How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[durangodawood]

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)

Now youre getting specific, which is not warranted, unless the details of the effect indicate so.

 

[TillICollapse]

Now youre getting specific, which is not warranted, unless the details of the effect indicate so.

How is that specific ?

 

[durangodawood]

How is that specific ?

Clumsy shelled reptiles associated with a prickly Greek god.

 

[TillICollapse]

Clumsy shelled reptiles associated with a prickly Greek god.

What's wrong with that ?

 

[durangodawood]

What's wrong with that ?

If there really are Magic Zeus Turtles, then its quite reasonable.

But for this discussion, it introduces confusion. Just talking about "the supernatural" is tricky enough without getting into what sort of personages (if any) are involved.

 

[TillICollapse]

If there really are Magic Zeus Turtles, then its quite reasonable.

They were also undetectable, but ...

But for this discussion, it introduces confusion. Just talking about "the supernatural" is tricky enough without getting into what sort of personages (if any) are involved.

Why is talking about the supernatural tricky ?

How about this instead of the magic turtles:

Cause: Magic Apart from Nature
Effects: Natural (at least partly, for our discussion)

Is that an acceptable coherent statement ?

 

[durangodawood]

They were also undetectable, but ...

Why is talking about the supernatural tricky ?

How about this instead of the magic turtles:

Cause: Magic Apart from Nature
Effects: Natural (at least partly, for our discussion)

Is that an acceptable coherent statement ?

Its coherent, but somewhat misleading. "Magic" is freighted with associations of trickery, and even silliness.

Whats wrong with just using the term "supernatural" rather than trying to flavor the discussion with exotica.

 

[variant]

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.

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

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

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.

If you are simply incapable of putting aside the wrote metaphysical assumption that absolutely nothing except natural things can happen within the universe then just say that is your assumption and be done with it.

There is no need for any lengthy discussion if you have made up your mind on that point.

I consider your assumption unwarranted and there is nothing to tell me that supernatural things can not interact with natural ones.

I have no basis for that assumption and I don't believe you do either.

 

[TillICollapse]

Its coherent, but somewhat misleading. "Magic" is freighted with associations of trickery, and even silliness.

Whats wrong with just using the term "supernatural" rather than trying to flavor the discussion with exotica.

When I think of magic, I actually think of the first definition that pops up when I type in "magic definition" in Google:

"The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." I actually don't think of trickery, etc. Although I can see why someone would make that association.

One of my issues with the term "supernatural" is that IT is misleading, imo, since it often gets attributed to events that happen and have natural effects. To me, the term "supernatural" is getting specific and it's not warranted. If something is happening in the natural universe, why make the jump that a cause may be outside of nature and not subject to physics ? I don't see the coherency in the statement:

Cause: Supernatural
Effect: Natural

It appears contradictory, unnecessary, and misleading, because it is getting specific by linking "natural" things in a way that cancels out it's own linkage to them in the definition within it's own terms, if you take it intellectually to the end of it's road. I can see other terms perhaps ... maybe preternatural, or some branch of metaphysics, maybe paranormal in certain contexts, etc ... but stating that something supernatural can have a natural effect appears self contradictory.

I do see however, in the wiki at least, that "The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about the definition of "natural" or the limits of naturalism. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and occultism or spiritualism. Additionally, by definition anything that exists naturally is not supernatural."

Thus we may be talking in circles here, perhaps because of semantics and lack of universal agreement about definitions.

Ultimately my stance is not that things which are often attributed to the "supernatural" don't actually exist, rather, the term "supernatural" is misleading because the effects of such things are seen in the natural, and that their source is simply beyond our ability currently to scientifically explain them, however this doesn't necessarily mean they are not subject to aspects of physics.

I rarely argue a point as though I'm correct, I was more commenting on some of the comments made in this thread to explore them since I saw contradictions in them. But talking in circles and going on repeat sucks lol

ETA: I'd probably say this is the most coherent statement, in lieu of using the term "supernatural" for an event which that term would typically get associated:

Cause: Unexplained
Effect: Natural

 

[TillICollapse]

If you are simply incapable of putting aside the wrote metaphysical assumption that absolutely nothing except natural things can happen within the universe then just say that is your assumption and be done with it.

There is no need for any lengthy discussion if you have made up your mind on that point.

This is one of the reasons I said a few times that we may be talking around each other, or that we could cease the discussion, etc. Because it seems we had come to an impasse concerning our POV's.

I consider your assumption unwarranted and there is nothing to tell me that supernatural things can not interact with natural ones.

This seems like a classic argument from ignorance, which may be what I was trying to put my finger on in some of your statements. So let's be done with it at this point.

I have no basis for that assumption and I don't believe you do either.

I'm not totally sure what you're referencing here, I can't tell if you're talking about your own assumption as well ? No matter, I'm not a fan of arguing for the sake of arguing, so it's cool we can chill

 

[Kylie]

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.

My point is that if we are to discuss a thing, we need to clearly define what that thing is. Many people have differing opinions on what supernatural is, so if we are to discuss the supernatural, we need to know what is involved in something being supernatural and how to recognise if something is supernatural or not.

Until such definitions are given, we can't discuss very much about it.

 

[Kylie]

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 the supernatural can interfere with a natural event, then that interference can be measured. If the supernatural can be measured like this, then it is part of the natural world and thus not supernatural.

In any case, can you show me an example of a natural event doing something impossible? Please remember to show evidence that what it did was impossible without the claimed supernatural involvement.

