If ghosts are real, then they aren’t supernatural

[zippy2006]

Do you mean you'd like there to be a basis, i.e. you'd think the supernatural does or should exist...

Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.

 

[RileyG]

Ghosts are real.

God says it, that settles it.

In fact, God himself is the Holy Ghost.

Amen

 

[RileyG]

I would say ghosts can only be seen if God allows it. So yes, I think it does happen from time to time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.

But that doesn't mean the supernatural does or should 'exist'. Have you considered that it might be the concept of 'supernatural' that is vacuous? Trying to define something by what it is not is an admission of ignorance, usually vacuous.

But maybe you have a different definition of 'exist'...?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.

Would you say the same is true of one who says all existing things are supernatural?

To my mind it is not an assertion to be argued for, but an analysis that demonstrates source. It only presents a POV, that credits God for creating and sustaining all things, and doesn't lend respect to man's POV of natural vs miracle.

 

[zippy2006]

But that doesn't mean the supernatural does or should 'exist'.

And that was not the argument. You seem to have missed it entirely, probably because of your own biases. Whether or not the supernatural exists, the OP's argument is non-existent.

 

[zippy2006]

Would you say the same is true of one who says all existing things are supernatural?

Yes - conflating two distinct concepts without an argument/middle term is a form of irrationality.

• All supernatural things are by definition non-existent
• All existing things are by definition supernatural
• All dogs are by definition brown

These are all irrational statements; false definitions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes - conflating two distinct concepts without an argument/middle term is a form of irrationality.

• All supernatural things are by definition non-existent
• All existing things are by definition supernatural
• All dogs are by definition brown

These are all irrational statements; false definitions.

If one assumes that supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive, yes. But if both come from the same supernatural source, then why do we define them as such? Why not call them "usual" and "unusual"? Even empirical evidence only means something we have seen.

Seems to me we attribute substance to human POV —not even to what we see, but how we arrange our thoughts around it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And that was not the argument. You seem to have missed it entirely, probably because of your own biases. Whether or not the supernatural exists, the OP's argument is non-existent.

It was just a clarification. I note you didn't address my main point on the concept of the 'supernatural' itself, or the definition of 'existence'.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

For example, is the supernatural physical, i.e. capable of physical influence on the natural?

This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?

Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?

There's no doubt that the concept is real and has physical effects (e.g. on behaviour), but what about its referent?

OTOH, if it does have physical influence, then it is real and physical, so in what sense is it supernatural? What makes it other than natural?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?

There's no doubt that the concept is real and has physical effects (e.g. on behaviour), but what about its referent?

OTOH, if it does have physical influence, then it is real and physical, so in what sense is it supernatural? What makes it other than natural?

I agree. However, the fact WE can't make empirical use of it doesn't make it not real, only not physical.

Just some thoughts:

We do a lot of abstractions, supposing, guessing, in order to come up with explanations for the physical. True they have to be testable to be proven but we plow ahead without the testing anyway, to come up with some of the notions we have lately in physics. Just saying —we do this, and give credence to some over others.

One of the simplest logics is that everything we see came from something else. While it may be an awkward way to put it, that something else is therefore more REAL than what we see. The fact it is not based on our notion of reality (empirical, or, falsifiable) doesn't mean it is less real, or, at least, less "fact". I'm not going to spend time here defending the idea that everything we see came from something else, except to mention that "Everything that is BECOMING, comes from something that IS."

There are several reasons to believe that God had physical influence, and, philosophical reasons to believe that, in fact, the physical is completely dependent on God for its continued existence and actions. I have philosophical reasons to think that part of the nature of omnipotence is efficiency (and no, not just because it is found in nature —it's not a circular assertion).

So, what is "supernatural" might only mean, "beyond what we consider 'natural'". Like you, I think it was, said, "unusual".

 

[durangodawood]

Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?
....

We dont know in what sense its real. And we dont know how it influences the physical world. We just get this literally weird feeling about certain things.

I see no need to exert logic over things where the basic premises are so speculative. We should keep this discussion in the realm of myth, poetry, story, & faith for now - until we know more.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?

Unless we go the route that "supernatural" is in the realm of pure faith, things we cannot predictable perceive.

That seems to be the way it is in the mystical, spiritual or religious realm. We can pray and may or may not get the result we expect.

 

[zippy2006]

It was just a clarification. I note you didn't address my main point on the concept of the 'supernatural' itself...

