How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[TillICollapse]

Well I don't believe in the supernatural because I don't have evidence like what I am suggesting, what I am saying is that I don't think all supernatural claims would necessarily be unfalsifiable ones, if they are in fact events that happen, they should be observable.

Observable means we can hold it to objective standards.

To observe (and confirm the observation of) the supernatural what we would get would be a very stubbornly unpredictable and unexplainable event that we both knew was happening and thought was impossible.

And if such an event happened which fit all of the criteria you just laid out, I don't see how such an event could be called "supernatural". My understanding is that part of the definition of supernatural is that it is not subject to the laws of physics. If it was observed in our physical natural universe, and it did happen ... despite the belief it was not possible that it could happen, it was unpredictable, and as yet unexplainable, and thus was not yet objectively understood by objective standards ... it still happened within our universe so to make the jump and claim that such an event was not subject to the laws within our universe, seems unnecessary. You would have to PROVE that it was not subject to the laws of physics, and to do this, you would essentially need absolute and complete knowledge on all laws of physics (which we do not have).

As with the double slit experiment, if there is no good reason to abandon materialist solutions we should not, they are simply simpler (parsimonious) and we have a better history with them. And, they have a much better (read infinitely better) track record for actually explaining events.

Perhaps my attempt to use analogous examples sucked lol, and drew us away from my original points I was picking up on in your statements ... so I'll stay away from those analogous examples (double slit experiment, undetectable pink unicorns, etc) ...

If you want to bug out at this point of the convo, I won't take it personally and it's cool. Otherwise, going back to what you originally said, which I picked up on and questioned, was this:

"Something that happened within the universe needn't be "part" of it aside from it's natural after effect."

*If* this is a claim, I don't see how you could *prove* this statement. Let's put it that way. Hopefully that reduces all my side trail analogies into a central point.

However speaking of the side trail analogies lol … it brought out this statement which I further spoke to:

"What you are saying though is that causing things to happen within the natural universe ultimately makes something a part of the natural universe, and I disagree so long as that thing doesn't obey the usual natural laws of the universe but instead introduces a different set of laws of a markedly different (if theoretically compatible) set."

I didn't take this as a claim, rather I took it as a statement of your opinion … however it seems like your logic is breaking down here as well, in the way I'm seeing it at least. I mean, I can "agree to disagree", but I'm also wondering if your logic is sound and I'm just not seeing it.

I am saying that if something happens within the natural universe, even if it is presumed impossible before hand … once it happens, it can't be "impossible" by definition of the fact it happened. It can't be "supernatural" by the fact it happened. Even if it appears to operate via physical principles that go against everything "usually natural", it happened in the natural universe nonetheless. Thus to term it "supernatural" is fallacious. This is because it actually happened in our universe. If it didn't happen, it's still not "supernatural". It's a fabrication.

To elevate the above opinion I quoted to a claim, I don't see how you could prove that something which has happened and been observed in our universe operates on a different set of laws foreign to our universe, for example. I don't see how you could prove that, if for no other reason, than by your frame of reference as existing within our universe. Even if you could somehow discover another universe, for example, where laws were radically different … once you interacted with it, the two would no longer be separate, they would at the very least be causally linked at one point. Thus, to claim there are "two sets of laws" at work, natural and supernatural (for example) is no longer sufficient. They are now linked. A little pregnant is pregnant (hopefully not another sucky analogy lol).

There is where I ask, "Am I missing something in what you're saying ?" perhaps I'm not seeing the logic ?

Again, if you want to drop this convo, it's cool, I won't take it personally whatsoever … that's why I said we may be talking circles around each other now, to help prevent broken record posting back and forth.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'll worry about it when something supernatural actually happens.

Have you ever experienced an event which you suspected or concluded was "supernatural" (or perhaps paranormal, or spiritual is a term I could choose) ... only later to change your mind ? Not to put any standards on your response, but I'd probably be looking for something more extraordinary than things like, "I thought the feelings I felt were spiritual in origin, and later changed my mind" or something like that. Something extraordinary would be something more like, "I levitated off the ground 5 feet for 25 seconds one day at work. Two people saw this and verified it. I got checked out, I apparently wasn't hallucinating and neither were they. I believed it was supernatural, but later changed my mind," etc. ?

 

[talquin]

I don't think this follows.

Something that happened within the universe needn't be "part" of it aside from it's natural after effect.

The event itself could be theoretically impossible to happen in the natural world without some intervening circumstance, which would make it supernatural.

