Proof that the supernatural exists

[duordi]

Did you read the example about Fred in the first post?

Duane

 

[philadiddle]

Did you read the example about Fred in the first post?

Duane

You said: "To Fred the match is supernatural." This is incorrect. To Fred the match may seem supernatural but that doesn't change the reality that it is not supernatural, it is a natural law regardless of what Fred's perspective is.

Did you read the definition of "supernatural"? Do you have a source for your own understanding of "supernatural"?

 

[lucaspa]

Did you read the example about Fred in the first post?

Yes, and that is the Argument from Ignorance. Because Fred is ignorant of the technology to make a match, you have Fred thinking something is supernatural. But you admit it is not supernatural.

However, the match works by "laws" that operate in the physical universe. Laws that Fred is ignorant about.

"Supernatural" is defined as things the work by processes outside the physical universe. Therefore, even if we were to become knowledgable about those processes, they would still be supernatural. Now, of course, we do not know about those processes. All we have are reported instances that cannot be explained by processes that work within the physical universe. BUT, since those instances cannot be intersubjectively observed, we cannot "prove" the supernatural exists.

The closest we have is intercessory prayer. IP is demonstrated to work. However, no mechanism for IP has ever been tested. Therefore it is possible that IP works by an as yet unknown process in the physical universe. OTOH, it is also possible that the process of answering IP is supernatural. Again, no "proof".

 

[lucaspa]

You said: "To Fred the match is supernatural." This is incorrect. To Fred the match may seem supernatural but that doesn't change the reality that it is not supernatural, it is a natural law regardless of what Fred's perspective is.

No, the phrase "To Fred, the match is supernatural", is correct. As you point out, tho, objectively outside of Fred, the match is not supernatural.

It all comes back to Duordi's incorrect definition of "supernatural". "Supernatural laws are laws which are not understood."

A problem Duordi has not addressed is that we do not label everything we do not understand as "supernatural". Duordi, 2 examples:
1. Currently we see the expansion of the universe accelerating. We do not understand the cause for this. It is an unknown "law" that we name, just for the sake of convenience, "dark energy". But no one is thinking dark energy is supernatural.

2. Back in 1985 Marshall Urist discovered that implantation of demineralized bone matrix in skeletal muscle would cause the formation of bone at that site. It was much the same as the match for Fred. But no one called that "supernatural". Instead, they started looking for the physical processes involved.

So we don't use Duordi's definition of "supernatural". This shows that this is Special Pleading so that Duordi can "prove" the existence of the supernatural.

 

[duordi]

I disagree.

You are playing with ideas that are partially understood and partially not understood to blur the line between supernatural and non-supernatural so you can make your opinion seem possible.

Lets try extremes to clarify the condition.

There is nothing which can not be understood because God can understand everything.
There is nothing which is supernatural to God because there is nothing that can baffle Him. Everything is Natural, predictable, logical and expected for God regardless of the universe you may claim it is in.

If God's intelligence has removed all supernatural ( baffling ) events then what we call supernatural is due to our ignorance.

If the supernatural is an indication of our ignorance then it is not the same for everyone as we have differing intelligences.

The idea that supernatural is always supernatural for "everyone" and natural is always natural for "everyone" is illogical and will only hold as long as you only consider yourself or someone with identical intelligence.

Fred and God must not be allowed to exist.

It is interesting that to define the supernatural the knowledge of God and his attributes are required.

Duane

 

[lucaspa]

You are playing with ideas that are partially understood and partially not understood to blur the line between supernatural and non-supernatural so you can make your opinion seem possible.

Sorry, but that is what you are doing.

The standard definition of "supernatural" involves a relationship to the physical universe, not to what is "understood".
"1. : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2. a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature "

See? Nothing about "understood". But instead the definition is in relation to what is in or operates in the physical universe and what does not.

Lets try extremes to clarify the condition.

There is nothing which can not be understood because God can understand everything.
There is nothing which is supernatural to God because there is nothing that can baffle Him. Everything is Natural, predictable, logical and expected for God regardless of the universe you may claim it is in.

See? it is you "playing with ideas that are partially understood and partially not understood ". You are definining "supernatural" in terms of what is "understood".

