Natural vs. Supernatural

[selfinflikted]

Many times in this forum the argument is made that science cannot make a determination on the existence of god(s) because such entities are a part of the supernatural realm. Some believe that science can only study the natural, not the supernatural, realm and by extension must remain neutral to the possible existence of a god(s).

Would someone be willing to explain to me the practical differences between the "natural" and "supernatural?" It seems to me, that for all intents and purposes, if the supernatural can be detected in any way by human beings, then science should be able to study it. After all, if something "supernatural" occurs and we can see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, or feel it; doesn't that by definition make it a part of the natural realm?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

Many of us seem think that if the supernatural world does exist, then it should be tangible and observable. And anything that can be physcially experienced must be part of the physical world - nature. That's probably why a lot of people think there is no such think as the supernatural, just the unknown natural. We're basically saying "Even if we cannot explain how it works, if it physically exists then it must be a part of the natural world."

I think this an excessively simple way of looking at it though. If Moses genuinely did part the Red Sea, then it would have been an observable event. Water, sand, and his staff are all natural objects. But the idea that simply putting his staff in the water would cause the sea to suddenly separate with "walls of water"m on either side, is a supernatural one.

 

[selfinflikted]

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

And the supernatural world does not?

Many of us seem think that if the supernatural world does exist, then it should be tangible and observable. And anything that can be physcially experienced must be part of the physical world - nature. That's probably why a lot of people think there is no such think as the supernatural, just the unknown natural. We're basically saying "Even if we cannot explain how it works, if it physically exists then it must be a part of the natural world."

The "unknown natural" seems like a much more valid approach, to me.

I think this an excessively simple way of looking at it though. If Moses genuinely did part the Red Sea, then it would have been an observable event. Water, sand, and his staff are all natural objects. But the idea that simply putting his staff in the water would cause the sea to suddenly separate with "walls of water"m on either side, is a supernatural one.

Well, you generally don't see people going around parting seas with their staves. The most probably explanation is, that it just didn't happen. But, even if it did happen, it's, like you said, observable. If it's observable, wouldn't you agree that science could study it? Science can't, however, study fantasies.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

And the supernatural world does not?

Apparently not. One of the definitions of supernatural is "Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (link).

But, even if it did happen, it's, like you said, observable. If it's observable, wouldn't you agree that science could study it? Science can't, however, study fantasies.

Even if it did happen are we were able to study it, we would have to assume a) it left any evidence behind and b) it conforms to the laws of nature. If it genuinely was a supernatural event, then "b" would be no help.

Interestingly up in Origins Theology, one user pointed out that while supernatural events may not leave any evidence, we would not expect to have any evidence which contradictsthis event (link). We should not have any evidence suggesting a miracle did not occur.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Science can only look at what's natural". That, to me, is a definition of what's natural, not what's science. If we can work out what falls within the purview of science, then that necessarily must be natural, and all else can be labelled supernatural.

So, what's science? Science is the pursuit of truth by gathering evidence, formulating a reasonable explanation or hypothesis, logically testing that hypothesis (rinse and repeat). In other words, science is only 'restricted' to things that are empirical, or which can be tested or falsified. Looking at it from the other point of view, something falls within the purview of science if it can, potentially, directly or indirectly, interfere with we humans.

And that's it. A neutrino falls within the purview of science because, though it hardly ever interferes with normal matter, even though billions stream through our bodies every second, they occasionally interact a single proton in a huge vat of water, giving of light, which is multiplied up by complex machinery until appears as a beep on a machine. As indirect as that is, it still means that the neutrino falls within the purview of science, and is thus natural.

Conversely, if there's a particle out there, a real, physical particle no different from a standard piece of matter, except it doesn't interact with us. Not through gravity, light, decay, etc, does it even indirectly affect us, through no chain of cause-and-effect. Such a thing is outside science, and therefore can be safely pushed to one side as 'supernatural'.

So, what about ghosts? Well, ghosts are traditionally supernatural entities, but if they exist as per tradition, they have form and shop, they change the temperature, they give off light, etc. We can scientifically study ghosts, if they exist, which means one of two things: either ghosts are natural, or science can study the supernatural.