Once the event happens, it becomes part of the natural world.

 

[talquin]

What is a "supernatural thing", and how would you know it?

Was magnetism a "supernatural thing" until we understood it better?

That's yet another good question. If "supernatural" merely means not within our known physical laws, then as soon as something supernatural does occur, then it ceases to be supernatural and becomes natural.

Christians may posit that the occurrence is supernatural because it was caused by a god. But how can they actually know the cause of an event that is considered "supernatural"?

 

[variant]

Once the event happens, it becomes part of the natural world.

That would just be you defining all "events" as natural. If all events are not natural you are begging the question.

Putting a boat in a river though doesn't make a boat water.

 

[variant]

And if such an event happened which fit all of the criteria you just laid out, I don't see how such an event could be called "supernatural". My understanding is that part of the definition of supernatural is that it is not subject to the laws of physics. If it was observed in our physical natural universe, and it did happen ... despite the belief it was not possible that it could happen, it was unpredictable, and as yet unexplainable, and thus was not yet objectively understood by objective standards ... it still happened within our universe so to make the jump and claim that such an event was not subject to the laws within our universe, seems unnecessary. You would have to PROVE that it was not subject to the laws of physics, and to do this, you would essentially need absolute and complete knowledge on all laws of physics (which we do not have).

Right after arduous repeated testing you are going to find no satisfactory explanation. Then, something normally unessisary becomes nessisary, you have to question whether any of the normal laws apply.

If not you are probably just stubborn.

To elevate the above opinion I quoted to a claim, I don't see how you could prove that something which has happened and been observed in our universe operates on a different set of laws foreign to our universe, for example. I don't see how you could prove that, if for no other reason, than by your frame of reference as existing within our universe. Even if you could somehow discover another universe, for example, where laws were radically different … once you interacted with it, the two would no longer be separate, they would at the very least be causally linked at one point. Thus, to claim there are "two sets of laws" at work, natural and supernatural (for example) is no longer sufficient. They are now linked. A little pregnant is pregnant (hopefully not another sucky analogy lol).

If the universe is made of material, governed by laws and mechanical then there are only so many possibilities for things that can happen, thus there are things that are excluded.

Basically you need only prove one excluded thing is rightfully excluded and that it happened to show something non-material happened.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the natural is a property of the parts, the supernatural a property of the whole. We share in both. We are like a metaphysical moibus strip.

We can say that the parts are "normal" in the sense that we can theoretically normalise or explain them physically according to a normative analysis - like when we say its known inductive nomologically that smoking causes lung cancer.

But my hunch is that the whole, the multiverse or whatever, is not within a causal framework, its paranormal.

So, just as we have quantum and classical aspects to the world we live in, and the entity that we are, we also have natural and supernatural or normal and paranormal aspects to the universe. And to who we are.

Science is natural and "ontic" or relating to particular beings and their relations, where as the metaphysical is ontological and relates tonot this or that entity but to "Being". Thats another way of approaching the issue, a Heideggarian way.

This is a moibus strip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxr8g3_DMwk

Quoted from here
Srila Prabhupada explained that we are part of Krishna, like leaves on a tree or fingers on a body. As the self-interest of a thirsty leaf lies in letting water find the tree’s root, and the self-interest of a hungry finger lies in putting food in the mouth, so our self-interest lies in pleasing Krishna.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Have you ever experienced an event which you suspected or concluded was "supernatural"

No.

 

[Gottservant]

The natural does not change the truth.

The supernatural does not cease to involve God.

 

[TillICollapse]

Right after arduous repeated testing you are going to find no satisfactory explanation. Then, something normally unessisary becomes nessisary, you have to question whether any of the normal laws apply.

If not you are probably just stubborn.



If the universe is made of material, governed by laws and mechanical then there are only so many possibilities for things that can happen, thus there are things that are excluded.

Basically you need only prove one excluded thing is rightfully excluded and that it happened to show something non-material happened.

I suppose I still disagree with some of your points, however let me try one more time with a practical example, and one that would be relevant to this forum (I imagine):

Assume for a moment that everything recorded about Jesus is true, generally speaking. I'm not talking about every minute detail that the average person may not be able to think of on the spot, but the overall things that come to mind: all the feats He was capable of accomplishing, claims about his origins, etc and so forth. In your opinion, would they be "supernatural" ? Would He be supernatural ? Would his abilities then be termed supernatural ? Would He have supernatural origins ?

