If ghosts are real, then they aren’t supernatural

[AV1611VET]

What about "wicked" spirits, I assume they are demons, yes?

Yes, indeed.

Also known as: "fallen angels".

 

[RileyG]

Yes, indeed.

Also known as: "fallen angels".

Yes, that's what I assumed.

 

[juvenissun]

If something exists, it is by definition natural.

I think it exists. So ghost is natural to me.
You do not think it exists, so ghost is supernatural to you.

Make the logic clear first. It saves a lot of time and energy.

 

[Frank Robert]

I think it exists. So ghost is natural to me.
You do not think it exists, so ghost is supernatural to you.

Make the logic clear first. It saves a lot of time and energy.

Do you know if ghosts exist? I haven't thought about ghosts since reading the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, but it is an interesting question. It is likely something that we will never know for sure or maybe if there is an after life we will know then.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, there's math. It has material representations, but not material reality.

Yes; it has conceptual & abstract reality.

But a sort of a parallel is seen in our descriptions of quantum physics, where we sound more philosophical than scientific, but insist it is scientific. If the claims are in fact valid, then what is conceptual and abstract is valid. And again, granted, I don't put those on the same level with what we are talking about, so maybe this isn't fair.

The only scientific description of quantum physics is a mathematical one. The various 'interpretations' of QM are hypotheses of arguable scientific merit.

I'm a bit hamstrung in my arguments because something that I think is altogether valid, I can't prove to someone who claims to need empirical proof.

Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. A scientific and/or critical thinker looks for 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'. Long experience tells us that just thinking that something is 'altogether valid' is not a reliable guide - which is why the methods of science have been developed.

To me, the empirical evidence of the fact that there IS fact, and existence, is proof of God, through the simple logic I tried to describe below, and several other ways, but I am told repeatedly that if they are sufficiently explained by naturalism, (and apparently they are happy with that for absolute origin), there is no need for a supernatural explanation. So they like infinite regression and I like first cause.

Infinite regression vs first cause is a false dichotomy, and first cause is special pleading. But we've been over this ground. In any case, what you or they might like is not a reliable guide to what is real or true.

Mark Quayle said:
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 continued the point below, in the two categories —what IS and what is BECOMING. Many things that are becoming come from other things that are also becoming, but in the long run it all begins with what is not Becoming, but IS. This ("IS") may sound like stasis, but it is the only source of NEW. This "IS" can be the only brute fact, therefore of a reality beyond what we are familiar with.

This sounds like an echo of Aristotle's principles of change and being at rest... but his ideas were less ambiguous. I think you're begging the question by asserting what IS as something different from what is becoming. Everything we know is changing over time; in that sense what IS and what is BECOMING are different descriptions or views of the same things.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, an IS that is the only source of NEW (I don't think these capitalizations are helpful), then, as I've said before, the IS must change to produce the NEW. IOW, the IS is BECOMING by producing. In the case that the IS is all there is, it must also BECOME the NEW.

But such vague and ambiguous terms can be used to argue almost anything, and in any case, the stuff we have knowledge of (your 'BECOMING') is natural and the stuff we don't have knowledge of is unknown, so it doesn't help clarify the meaning or utility of 'supernatural'.

So, to me, anyway, this first cause, that IS, is the default fact, and as a result, our very thoughts are subject to its causation, whether they result from concepts or empiricism. And this, to me, at least, demonstrates a similarity between what what we see and what we don't see. It all comes from God. God need not be measured by us. It is we who are measured. We like "objective existence", but we are not the only ones looking. I can imagine angels having the discussion of whether the universe, and particularly, humanity, exists!

You simply assert God as the source, but nothing you've described so far implies or requires the supernatural, let alone a particular anthropomorphic deity.

Mark Quayle said:
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".

The fact we call something real doesn't make it real. It only means we think it is. It is real TO US. But there is more than just us, to observe fact, if there is this default self-existent First Cause, and its view of fact is more full and accurate.