 

[selfinflikted]

Conversely, if there's a particle out there, a real, physical particle no different from a standard piece of matter, except it doesn't interact with us. Not through gravity, light, decay, etc, does it even indirectly affect us, through no chain of cause-and-effect. Such a thing is outside science, and therefore can be safely pushed to one side as 'supernatural'.

How would we know such a thing even exists, though?

So, what about ghosts? Well, ghosts are traditionally supernatural entities, but if they exist as per tradition, they have form and shop, they change the temperature, they give off light, etc. We can scientifically study ghosts, if they exist, which means one of two things: either ghosts are natural, or science can study the supernatural.

Exactly my point.

So, one of you guys that believes science can't study the supernatural please explain to me why?

 

[selfinflikted]

One of the definitions of supernatural is "Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (link).

Indeed. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is, if "something" happens, and we can detect it (as many people claim), then why can we not study it scientifically?

Even if it did happen are we were able to study it, we would have to assume a) it left any evidence behind and b) it conforms to the laws of nature. If it genuinely was a supernatural event, then "b" would be no help.

Interestingly up in Origins Theology, one user pointed out that while supernatural events may not leave any evidence, we would not expect to have any evidence which contradictsthis event (link). We should not have any evidence suggesting a miracle did not occur.

But if a thing is affecting our natural world in ways that we can detect, I think it would necessarily leave evidence.

 

[Jazer]

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

The supernatural fixes the universe when it is broken to restore everything back to the natural laws.

But if a thing is affecting our natural world in ways that we can detect, I think it would necessarily leave evidence.

No evidence. Everything is just restored back to the way they should have been all along. In the natural there is evidence, scar tissue or whatever. The supernatural does not leave natural evidence behind.

 

[selfinflikted]

The supernatural fixes the universe when it is broken to restore everything back to the natural laws.

That is... odd.

How do you know when the universe is broken? How does it break? What does the supernatural do to restore it?

 

[Jazer]

How do you know when the universe is broken? How does it break? What does the supernatural do to restore it?

Most of my experance is with God's Divine Healing. Even Human Faith has it's value. God's healing goes beyond what the body can do on it's own apart from God. For example the body does not heal itself from Aids. But in Africa we have testimony from people that were healed of Aids. We have testimony from a prisoner on death row that got saved and then God delivered him so that he was no longer sentanced to death. He became a preacher in the prison. Corrie Tan Boon received a miracle when she walked out of the Nazi Death Camp in Germany. She then traveled the world as a "Tramp for God" to tell people of His love and the work He can do in our lives. As Christians we hear lots and lots of stories and testimonys of the miracles that God has performed in peoples lives. We also see the other side when people do not believe in miracles or healing and they stay sick or even die. Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives.

 

[selfinflikted]

Most of my experance is with God's Divine Healing. Even Human Faith has it's value. God's healing goes beyond what the body can do on it's own apart from God. For example the body does not heal itself from Aids. But in Africa we have testimony from people that were healed of Aids.

Gonna need more than "testimony." Got any proof of that?

We have testimony from a prisoner on death row that got saved and then God delivered him so that he was no longer sentanced to death. He became a preacher in the prison. Corrie Tan Boon received a miracle when she walked out of the Nazi Death Camp in Germany. She then traveled the world as a "Tramp for God" to tell people of His love and the work He can do in our lives. As Christians we hear lots and lots of stories and testimonys of the miracles that God has performed in peoples lives.

Yes, we hear of these things a lot. But we never get any evidence that these stories are true.

We also see the other side when people do not believe in miracles or healing and they stay sick or even die. Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives.

"Sorry you died of cancer, you just didn't pray hard enough!"

You know how disgusting this last part of your post sounds?

 

[Jazer]

"Sorry you died of cancer, you just didn't pray hard enough!"

I did not say that. I guess you do not want to have a conversation, you just want to play with your strawmen. You do not seem to be willing to learn. To bad because someday your life or the life of someone you love could have depended on it.

You know how disgusting this last part of your post sounds?

I know how disgusting atheism is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How would we know such a thing even exists, though?

Exactly, we wouldn't.

Exactly my point.

