How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[Gottservant]

Evidence for natural things is not evidence for supernatural things.

That does not mean the evidences are not related, even if that was what I was saying. Fried eggs are not evidence of toast logically, but if they are not there you don't expect to see fried eggs on toast - the question being asked, when evidence is posited, is what people expect to see (not what they expect to be related).

If this were true, all the evidence would be pointing towards the same truth. It does not. The countless different religions in the world show this.

Except that you do not posit a vector from which the interrelation of truth can be evaluated. So you are either hoping that related truth is ignored or ignoring related truth. I'm not criticizing that, I'm just trying to elucidate the obvious, for you.

Rubbish. People can get pregnant without love. It happens all the time. Children are not evidence of love, they are evidence of sexual intercourse.

Now, this, this is a flat out lie, even if you are raped there is more involved than simply sexual intercourse. I was raped and I haven't stopped thinking about it for decades, would I do that if it was simply a chemically inspired imagination?

I doubt your integrity if you can prostitute your sense of sexual relations to make a point, sorry, but it was just uncalled for. Literally no one wants you to make of something that is valuable for your whole life, a joke.

You will have to think of something else if you want to move the conversation forward.

 

[talquin]

How about......

Natural: any object and event of matter/energy.

Supernatural: anything else.

Agreed. Those are good definitions.

 

[talquin]

You'd first have to provide a definition of the two terms in question. If you do this, I will answer the question.

From durangodawood:

How about......

Natural: any object and event of matter/energy.

Supernatural: anything else.

 

[talquin]

Believers are evidence, their changed lives are evidence.

Believers aren't evidence of the supernatural or of God. Believers are evidence of believers.

Do atheists love one another? A little? Do Satanists love one another? Perversely? Do Mormons love one another? At times? Do Amish love one another? Like family? Do Muslims love one another? Like brothers? Do Jews love one another? Like gods? Do Christians love one another? Like students? Do believers love one another? Like Christ?

All this is love, God is love.

So you're saying the presence of love is evidence of God. Correct?

The presence of love is evidence of love, not evidence of God.

 

[Kylie]

From durangodawood:

How about......

Natural: any object and event of matter/energy.

Supernatural: anything else.

Yes, I saw that and I replied to it.

What's your point here?

 

[Kylie]

That does not mean the evidences are not related, even if that was what I was saying.

They are not related. You can't make the natural related to the supernatural just by claiming it is. Demonstrate the relationship or there is nothing.

Fried eggs are not evidence of toast logically, but if they are not there you don't expect to see fried eggs on toast - the question being asked, when evidence is posited, is what people expect to see (not what they expect to be related).

And likewise, the natural is not evidence of the supernatural. And it the supernatural is not there, I don't expect to see the supernatural acting on the natural.

And lo and behold, we never see it.

Except that you do not posit a vector from which the interrelation of truth can be evaluated.

And what does this mean when you say it in English instead of technobabble buzzwords?

So you are either hoping that related truth is ignored or ignoring related truth. I'm not criticizing that, I'm just trying to elucidate the obvious, for you.

This is rich coming from someone who hasn't even shown that:

1. There's a relation between the natural and the supernatural
2. The supernatural even exists

Now, this, this is a flat out lie, even if you are raped there is more involved than simply sexual intercourse. I was raped and I haven't stopped thinking about it for decades, would I do that if it was simply a chemically inspired imagination?

While I'm sorry for what happened to you, a rape is not evidence of love. I would suggest that it is evidence that you are unable to deal with the emotions and I strongly suggest that you seek help to deal with those emotions.

I doubt your integrity if you can prostitute your sense of sexual relations to make a point, sorry, but it was just uncalled for. Literally no one wants you to make of something that is valuable for your whole life, a joke.

Yeah, you don't get to define what sexual intercourse means for me.

You will have to think of something else if you want to move the conversation forward.

No, you will have to get past the idea that your views apply to everyone. They don't.

 

[Gottservant]

They are not related. You can't make the natural related to the supernatural just by claiming it is. Demonstrate the relationship or there is nothing.

This is foolish, I pointed to the foundation of the relationship and you say "but what relationship is that?"

And likewise, the natural is not evidence of the supernatural. And it the supernatural is not there, I don't expect to see the supernatural acting on the natural.

And lo and behold, we never see it.

Except that there are obviously believers, who obviously change their lives.

I suspect this is pointless, as you obviously are not engaging with what I say.

While I'm sorry for what happened to you, a rape is not evidence of love.

Unfortunately, you don't get to propagate this lie, based on a supposition that either of us intended to show love, when I never said either of us did. The fact is that love was there, irrespective of both of us and the fact that you have ignored me on the basis of a false supposition about something so fundamental shows you do not even care about your own words to me (as long as they hurt).

Thanks very much but I have better ways to spend my time.

 

[Kylie]

This is foolish, I pointed to the foundation of the relationship and you say "but what relationship is that?"