It's a question of definition; we can be mistaken about whether something fits our definition of reality or not, but you need to justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition or provide a reasonable alternate definition of reality. To justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition reality, you need a reasonable definition of that thing - and, as I said earlier, I don't think defining something in terms of what it isn't, i.e. 'not natural, is adequate. So, I'm asking for such a justification from those who apparently think there is one.

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

That can't be proven. But we trust and use it for fact every day. But we have no explanation for existence. We don't know why it is trustworthy fact.

It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of definition - something that produces an effect on a physical system is a physical influence on that system. We may not know what it is, but it's a physical influence. The non-physical (concepts, abstractions) can influence the physical indirectly through their physical representations (e.g. via human behaviour), and the supernatural certainly does that, but that applies to all products of the imagination.

... if God (first cause) exists, then whether supernatural or material, the separation seems to me to be a point-of-view thing —our categorization— but both being of one source makes them both natural, or if you wish to say that all that descends causally from first cause is supernatural, then everything is supernatural. I'm just saying that where what we call supernatural intrudes on what we call natural, which intrusion we call 'miracle' or such, maybe is only SEEN as such by us, but in fact is more accurately merely unusual.

Whether or not God exists, if everything is natural or everything is supernatural, then there is no way that one can 'intrude' on the other.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I think, "Unusual or seemingly inexplicable", is a reasonable abbreviation of, "Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". YMMV.

No explanation required, your insulting tone speaks volumes.

 

[JohnEmmett]

which is why the methods of science have been developed.

except… not everything is a nail

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

except… not everything is a nail

Do you have a demonstrably better alternative?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Do you have a demonstrably better alternative?

Faith is the ability to accept the truth

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Faith is the ability to accept the truth

I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I'll take that as a 'no'.

I know you lack faith

 

[Mark Quayle]

The only scientific description of quantum physics is a mathematical one. The various 'interpretations' of QM are hypotheses of arguable scientific merit.

Yes, but it is those that are given credence by those who can't follow the math, or won't.

Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. A scientific and/or critical thinker looks for 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'. Long experience tells us that just thinking that something is 'altogether valid' is not a reliable guide - which is why the methods of science have been developed.

I meant to refer to someone who demands empirical evidence for everything he is to believe.

Infinite regression vs first cause is a false dichotomy, and first cause is special pleading. But we've been over this ground. In any case, what you or they might like is not a reliable guide to what is real or true.

Agreed, except I keep thinking that the judgement, "special pleading", is drawn from a humanocentric POV. That is to say, IF God exists, he is the default fact, and we are at best kind ourselves maybe something like "his imaginations" and our mechanical renditions of logic are rather silly notions. We do the best we can, but IF God exists, then this conversation is child's prattle.

This sounds like an echo of Aristotle's principles of change and being at rest... but his ideas were less ambiguous. I think you're begging the question by asserting what IS as something different from what is becoming. Everything we know is changing over time; in that sense what IS and what is BECOMING are different descriptions or views of the same things.

But accepting, for the sake of argument, an IS that is the only source of NEW (I don't think these capitalizations are helpful), then, as I've said before, the IS must change to produce the NEW. IOW, the IS is BECOMING by producing. In the case that the IS is all there is, it must also BECOME the NEW.

But such vague and ambiguous terms can be used to argue almost anything, and in any case, the stuff we have knowledge of (your 'BECOMING') is natural and the stuff we don't have knowledge of is unknown, so it doesn't help clarify the meaning or utility of 'supernatural'.

Give this guy a listen. I would like to hear your take on it. It is, at least to me, a rather fun and engaging talk. RC Sproul, on ASEITY:

You simply assert God as the source, but nothing you've described so far implies or requires the supernatural, let alone a particular anthropomorphic deity.

Sure. But it makes sense that he exists, and so far, I've found nothing else to even come close to his existence, to supply valid explanation for the existence of what we experience empirically.