 

[variant]

This is one of the reasons I said a few times that we may be talking around each other, or that we could cease the discussion, etc. Because it seems we had come to an impasse concerning our POV's.

No we're not at an impasse, I take my worldview from observation and you have defined what you will accept.

You are at an impasse in that your metaphysical assumptions will not accept even evidence of supernatural things by definition.

So, why we are talking about how we would go about "differentiating" between two conditions which you will not accept are even possible within the same universe is beyond me.

This seems like a classic argument from ignorance, which may be what I was trying to put my finger on in some of your statements. So let's be done with it at this point.

We have a position of ignorance not an argument from it.

You would like to argue from a position of knowledge about what is and is not possible, but this isn't possible here.

I'm not totally sure what you're referencing here, I can't tell if you're talking about your own assumption as well ? No matter, I'm not a fan of arguing for the sake of arguing, so it's cool we can chill

You would like your metaphysical assumptions to decide what can and can not happen within the universe.

I don't find this position supported.

 

[Tree of Life]

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.

I don't find "natural" and "supernatural" to be terribly helpful categories and so I would not generally use them. They're not biblical terms and I don't believe that "supernatural" really does a good job of describing God's works.

That being said, when God works miraculously he shows us that he is the ultimate authority in creation. Creation obeys God rather than impersonal natural law. God's miraculous works serve to show us who's really in charge of everything.

 

[variant]

If the supernatural can interfere with a natural event, then that interference can be measured. If the supernatural can be measured like this, then it is part of the natural world and thus not supernatural.

Why would we assume measurable = natural?

 

[Kylie]

Why would we assume measurable = natural?

If it is measurable, then it is interacting with the natural world. If it can interact with the natural world, then it is part of that world, therefore it is natural and not supernatural.

 

[durangodawood]

If the supernatural can interfere with a natural event, then that interference can be measured. If the supernatural can be measured like this, then it is part of the natural world and thus not supernatural.

In any case, can you show me an example of a natural event doing something impossible? Please remember to show evidence that what it did was impossible without the claimed supernatural involvement.

You havent measured the supernatural. What you described is measuring its effect on the natural world.

I have no example of supernatural interference to offer. As far as I know, there are none. But I'm not sure.

 

[TillICollapse]

No we're not at an impasse, I take my worldview from observation and you have defined what you will accept.

You are at an impasse in that your metaphysical assumptions will not accept even evidence of supernatural things by definition.

So, why we are talking about how we would go about "differentiating" between two conditions which you will not accept are even possible within the same universe is beyond me.

We have a position of ignorance not an argument from it.

You would like to argue from a position of knowledge about what is and is not possible, but this isn't possible here.

You would like your metaphysical assumptions to decide what can and can not happen within the universe.

I don't find this position supported.

Did you want to keep discussing this with me for some reason ? I am willing to politely stop, as I'm also kind of losing interest at this point in these aspects of the discussion anyways. If you wanted to keep going however, I suppose I will.

 

[durangodawood]

When I think of magic, I actually think of the first definition that pops up when I type in "magic definition" in Google:

"The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." I actually don't think of trickery, etc. Although I can see why someone would make that association.

One of my issues with the term "supernatural" is that IT is misleading, imo, since it often gets attributed to events that happen and have natural effects. To me, the term "supernatural" is getting specific and it's not warranted. If something is happening in the natural universe, why make the jump that a cause may be outside of nature and not subject to physics ? I don't see the coherency in the statement:

Cause: Supernatural
Effect: Natural

It appears contradictory, unnecessary, and misleading, because it is getting specific by linking "natural" things in a way that cancels out it's own linkage to them in the definition within it's own terms, if you take it intellectually to the end of it's road. I can see other terms perhaps ... maybe preternatural, or some branch of metaphysics, maybe paranormal in certain contexts, etc ... but stating that something supernatural can have a natural effect appears self contradictory.

I do see however, in the wiki at least, that "The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected. One complicating factor is that there is no universal agreement about the definition of "natural" or the limits of naturalism. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and occultism or spiritualism. Additionally, by definition anything that exists naturally is not supernatural."

Thus we may be talking in circles here, perhaps because of semantics and lack of universal agreement about definitions.

Ultimately my stance is not that things which are often attributed to the "supernatural" don't actually exist, rather, the term "supernatural" is misleading because the effects of such things are seen in the natural, and that their source is simply beyond our ability currently to scientifically explain them, however this doesn't necessarily mean they are not subject to aspects of physics.

I rarely argue a point as though I'm correct, I was more commenting on some of the comments made in this thread to explore them since I saw contradictions in them. But talking in circles and going on repeat sucks lol

ETA: I'd probably say this is the most coherent statement, in lieu of using the term "supernatural" for an event which that term would typically get associated:

Cause: Unexplained
Effect: Natural

I agree that most (if not all) "supernatural" events are wrongly attributed, and are simply natural.

But that does not render the idea of the supernatural into nonsense. And IF there is genuine supernatural interference in our natural world, nothing youve described renders the idea: that a supernatural event could have natural effect, into illogic.

Mis-attribution of natural events onto supernatural causes was not the initial complaint in this thread.

 

[variant]

If it is measurable, then it is interacting with the natural world. If it can interact with the natural world, then it is part of that world, therefore it is natural and not supernatural.

"can interact with" and " is a part of" seem to be different ideas to me.

You simply seem to think touching the natural universe makes you an integral part of it, or that it would make something inherently "natural".

I don't think this is necessarily true.