You never pointed to the foundation of ANY relationship.

You merely assumed that the supernatural exists and that assumed it has a relationship with the natural. That's two assumptions right there, and you haven't shown either one of them is valid.

Except that there are obviously believers, who obviously change their lives.

I suspect this is pointless, as you obviously are not engaging with what I say.

And this proves nothing but the fact that they believe very very strongly.

Unfortunately, you don't get to propagate this lie, based on a supposition that either of us intended to show love, when I never said either of us did. The fact is that love was there, irrespective of both of us and the fact that you have ignored me on the basis of a false supposition about something so fundamental shows you do not even care about your own words to me (as long as they hurt).

Do you actually think that one person raping another is an act of love?

Now, I NEVER intended to hurt you. Please, see a counselor. It seems to me that you have deep and unresolved emotional issues from this event.

 

[Gottservant]

You never pointed to the foundation of ANY relationship.

You merely assumed that the supernatural exists and that assumed it has a relationship with the natural. That's two assumptions right there, and you haven't shown either one of them is valid.

Now you say "no, you are saying the subject of discussion are two things" when I very clearly said that the evidence is changed lives.

And this proves nothing but the fact that they believe very very strongly.

Is not the point to believe as strongly as possible, I would have thought that if you knew the truth that was exactly the point.

Do you actually think that one person raping another is an act of love?

Now, I NEVER intended to hurt you. Please, see a counselor. It seems to me that you have deep and unresolved emotional issues from this event.

Once again, you leave out perspective, as I told you you were doing earlier.

Why correct what you obviously have no perception of? Is denial popular in your opinion - that's what it sounds like: if I had not been raped, you could contradict me all day, but I'm afraid my experience is too concrete for that (and will be for the rest of my life, for what its worth).

 

[Kylie]

Now you say "no, you are saying the subject of discussion are two things" when I very clearly said that the evidence is changed lives.

And you haven't shown that it has ANYTHING to do with something supernatural.

I remind you that a belief in the supernatural doesn't count as an actual supernatural thing.

Is not the point to believe as strongly as possible, I would have thought that if you knew the truth that was exactly the point.

Believe in the supernatural all you want.

But belief alone doesn't make something real.

Once again, you leave out perspective, as I told you you were doing earlier.

Why correct what you obviously have no perception of? Is denial popular in your opinion - that's what it sounds like: if I had not been raped, you could contradict me all day, but I'm afraid my experience is too concrete for that (and will be for the rest of my life, for what its worth).

Gott, please get help. It is not emotionally healthy to see a rape as an act of love.

Please get help, I'm begging you.

 

[talquin]

Yes, I saw that and I replied to it.

What's your point here?

I'm not sure I understand the context of your question. I'd like to answer you, but would be less likely to mislead you if you could share with me what is the point of your question.

 

[durangodawood]

Thus, anything you can show me or anything a person can experience is natural.

Therefore the supernatural can never influence us.....

Supernatural influence might make a natural event have highly unlikely or even "impossible" attributes.

So even if you can "see" the actual supernatural, its effects might be visible.

 

[TillICollapse]

Supernatural influence might make a natural event have highly unlikely or even "impossible" attributes.

So even if you can "see" the actual supernatural, its effects might be visible.

If an event takes place to where you can observe/experience it's effects ... even if that event seems to have impossible attributes ... how would one prove that the influence behind the event was not subject to the physical laws within our natural universe to where they could objectively conclude such a thing ?

 

[durangodawood]

If an event takes place to where you can observe/experience it's effects ... even if that event seems to have impossible attributes ... how would one prove that the influence behind the event was not subject to the physical laws within our natural universe to where they could objectively conclude such a thing ?

I dont think you can prove it.

But to "discern" is not to "prove". Discern is a lower standard.

 

[TillICollapse]

I dont think you can prove it.

But to "discern" is not to "prove". Discern is a lower standard.

But even if one is discerning a "supernatural" influence, wouldn't it now be "natural" since it's effects are seen in the natural ?

 

[Inkfingers]

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.

"Supernatural" is a horrible sloppy word used by people who see something the do not understand and that proceed to make strange claims about it.

Strictly speaking, nothing is supernatural. The world is an orderly place and everything that occurs there does so through cause and effect. There is zero reason to believe that (presuming they exist) ghosts, magic, etc are "supernatural".

That is not to say that they are not from a 'demonic' source; just that they do not happen outside of an orderly process. If they are real, they are as natural as handgrenades, chocolate, and anthrax.

 

[variant]

I think I'm still in disagreement with some of your statements ... I don't see how things that happen in the natural can not be subject to the laws of physics, and thus be literally "supernatural", when they are being observed and experienced and are happening in our universe.

Then you simply wish to define everything as natural regardless of what the evidence would point to. I find this unsatisfactory.