 

[talquin]

That would just be you defining all "events" as natural. If all events are not natural you are begging the question.

Putting a boat in a river though doesn't make a boat water.

When you see or experience an event which doesn't appear to be part of our natural world, should it be assumed it is natural or supernatural? Since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the burden of proof would be upon you to show it was supernatural if you were to make such claim.

So if you turn water into wine, everyone who sees that will assume it is some kind of magic trick or illusion and will attribute it to the natural world.

 

[talquin]

The natural does not change the truth.

The supernatural does not cease to involve God.

Can you provide sufficient evidence that the supernatural or God exist?

 

[Colter]

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.

To God nothing is a miracle, we just call it a miracle because we don't know how it was done.

 

[Colter]

Can you provide sufficient evidence that the supernatural or God exist?

"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB 1955


Can you provide any sufficient evidence that God does not exist?

 

[variant]

I suppose I still disagree with some of your points, however let me try one more time with a practical example, and one that would be relevant to this forum (I imagine):

Assume for a moment that everything recorded about Jesus is true, generally speaking. I'm not talking about every minute detail that the average person may not be able to think of on the spot, but the overall things that come to mind: all the feats He was capable of accomplishing, claims about his origins, etc and so forth. In your opinion, would they be "supernatural" ? Would He be supernatural ? Would his abilities then be termed supernatural ? Would He have supernatural origins ?

They may, I don't have enough familiarity with the actual events but if you assume them true as written:

Jesus would have spoken with the Devil for instance so it kind of assumes an answer.

 

[variant]

When you see or experience an event which doesn't appear to be part of our natural world, should it be assumed it is natural or supernatural? Since the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, the burden of proof would be upon you to show it was supernatural if you were to make such claim.

Sure, what I am saying is that all events can't simply be defined as natural, they should be observed to be that way.

So if you turn water into wine, everyone who sees that will assume it is some kind of magic trick or illusion and will attribute it to the natural world.

Right but if we have control over the experiment and complete recording and transparency and someone can repeatedly do it in those conditions resisting all natural explanation, then I think it would be fairly well demonstrated.


We can observe events like what happened in the Bible under scientific conditions they could hold up. We don't have that kind of evidence to support the supernatural, but it is unreasonable to say it is impossible by definition.

We DON'T observe the supernatural under these kind of conditions so that is how we can feel confident that it is likely a misunderstanding of reality.

The religious like to define their deities in the most non-falsifiable manner possible but, that is not a restriction on everyone else.

 

[TillICollapse]

They may, I don't have enough familiarity with the actual events but if you assume them true as written:

Jesus would have spoken with the Devil for instance so it kind of assumes an answer.

But why assume "supernatural" ?

If extraterrestrials just "appeared" on the White House lawn, claiming to be extraterrestrials and were capable of speaking to amputees and having their limbs grow back with a word, would they be considered "supernatural" or "advanced" ?

 

[variant]

But why assume "supernatural" ?

If extraterrestrials just "appeared" on the White House lawn, claiming to be extraterrestrials and were capable of speaking to amputees and having their limbs grow back with a word, would they be considered "supernatural" or "advanced" ?

Because I would be assuming the ideas true as written, not, true in a sense but mistaken by the writers.

I told you that I needed extensive objective information to make a determination of supernatural so I don't honestly know what this line of questioning means to me anyway.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because I would be assuming the ideas true as written, not, true in a sense but mistaken by the writers.

I told you that I needed extensive objective information to make a determination of supernatural so I don't honestly know what this line of questioning means to me anyway.

If you had said, "Yes Jesus would be supernatural" I may have explored it further. You did essentially say that with "it kind of assumes an answer" ...

What kind of extensive objective information would suffice for you to determine if Jesus was "supernatural" or at least capable of supernatural abilities ? Lets forget Jesus for a moment, and say a man knocked on your door in the next 20 minutes and said, "I'm here to give you extensive objective information to make a determination of the supernatural, so go ahead and tell me what you need ..." what would suffice for you ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

If it's supernatural, and non-repeatable, how pray-tell will you, as a finite, limited human being, measure it, analyze it, or control for it in a comprehensive, scientific manner? Answer: you won't. This is why mainstream science leaves the supernatural out of the equation, and why we call this approach, "methodological materialism."

Phenomena that are super-natural are identified as "super" for the above reason; this is what "super" means. Thus, it is not a large problem to discern the difference between what we mean by nature and supernatural.