But I prefer to suppose no anthropomorphism at all, concerning God, whether or not I am capable of conceptualizing such a thing. I do hope you can agree that IF God exists, no anthropomorphism is capable of describing him.

It's a question of definition; we can be mistaken about whether something fits our definition of reality or not, but you need to justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition or provide a reasonable alternate definition of reality. To justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition reality, you need a reasonable definition of that thing - and, as I said earlier, I don't think defining something in terms of what it isn't, i.e. 'not natural, is adequate. So, I'm asking for such a justification from those who apparently think there is one.

Seems to me your whole statement there depends on the validity of our words and concepts. We do not HAVE to give our notions credence as though they are more than a walk in space without a suit on. They may be the best we can do, but they are not reliable for substantive truth.

It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of definition - something that produces an effect on a physical system is a physical influence on that system. We may not know what it is, but it's a physical influence. The non-physical (concepts, abstractions) can influence the physical indirectly through their physical representations (e.g. via human behaviour), and the supernatural certainly does that, but that applies to all products of the imagination.

The influence is physical, yes. But you said the thing that does the physical influence must itself be physical. You can't know that, except in the sense that I tried to show from IS vs BECOMING. IF God exists, he transcends existence, which is to say that existence comes FROM him.

Lol, AAaargh, "the words we think we mean"!

Whether or not God exists, if everything is natural or everything is supernatural, then there is no way that one can 'intrude' on the other.

Obviously.

I enthusiastically admit that it is WE who use the two as opposite and as really representative of the two different mental constructions. The terminology only helps us think. This is why I say it is more "unusual" than 'supernatural'. WE are the ones who can't see that it all comes from the same source.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know if ghosts exist? I haven't thought about ghosts since reading the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, but it is an interesting question. It is likely something that we will never know for sure or maybe if there is an after life we will know then.

So, the ghost, if existed, is a supernatural feature after all (Since we can not prove it).

 

[Frank Robert]

So, the ghost, if existed, is a supernatural feature after all (Since we can not prove it).

Not according to the OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Give this guy a listen. I would like to hear your take on it. It is, at least to me, a rather fun and engaging talk. RC Sproul, on ASEITY:

Preacher logic hasn't improved (or devolved) since TV went wide screen. This guy seems quite satisfied with his word salad.

 

[PIckleRelations]

How do you explain them from a Christian perspective?

Just as I can explain how the spirit of Samuel was contacted by a witch, or how when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water and they thought He was a spirit, or how after the resurrection, Jesus told His followers to touch Him because a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone as He did.

They exist, biblically-speaking. Enoch 15 describes that at least some of them are the spirits of the nephilim and are those we refer to as 'demons'.

 

[juvenissun]

Preacher logic hasn't improved (or devolved) since TV went wide screen. This guy seems quite satisfied with his word salad.

Who used the word “supernatural” first? It has to be one who does not believe.
For Christians, nothing is supernatural.
Who is making the confusing salad?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Preacher logic hasn't improved (or devolved) since TV went wide screen. This guy seems quite satisfied with his word salad.

You're going to tell me that his reasoning is no better than the average charlatan?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're going to tell me that his reasoning is no better than the average charlatan?

Seems like you already understand that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who used the word “supernatural” first? It has to be one who does not believe.

I have no idea, but I don't see why it must be a non-believer.

"Natural" is broadly speaking things that follow the natural laws explored by science. (In the modern understanding the 4 fundamental forces and the various fundamental fields of particle physics with everything natural being constructed of those.)

The "supernatural" is that which does not fit within the natural laws.

For Christians, nothing is supernatural.
Who is making the confusing salad?

Speak for yourself, not all Christians. When I was a junior scientist still in training, I was a believer and I absolutely would have separated the "god-stuff" out from the natural world as "supernatural" because it absolutely didn't fit within the natural paradigm. I was certainly not alone is such an assessment.