Do we have evidence against the supernatural?

Composition fallacy!!!

Call me smiley impaired, then. I did mean to be a dick about it, but I didn't mean to piss you off. You're a good poster, Chiro, and I respect your thoughts. I apologize for being a dick, it's silly to piss you off for nothing. So, I'm sorry. And I'd always appreciate your comments.As for your post... I saw your smiley, and it didn't make any sense to me. You said I dodged your comment, then didn't answer my question at all. THEN asked ME a question. The only inconsistent thing about the entire post was the smiley itself.If it was a joke, you should have addressed my question. At least, that's how my little brain works.Ben

OK, I think I see it. Here was my argument:1. All "things" in the natural world must be able to interact with at least other "things" in the natural world.
2. Fairies, elves, and invisible pink unicorns interact with things in the natural world.
3. Therefore, they are all in the realm of the natural.But those things could be supernatural and interacting with things in the natural world. That is the error?Then I would qualify it like this: we don't have any evidence against supernatural things which don't interact with things of the natural world.(Note that I think the last part can be qualified in some way; maybe "don't interact with things of the natural world in predictably measurable ways", but I'm not ready to make that qualification.

Arg... See you later!

This is where you lose me completely. Could you direct me to the peer-reviewed literature on fairy interactions, etc.?You are going to have to come up with a more coherent definition of "supernatural" if this discussion is going to go anywhere.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This is Lam's objection, not mine. It means, IF THEY EXIST, fairies, elves, and invisible pink unicorns interact with the real world. Ever read Peter Pan? Lord of the Rings? Fairies and elves are suggested to be visible. If they exist, you can see them. If they exist, they are part of the natural world.Invisible pink unicorns, if they exist, can be kicked. If they exist, the are part of the natural world.All I'm saying to Lam is that I'm NOT addressing these creatures at all in my opening post. Those things are within the realm of judging based on evidence. I'm talking about things like "afterlife" or "beings which do not interact with the natural world."Am I really being that unclear?

Yes. Very unclear. God is usually considered to be supernatural, so IF GOD EXISTS, is He/She/It a "being which interacts with the natural world" or not? I would think that creation of the natural world and destruction of it via flood, etc. would be considered interaction with it, would they not?I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make between hypothetical entities. What is the fundamental difference between a god and a fairy?As for the "afterlife", exactly what is it that is "super"natural about that?Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about. Without a clear definition of "supernatural", I'll have to do my impression of Lam and say "ARG! Goodbye."

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That's the best I can do. Why is it suddenly so hard to separate between "natural" and "supernatural" ? You're approaching the question backwards from my original question. I asked if there's any evidence AGAINST the existence of a supernatural creature. You can have evidence against any specific action of something supernatural. You can test "the flood", etc. I'm not talking about anything specific. I'm asking, can you have evidence against the simple existence of something supernatural?I'm not asking "did God do anything?" or "do we have proof against any claims about what God did or did not do?" I'm not talking about God at all. I'm asking, can you have evidence against that which exists OUTSIDE of the natural world. If a fairy exists, it exists WITHIN the physical world. Everything it does, it does it in THIS WORLD. When God exists, God exists OUTSIDE the physical world. Something like that.Of course, since I'm not the one using the words "fairy" and "God", I'm kind of guessing at what you mean by those words. But I think my guesses fit the general formulation of what those entities are. Is there any way that you can interact with it? Can you visit it? Is it physical?No, no, and no. Natural=empirical=measurable.This message has been edited by Ben, Sunday, 2005/10/02 02:25 PM

That's what I'm asking you."Of or relating to existence outside the natural world" tells me exactly nothing. How is it different from the natural world? How can we detect the difference?You've thrown out all the examples you've been given - fairies, gods, etc. - so what are you talking about when you say "supernatural"? That's exactly what I'm getting at. How can I provide evidence against a hypothetical entity if you can't tell me anything about that hypothetical entity? Or even what type of hypothetical entity you mean? Where am I supposed to look for evidence? Again, that's a completely arbitrary distinction. Why define one thing "outside" the physical world and another "inside" it? Ever hear of mediums? Out-of-body experiences? Some people do believe we can interact with the "afterlife". Sorry, but your test doesn't work.You're talking as if the "supernatural" is something that is monolithic, that everybody understands and agrees on. It isn't. Unless you can tell us what you mean by the supernatural, there's no basis for discussion.The question is "Do we have any evidence against the supernatural?" Unless you specify what the "supernatural" is - rather than what it is not - you might as well ask "Do we have any evidence against 1538302753?"(Standing by to type "ARG!" )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I think the answer is that we do not have have evidence against the supernatural. But then then we have no evidence for it. You could not find evidence for something that is seperate/ not interacting with our reality. We can speculate anything really and not find any evidence to contradict it.I think the thing is that untill there is evidence to suggest something is there i.e. having an effect on the universe in a physical way, the only way this supernatural "thing" can effect the universe is in its role as an idea. That is to say the idea of the supernatural can affect the physical universe but only by existing in the imagination of a mind. No mind, no supernatural.The supernatural can exist as a concept. If it does not interact with us on a physical level I would put that as near proof it does not exist independantly.

Yup.. That's pretty much what it comes down to IMO...Imagine that we 'think' about two different supernatural things. One of them happens to really 'exist' (in the supernatural sense: it's there somewhere but has absolutely no effect on our reality), and the other has NO corresponding existence in the supernatural and is therefore pure fantasy.There is absolutely no way for us to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, what is the CHANCE that something we make up, actually corresponds with a 'really existing' supernatural reality? One would think the chance is absolutely non-existing. Because anything we 'think' is probably somehow inspired by what we experience in our world. Thus, it sounds unlikely that we could think up something that is by definition not in any way relevant to our reality. But one could just as well say that we can't even say anything sensible about that probability.I don't see how anything useful could come from this discussion, lol.

We may not have watertight proof against any specific claim of the supernatural, but the fact that a lot of these claims contradict one another would suggest that not all of them are true. In other words: some claims of the supernatural are most certainly not true, it's just that we don't know which. Unfortunately for believers, this makes all of them rather useless with regard to getting closer to the truth.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Good thought experiment with the two supernaturals....very elegantly put.

quote:

---

Is there any way that you can interact with it? Can you visit it? Is it physical?

​

No, no, and no. Natural=empirical=measurable.

---

Is the number 456 part of the natural world?Is it physical?
Can you interact with it?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

No. No. No. We make physical notations, and we say that the notation is a representation of the number 465. Then we interact with that representation. But we don't interact with the actual number 465 (if there even is such a thing).