So, one of you guys that believes science can't study the supernatural please explain to me why?

It tends to be one of definition which is fine, but they then make a further definition and exclude a class of claims from being subjected to science when, by all rights, they can (e.g., the efficacy of intercessory prayer). I like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I reckon they want to short-circuit scientific study because they know it will disprove their claim. Even psychics and mediums and things who allow their claims to be tested, have the backup of "Oh, sceptics bring bad energy and stop it working".

Which might well be true

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I did not say that.

Indeed - he paraphrased.

"We also see the other side when people do not believe in miracles or healing and they stay sick or even die. Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives."

When people do not believe in miracles or healing
And they stay sick or even die
Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives.

What else can that possibly mean, if not "People who do not believe in miracles or divine healing stay sick and die because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives"? That's almost a direct quotation, further underlining how directly and explicit your statement is at saying, "If you don't believe in the healing power of God, then you stay sick and die".

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Indeed. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is, if "something" happens, and we can detect it (as many people claim), then why can we not study it scientifically?
...
But if a thing is affecting our natural world in ways that we can detect, I think it would necessarily leave evidence.

Going back to Moses parting the sea, what evidence would it leave after roughly 3,000 years? Apparently Egyptian chariot wheels and human remains have been found at the bottom of the Red Sea. This is unconfirmed - but not debunked (Snopes.com).

But I think there's another problem with studying the supernatural. Nature, to a certain extent, controls itself because it has laws. Presuming supernatural events genuinely can and do happen, and that they aren't subject to natural laws - what's prompting them?

A Christian like me will tell you it's God. When and where miracles happen are up to Him. Other might tell you the supernatural is on an entirely different plane and only interacts with the natural world on rare occassions. The only way it would be possible for us to study supernatural events would be to re-create them using natural means.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

We also see the other side when people do not believe in miracles or healing and they stay sick or even die. Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives.

Sorry to get off topic, but could you clarify? Are you saying atheists get sick and die because their lack of faith makes them depressed - or are you saying they get sick and die because they didn't pray hard enough?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Many times in this forum the argument is made that science cannot make a determination on the existence of god(s) because such entities are a part of the supernatural realm. Some believe that science can only study the natural, not the supernatural, realm and by extension must remain neutral to the possible existence of a god(s).

Would someone be willing to explain to me the practical differences between the "natural" and "supernatural?" It seems to me, that for all intents and purposes, if the supernatural can be detected in any way by human beings, then science should be able to study it. After all, if something "supernatural" occurs and we can see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, or feel it; doesn't that by definition make it a part of the natural realm?

What compounds the problem is that we do not interact directly with the natural world either. At least not if you follow a more strict definition of "direct".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Centuries ago newborn babies died like flies. And it is not that people didn't pray hard or something. Just sayin'.

 

[Elendur]

Centuries ago newborn babies died like flies. And it is not that people didn't pray hard or something. Just sayin'.

Well duh! It's because the babies didn't pray hard enough.

 

[Michael]

Many times in this forum the argument is made that science cannot make a determination on the existence of god(s) because such entities are a part of the supernatural realm. Some believe that science can only study the natural, not the supernatural, realm and by extension must remain neutral to the possible existence of a god(s).

Would someone be willing to explain to me the practical differences between the "natural" and "supernatural?" It seems to me, that for all intents and purposes, if the supernatural can be detected in any way by human beings, then science should be able to study it. After all, if something "supernatural" occurs and we can see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, or feel it; doesn't that by definition make it a part of the natural realm?

Now for real confusion:.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

God does not NEED to be "supernatural" for starters. IMO God is the single most 'natural' part of the universe that we live in.

IMO concepts like "inflation", and "dark energy" and "dark matter" and other things that fail to show up empirically in a lab are truly "supernatural" in origin. You can't touch dark energy. You can't taste inflation. These ideas/theories are quite literally SUPERNATURAL constructs of the human mind, particularly inflation. Nothing else in nature will undergo multiple exponential increases in volume without a significant loss of density. They are therefore UNFALSIFIABLE ideas, unlike that Empirical Theory Of God idea that I put forth. That particular theory of God COULD BE falsified.