How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[Davian]

Phenomena that defies the laws of physics and chemistry.

You can't appeal to science and the laws of science but then turn around and claim science with it's laws are meaningless.

If I were to catch a bullet, fired 10 feet away from a .45 caliber 1911 pistol, in between my teeth, while I'm terrible at physics I have enough common sense to confidently say that the act itself would defy the laws of physics. That would be super-natural.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0-ImFaSG4

 

[SuperCloud]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0-ImFaSG4

I wasn't referring to tricks, Davian.

 

[Loudmouth]

I wasn't referring to tricks, Davian.

I find it interesting that you would assume that there is a natural explanation for what you already described as being supernatural.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

Jumping into the discussion somewhat late:

Your post highlights, to me, the problem with calling something "supernatural". It is, for all intents and purposes, a synonym for "unknown natural cause".

I think it is more intellectually honest to acknowledge that we simply don't know the cause of some strange or weird events rather than ascribe a cause from the "hat of supernatural labels".

For example, the relatively well know "Miracle of the Sun" which occurred in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 will likely never be fully understood because it is lost to history. But, instead of reaching into the hat of supernatural labels and pulling out the "Our Lady of Fatima" label as the cause, why don't we all just fess up and say, "Wow, that's very weird and we have no idea exactly what caused it." If we somehow found a very old, primitive camera recording of the event, we may be able to make better sense of it.

 

[Davian]

I wasn't referring to tricks, Davian.

Then perhaps you could be more specific.

"Phenomena that defies the laws of physics and chemistry" come in a variety of categories.

Stage and close-up magic. Illusions. Self-hypnosis/self-deception. Hoaxes. Fabricated stories. Hallucinations. Dreams. False and implanted memories.

Do you have any examples of "supernatural" that could not fit into the above categories?

 

[SuperCloud]

I find it interesting that you would assume that there is a natural explanation for what you already described as being supernatural.

I didn't describe "magic" as supernatural. Magic does not defy the laws of chemistry and physics.

Not to hard to understand.

 

[SuperCloud]

Then perhaps you could be more specific.

"Phenomena that defies the laws of physics and chemistry" come in a variety of categories.

Stage and close-up magic. Illusions. Self-hypnosis/self-deception. Hoaxes. Fabricated stories. Hallucinations. Dreams. False and implanted memories.

Do you have any examples of "supernatural" that could not fit into the above categories?

I was not referring to illusions achieved by tricks of the trade by magicians. Nor was I referring to appearances or what science terms "apparent" as applies to our sensory perception of phenomenon.

Apparent Motions of the Sun

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Times NewRoman]During the year the earth moves around the sun. As a result, the sun appears to move around the sky once with respect to the stars as seen from Earth.[/FONT]

It may be useful to note that concepts can and have existed before sufficient evidence has been compiled to indicate they are false or true. The atom would be one of those. The atom was a concept before science compiled sufficient evidence that atoms do in fact exist.

The term super-natural (supernatural) is self explanatory. One could argue the term is a oxymoron, therefore a contradiction in terms, and therefore false in logic. But that would only be if a logical argument proposed the world was x way, with x in this case being that phenomena can only and ever, function within the natural limits of the laws of chemistry and physics.

But if x in a logical argument proposed that phenomena in the universe operates by laws scientific investigation has discovered, unless a supernatural, that is to say miraculous, event occurs. Then in logic that would be true. Something does not have to actually exist in logic, through a series of propositions, to be deemed true or false. Things merely have to rationally follow from one proposition to the next. So, it depends on how you structure the world is x way.

In science it's said that it's easier disprove something than to prove something. So, it's not really my burden to prove a supernatural occurrence ever occurred. The burden is on you to disprove the supernatural has, can, or ever will occur.

But I would simply say that medically recorded instances of cures deemed as having no natural explanation (based upon the laws of chemistry and physics) can logically be classified as supernatural or miraculous.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In science it's said that it's easier disprove something than to prove something. So, it's not really my burden to prove a supernatural occurrence ever occurred. The burden is on you to disprove the supernatural has, can, or ever will occur.

Of course it's your burden, if you claim that such events have occurred.

But I would simply say that medically recorded instances of cures deemed as having no natural explanation (based upon the laws of chemistry and physics) can logically be classified as supernatural or miraculous.

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how someone was cured does not imply that something supernatural must have happened. If we don't know, then how can we know that it was supernatural?