I still don't see how it's possible to prove something in our universe is not subject to the physics within it, even if we simply do not understand the principles at work. So I think we're at an impasse at this point in the side convo, as I'll just be asking you to "prove" things. Thanks for responding and being cool about things

Evidence, proofs are for math and alcohol.

Evidence can most certainly point to the idea that a phenomena doesn't obey natural laws to the point where we would accept that it does not.

Hmm, I'd have to think about that.

Think about it all you like, it's a foundational question of how you accept facts and reality.

At some point you run out of reasons for skepticism on any particular fact no matter how absurd its seems to be.

If you start to doubt conclusions with consistent and unwavering evidence what are you left with that is real?

 

[durangodawood]

But even if one is discerning a "supernatural" influence, wouldn't it now be "natural" since it's effects are seen in the natural ?

Cause: Supernatural
Effects: Natural (at least partly, for our discussion)

I see no inherent problem here..... (leaving aside whether there even IS any such supernatural cause.)

 

[TillICollapse]

Cause: Supernatural
Effects: Natural (at least partly, for our discussion)

I see no inherent problem here..... (leaving aside whether there even IS any such supernatural cause.)

I see no inherent problem there, if we also accept this statement or something similar:

Cause: Magic Undetectable Zeus Turtles
Effects: Natural (at least partly, for our discussion)

 

[TillICollapse]

Then you simply wish to define everything as natural regardless of what the evidence would point to. I find this unsatisfactory.

Not exactly.

If it's taking place as an event within our known universe, then I see no reason to say it isn't "natural". I mean, we could call a red apple a watermelon all day long, or claim it has powers and abilities ... but objectively speaking, "it is what it is" and it exists within what we consider "natural". Even if the apple began to dance around and sing show tunes and heal the sick with a wave of it's stem, it's still taking place within our natural environment. It may be extraordinary, and the evidence may point to something extraordinary, but it's still taking place within nature. Therefore, it's natural. It is operating off of SOME physical principles. Albeit ones we don't understand yet, or recognize as being normal. Assuming the definition of supernatural involves not being subject to physics of our universe, and pertaining to things outside nature ... I don't see how one could show conclusively such an influence was at play, if no other reason, by our place in the natural universe. If one wants to believe it is at play, okay ... but why not believe flying spaghetti monsters are at play also ? Thus, I see the term "supernatural" as irrelevant.

Let's say we can theorize and show mathematically that other universes exist that have copies of ourselves, other versions of ourselves running around in their own causalities, etc. That's great. In that sense, it COULD be considered supernatural. But if we can't go there, or interact with that environment, or experience it on any level whatsoever, or have it manifest in our own universe ... it may exist, but it's existence is largely irrelevant since it has no bearing or impact or influence on anything in our own. In that sense, call it "supernatural" if you wish. BUT ... the moment it has an effect on our universe in any way, even in a single instant, it is no longer "separate". It's not above our nature, or outside of it, or not subject to the physics that involve our natural environment. If nothing else, in that single instant, it was. It is now part of our causality. It had an effect. There was an event. It's now part of our natural environment. It's origin may not have been ... but even that is speculative now, because of our own placement in our causal chain. Since we were not there at the beginning of our causal chain, how can we be certain that the "supernatural" universe wasn't also there at that point, or before it, or that one didn't emerge from the other ? So even then, the idea it's "supernatural" seems unnecessary as well as self contradictory. It's a matter of belief, and so again, one could argue there are supernatural turtles which everything is balancing on top of, all the way down. I don't see the relevance.

Evidence, proofs are for math and alcohol.

I'm reminded to grab an Angry Orchard later today.

Evidence can most certainly point to the idea that a phenomena doesn't obey natural laws to the point where we would accept that it does not.

Can you prove this claim and/or provide evidence for it ?

Completely and consistently convincing is the standard for all evidence, Turing just points out that we should hold to that standard.

Hmm, I'd have to think about that.

Think about it all you like, it's a foundational question of how you accept facts and reality.

At some point you run out of reasons for skepticism on any particular fact no matter how absurd its seems to be.

If you start to doubt conclusions with consistent and unwavering evidence what are you left with that is real?

I said I'd have to think about it because it's a generalized statement that has some semantical points I may or may not agree with. For example, evidence may speak for itself and thus "It is what it is," regardless of whether or not someone is convinced by it completely. My testimony on the witness stand may not be completely convincing evidence in a consistent manner (for example, I may not communicate well, or I may give the impression I'm dishonest, or others may have a different account from mine and seem more convincing) for any number of reasons, yet it still may be factual and correct. Examples like that is why I would have to think about your statement and on what levels I agree or disagree with it.

All in all I don't think I've ever said in this thread "The supernatural doesn't exist," rather, I think the term is misleading. The context which it is often used deals with things that are happening in the natural, and to differentiate between the two in the context the term is typically used, given it's definition, seems contradictory to me.

"If an orange is a lizard, that's supernatural," for instance.