leads to infinite regression. Obviously not to you because you have a belief in a specific enitity that has certain powers and characteristics, but I don't share your beliefs. Your religious bias doesn't let you see the logical error you are making.- Oni

Provide evidence to support this assertion........ Provide evidence to support this assertion........ Provide evidence to support this assertion........You give us nonsense once again, ICANT.- Oni

There are hypotheses in the field of theoretical physics. You stated: "Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them."Ok. Now provide evidence that shows that branes cannot by a part of this universe if the universe was created by two collisions of them. In other words, WHY? Why can't branes be a part of this universe if they created this universe?Don't play word games, ICANT. You made a statement. Actaully, no, I don't understand that at all. Can you please explain it, and, provide evidence for what you claim. - Oni