 

[SuperCloud]

Of course it's your burden, if you claim that such events have occurred.

As I said, science proposes that it is easier to prove something than to disprove something. Or another way of putting it is that science advances by disproving. If I say all birds are white and you reject that proposition then the burden is on you in science to disprove it.

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing how someone was cured does not imply that something supernatural must have happened. If we don't know, then how can we know that it was supernatural?

"Supernatural assumes" ignorance. What elements are say... the angels, God, or those deceased humans now presumably living in hell or heaven? One can't know, one can only be ignorant of this. We can know and identify all elements that make up matter in this world from a star to a piece of paper to the flesh of a woman.

The whole human body operates by the laws of chemistry and physics. They are predictive. Hence the success of science in the natural realm. With no predictive capability science would have little of its success now be it in medicine or computer engineering.

So, when doctors say--based upon the laws of chemistry and physics discovered* by scientists--that there is no known natural explanation for some spontaneous cure that occurred in x person, then they are not talking out of an ignorance of the science of medicine which draws upon the laws of chemistry and physics. However, they are speaking out of an ignorance of the supernatural as we have no way of know how (or even why per se) the supernatural occurrences operates.





*Scientist do not make up the laws of science, they discover them. Natural phenomena operated by these laws before scientist ever discovered or figured them out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As I said, science proposes that it is easier to prove something than to disprove something. Or another way of putting it is that science advances by disproving. If I say all birds are white and you reject that proposition then the burden is on you in science to disprove it.

You misunderstand. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which is you.

"Supernatural assumes" ignorance. What elements are say... the angels, God, or those deceased humans now presumably living in hell or heaven? One can't know, one can only be ignorant of this. We can know and identify all elements that make up matter in this world from a star to a piece of paper to the flesh of a woman.

The whole human body operates by the laws of chemistry and physics. They are predictive. Hence the success of science in the natural realm. With no predictive capability science would have little of its success now be it in medicine or computer engineering.

So, when doctors say--based upon the laws of chemistry and physics discovered* by scientists--that there is no known natural explanation for some spontaneous cure that occurred in x person, then they are not talking out of an ignorance of the science of medicine which draws upon the laws of chemistry and physics. However, they are speaking out of an ignorance of the supernatural as we have no way of know how (or even why per se) the supernatural occurrences operates.

If we have no way of knowing, then how do we know that it is even supernatural? Again, this is just an argument from ignorance.

 

[SuperCloud]

You misunderstand. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which is you.

No, you are the one misunderstanding. If so-called "homophobic" people make the proposition that homosexuality has no biological cause, and others reject that proposition and assert homosexuality is biologically (and that includes genetically caused) then it is up to those in science to disprove the proposition that homosexuality is not biologically caused.

They need to come up with a hypothesis explaining this phenomenon and test it out. And then either reject or accept their hypothesis.

That's an example. So, you'll seek to find a "gay gene" or "gay genes" or some other biological cause. Or you'll more accurately propose there is no statistical link between "gene x" and "outcome" or "trait y," and when finding a statistical link you'll reject your hypothesis, or in this way disprove your hypothesis.

If you are asserting there is a natural explanation for case in which a spontaneous cure happens for an individual, in which medical science, the medical professionals have already stated that there is no natural explanation, then the burden is for you to disprove those medical professionals offering their professional opinions from the applied science of practicing medicine. And the practice of medicine is an applied science like engineering. You seem to be confusing it with primitive medicine men who used plants, prayers, and drawing on bodies to produce cures.

If we have no way of knowing, then how do we know that it is even supernatural? Again, this is just an argument from ignorance.

Supernatural is a concept. Meaning it is above and beyond the natural order of the world we live in. We can't observe ourselves from outside the natural world. In other words we can't stand outside the universe and observe the universe. So, we are in the dilemma that the scientific methods has its limitations.

Those that respect science while at the same time acknowledging the limitations of science are not referred to as believers in scientism. On the other hand, those that believe science has no limitations in providing explanations, and that therefore science can eventually explain everything are referred to as believers in scientism.

We can refer to rare physical occurrences that defy the laws of chemistry and physics as miracles or the supernatural. Because they exhibit characteristics that go beyond the natural order of things. In that sense it is not necessary to have scientific evidence of a supernatural substance or supernatural substances. Until otherwise proven false we can apply a term that is descriptive of some phenomenon that occurs defying the natural order, and for reasons we can't scientifically explain.