You worry that "supernatural" is ill-defined? If it is ill-defined, then obviously it makes no sense for the OP to make positive claims about it.

There are different definitions of supernatural. Here are some I have given in the past:

...I would say it is more often used in the sense of being beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc.

Perhaps Merriam-Webster's approach is instructive, which restricts itself to phenomena and appearances: "2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

That which is most obviously supernatural is God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree. However, the fact WE can't make empirical use of it doesn't make it not real, only not physical.

Not sure what you mean by "make empirical use of". I guess what I'm asking is whether there are mutually coherent and consistent definitions for 'physical', 'natural', 'exist', 'real', and 'supernatural'.

ISTM that what is real is what exists; what is physical is what has material reality (as opposed to being conceptual or abstract); what is natural is the physical world (in this context)... but I don't see how or where 'supernatural' fits in, beyond conceptual or abstract existence.

One of the simplest logics is that everything we see came from something else. While it may be an awkward way to put it, that something else is therefore more REAL than what we see.

I don't think this is a useful or coherent idea - unless you think your parents are more real than you, a house is less real than the concrete and bricks that made it, and uranium is more real than lead... But perhaps I misunderstand what you meant?

The fact it is not based on our notion of reality (empirical, or, falsifiable) doesn't mean it is less real, or, at least, less "fact".

So what is this reality that is not based on our notion of reality? What does that even mean?

It sounds like a contradiction - our notion of reality defines what we call real. Can you give a coherent definition of what you think our notion of reality ought to be?

I'm not going to spend time here defending the idea that everything we see came from something else, except to mention that "Everything that is BECOMING, comes from something that IS."

That's not at issue here.

There are several reasons to believe that God had physical influence, and, philosophical reasons to believe that, in fact, the physical is completely dependent on God for its continued existence and actions.

Physical influence implies physical existence, i.e. material reality.

So, what is "supernatural" might only mean, "beyond what we consider 'natural'". Like you, I think it was, said, "unusual".

I don't recall suggesting that - there are plenty of unusual things that I consider to be natural, i.e. part of the physical world. My point is that 'supernatural' or 'beyond natural' seems to me ill-defined, incoherent, and unsupported.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We dont know in what sense its real. And we dont know how it influences the physical world. We just get this literally weird feeling about certain things.

Does having unexplained weird feelings really justify invoking physical influences that are not natural?

I see no need to exert logic over things where the basic premises are so speculative. We should keep this discussion in the realm of myth, poetry, story, & faith for now - until we know more.

Well, the idea was to clarify what we mean by 'exist', 'real', 'physical', 'natural', & 'supernatural', so logic seemed appropriate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You worry that "supernatural" is ill-defined? If it is ill-defined, then obviously it makes no sense for the OP to make positive claims about it.

There are different definitions of supernatural. Here are some I have given in the past:

"...beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc."

"...Merriam-Webster ..."2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

So roughly, 'unusual or seemingly inexplicable'...

It seems odd that rather than simply admitting to ignorance of the nature of some phenomenon they find inexplicable, people will use 'supernatural' as if it was an explanation, with an ontology of imagined causes or agents that they treat as real; IOW, a spurious assertion of knowledge. As if even an invented and/or incoherent explanation is better than accepting, or admitting to, not having an explanation.

That which is most obviously supernatural is God.

QED.

 

[durangodawood]

Does having unexplained weird feelings really justify invoking physical influences that are not natural?

As a last resort possibility. "Mundane" material explanations for things, sense experiences, feelings have proven very powerful and reliable, so thats the first place to look. But if something stubbornly resists material explanation, it seems presumptive to rule out an explanation that isnt material at all.

Well, the idea was to clarify what we mean by 'exist', 'real', 'physical', 'natural', & 'supernatural', so logic seemed appropriate.

Sure, for the purpose of using shared terms in discussion. But I dont think we should leverage the meaning of words to constrain reality.

 

[zippy2006]

So roughly, 'unusual or seemingly inexplicable'...

It seems odd that rather than simply admitting to ignorance of the nature of some phenomenon they find inexplicable, people will use 'supernatural' as if it was an explanation, with an ontology of imagined causes or agents that they treat as real; IOW, a spurious assertion of knowledge. As if even an invented and/or incoherent explanation is better than accepting, or admitting to, not having an explanation.

But this is just your silly strawman, which is apparently all you have to offer nowadays. Heck, you are leaning on a made-up definition ("seemingly inexplicable"). No one said that but you. This is overt laziness.