 

[Davian]

I was not referring to illusions achieved by tricks of the trade by magicians. Nor was I referring to appearances or what science terms "apparent" as applies to our sensory perception of phenomenon.

Apparent Motions of the Sun

It may be useful to note that concepts can and have existed before sufficient evidence has been compiled to indicate they are false or true. The atom would be one of those. The atom was a concept before science compiled sufficient evidence that atoms do in fact exist.

The term super-natural (supernatural) is self explanatory.

Not necessarily. Etymology does not dictate current usage of a word.

One could argue the term is a oxymoron, therefore a contradiction in terms, and therefore false in logic.

Or, useless.

But that would only be if a logical argument proposed the world was x way, with x in this case being that phenomena can only and ever, function within the natural limits of the laws of chemistry and physics.

As we observe them to be.

But if x in a logical argument proposed that phenomena in the universe operates by laws scientific investigation has discovered, unless a supernatural, that is to say miraculous, event occurs. Then in logic that would be true. Something does not have to actually exist in logic, through a series of propositions, to be deemed true or false. Things merely have to rationally follow from one proposition to the next. So, it depends on how you structure the world is x way.

That does beg the question - has such an event ever occurred?

In science it's said that it's easier disprove something than to prove something. So, it's not really my burden to prove a supernatural occurrence ever occurred. The burden is on you to disprove the supernatural has, can, or ever will occur.

If the burden is on me, I then also get to define the words and terms used.

But I would simply say that medically recorded instances of cures deemed as having no natural explanation (based upon the laws of chemistry and physics) can logically be classified as supernatural or miraculous.

By your example, I will define "supernatural" as "unexplained recovery from sickness".

As long as that is all you ever apply the word "supernatural" to, I see no reason to disagree that the "supernatural" exists.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I'd be interested in any medical details you'd feel comfortable sharing, any that you could get information wise.

I will ask my wife if there is a possibility of getting medical records. I don't know what info they have already, or what they can get, but I will try. I would like them too.

 

[TillICollapse]

I will ask my wife if there is a possibility of getting medical records. I don't know what info they have already, or what they can get, but I will try. I would like them too.

That's cool, it would be interesting to see progress notes, perhaps labs and other reports, things like that.

 

[Kylie]

Care to actually address what I said?

I guess not...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you are the one misunderstanding. If so-called "homophobic" people make the proposition that homosexuality has no biological cause, and others reject that proposition and assert homosexuality is biologically (and that includes genetically caused) then it is up to those in science to disprove the proposition that homosexuality is not biologically caused.

They need to come up with a hypothesis explaining this phenomenon and test it out. And then either reject or accept their hypothesis.

That's an example. So, you'll seek to find a "gay gene" or "gay genes" or some other biological cause. Or you'll more accurately propose there is no statistical link between "gene x" and "outcome" or "trait y," and when finding a statistical link you'll reject your hypothesis, or in this way disprove your hypothesis.

If you are asserting there is a natural explanation for case in which a spontaneous cure happens for an individual, in which medical science, the medical professionals have already stated that there is no natural explanation, then the burden is for you to disprove those medical professionals offering their professional opinions from the applied science of practicing medicine. And the practice of medicine is an applied science like engineering. You seem to be confusing it with primitive medicine men who used plants, prayers, and drawing on bodies to produce cures.

You are confusing the issue. Since when did the doctors state unequivocally that there is no natural explanation for the cure? That statement begs the question for the supernatural. That something is inexplicable in terms of our current understanding does not imply that something supernatural must be the explanation.

Supernatural is a concept. Meaning it is above and beyond the natural order of the world we live in. We can't observe ourselves from outside the natural world. In other words we can't stand outside the universe and observe the universe. So, we are in the dilemma that the scientific methods has its limitations.

Those that respect science while at the same time acknowledging the limitations of science are not referred to as believers in scientism. On the other hand, those that believe science has no limitations in providing explanations, and that therefore science can eventually explain everything are referred to as believers in scientism.

We can refer to rare physical occurrences that defy the laws of chemistry and physics as miracles or the supernatural. Because they exhibit characteristics that go beyond the natural order of things. In that sense it is not necessary to have scientific evidence of a supernatural substance or supernatural substances. Until otherwise proven false we can apply a term that is descriptive of some phenomenon that occurs defying the natural order, and for reasons we can't scientifically explain.

Why use the term "supernatural" to describe such phenomena when the word "mysterious" already describes it? Using that sense of the word, there are many things that were once "supernatural" that no longer are because we now understand them better.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are asserting there is a natural explanation for case in which a spontaneous cure happens for an individual, in which medical science, the medical professionals have already stated that there is no natural explanation, then the burden is for you to disprove those medical professionals offering their professional opinions from the applied science of practicing medicine. And the practice of medicine is an applied science like engineering. You seem to be confusing it with primitive medicine men who used plants, prayers, and drawing on bodies to produce cures.

You are the one claiming that there is a supernatural cause. Where is your evidence?

Supernatural is a concept. Meaning it is above and beyond the natural order of the world we live in. We can't observe ourselves from outside the natural world. In other words we can't stand outside the universe and observe the universe. So, we are in the dilemma that the scientific methods has its limitations.

If something has an effect in the natural world, then science can study it. If the supernatural has no effect on the natural world, then it is irrelevant when it comes to a person's health.

We can refer to rare physical occurrences that defy the laws of chemistry and physics as miracles or the supernatural.

You are comfusing the terms "improbable" and "impossible". They do not mean the same thing. Improbable events can still happen, and do not defy any law of chemistry or physics.

 

[Davian]

No, you are the one misunderstanding. If so-called "homophobic" people make the proposition that homosexuality has no biological cause, and others reject that proposition and assert homosexuality is biologically (and that includes genetically caused) then it is up to those in science to disprove the proposition that homosexuality is not biologically caused.

They need to come up with a hypothesis explaining this phenomenon and test it out. And then either reject or accept their hypothesis.

That's an example. So, you'll seek to find a "gay gene" or "gay genes" or some other biological cause. Or you'll more accurately propose there is no statistical link between "gene x" and "outcome" or "trait y," and when finding a statistical link you'll reject your hypothesis, or in this way disprove your hypothesis.

If you are asserting there is a natural explanation for case in which a spontaneous cure happens for an individual, in which medical science, the medical professionals have already stated that there is no natural explanation, then the burden is for you to disprove those medical professionals offering their professional opinions from the applied science of practicing medicine. And the practice of medicine is an applied science like engineering. You seem to be confusing it with primitive medicine men who used plants, prayers, and drawing on bodies to produce cures.


Supernatural is a concept. Meaning it is above and beyond the natural order of the world we live in. We can't observe ourselves from outside the natural world. In other words we can't stand outside the universe and observe the universe. So, we are in the dilemma that the scientific methods has its limitations.

Those that respect science while at the same time acknowledging the limitations of science are not referred to as believers in scientism. On the other hand, those that believe science has no limitations in providing explanations, and that therefore science can eventually explain everything are referred to as believers in scientism.

We can refer to rare physical occurrences that defy the laws of chemistry and physics as miracles or the supernatural. Because they exhibit characteristics that go beyond the natural order of things. In that sense it is not necessary to have scientific evidence of a supernatural substance or supernatural substances. Until otherwise proven false we can apply a term that is descriptive of some phenomenon that occurs defying the natural order, and for reasons we can't scientifically explain.

Do you believe in leprechauns, pixies, gremlins, elves, gnomes, and fairies, as they have not yet been proven false by science?

 

[Ken-1122]

This is why I dislike the term "supernatural", because it's misleading.

If something happens in the natural world, it is by definition "natural". Even if it's from an extraordinary, as yet unexplained source that SEEMS to defy aspects of physics or is beyond our understanding as of yet, it's still "natural".

Yeah; but if it has never happened because it is impossible, it would still be considered supernatural in spite of the fact some people may claim to have seen it happen.

Ken

 

[4x4toy]

Think Jeff Foxworthy

It might be supernatural if you pray , anoint some one with oil scheduled the next morning for surgery 2 yrs blind and the Dr. drops the instruments and says "there's nothing wrong , she is fine"
It might be supernatural if a daughter asks prayer for her mother who is in flight by helicopter to Duke hospital for emergency heart procedures and when she arrived by car her mother is sitting perfectly fine in the waiting room
It might be supernatural when a friend who hasn't dated in years asks for prayer and that very weekend meets and gets engaged to a lovely woman just for him
It might be supernatural if you couldn't find a job , then while in fervent prayer get a phone call asking if you are interested in one of the best jobs I've ever had where I hadn't even heard of or placed an application to
It might be supernatural if you pray for someone with cancer in the middle of the street and next time you see them the cancer is gone .. I could go on for hours