The idea that supernatural is always supernatural for "everyone" and natural is always natural for "everyone" is illogical and will only hold as long as you only consider yourself or someone with identical intelligence.

No, the concept is independent of someone's background.

Supernatural is the same for "everyone", including God, because supernatural refers to processes that are not operative within the physical universe. The Resurrection is just as supernatural for God as it is for humans. God may understand how He did it, but that "how" involves processes not operative in the physical universe. So it is supernatural.

All logical and consistent.

Fred and God must not be allowed to exist.

Now that is an illogical conclusion.

It is interesting that to define the supernatural the knowledge of God and his attributes are required.

Look at the definition above from Merriam-Webster online. Supernatural defined without any reference to God.

 

[philadiddle]

Duordi,

Please define "supernatural" and give a source for your definition.

 

[duordi]

The standard definition of "supernatural" involves a relationship to the physical universe, not to what is "understood".
"1. : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2. a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature "

See? Nothing about "understood". But instead the definition is in relation to what is in or operates in the physical universe and what does not.

"Appear to transcend" (not necessarily transend but due to the intelegence of the observer it may seem like it )

Lets try extremes to clarify the condition.

There is nothing which can not be understood because God can understand everything.
There is nothing which is supernatural to God because there is nothing that can baffle Him. Everything is Natural, predictable, logical and expected for God regardless of the universe you may claim it is in.
​

See? it is you "playing with ideas that are partially understood and partially not understood ". You are definining "supernatural" in terms of what is "understood".

I fail to see how God is partially understanding something in this description.

The idea that supernatural is always supernatural for "everyone" and natural is always natural for "everyone" is illogical and will only hold as long as you only consider yourself or someone with identical intelligence.
​

No, the concept is independent of someone's background.

Supernatural is the same for "everyone", including God, because supernatural refers to processes that are not operative within the physical universe. The Resurrection is just as supernatural for God as it is for humans. God may understand how He did it, but that "how" involves processes not operative in the physical universe. So it is supernatural.

All logical and consistent.

Except that things that were considered supernatural before are not considered supernatural now.
See, your definition is not consistent over time and is therefore faulty.

The resurrection was logical, predictable and yes natural to God. There is therefore no difference between the resurection and the lighting of a match for God. You can define them differently for youself but for God they are both natural events.

Look at the definition above from Merriam-Webster online. Supernatural defined without any reference to God.

The vagueness of the reference to God and intelegence in the definition is why you can easily misintrupret it.
God defines supernatural becasue He is impossible to completely comprehend with our limited intelegence.

Duane

 

[duordi]

The supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the Observable universe.

Note that in this definition it is up to individual intrepretation as to what is supernatural and what is not.

I intrepreted "Natural law" to be any law which is understood.
I intrepreted "Observable universe" to in include anything that can be tested, proven and understood.

Duane

 

[philadiddle]

I intrepreted "Natural law" to be any law which is understood.
I intrepreted "Observable universe" to in include anything that can be tested, proven and understood.

Can you give me sources for these definitions as well?

 

[duordi]

The definitions I gave for Natural Law and Observable Universe are my own.
However a longer explaination is linked to the Wiki definition of these terms.
I will accept the definitions as given in the Wiki links.

I have the distinct impression you are not asking to help you make up your mind but for the purpose of exploiting some technicality.

If that is the case, go for it.

Duane

 

[philadiddle]

The definitions I gave for Natural Law and Observable Universe are my own.

Exactly

 

[Papias]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.


Everyone is NOT entitled to their own facts or definitions.



You can't make up facts, and you can't make up new defintions to already
defined terms.


It would be pretty silly of me to redefine "car" to mean "flying reptile from the jurassic period" and then argue that cars are extinct, and have never been seen by humans.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Natural laws are physical laws that are understood.
Supernatural laws are laws which are not understood.

As an example:

Suppose you were introduced to someone called Fred.
Fred lived his life in a remote area and has never seen a match before.
A simple demonstration awes Fred as the match bursts into flame.
Because the match is not understood by Fred, to Fred the match seems like magic, it seems illogical.

To Fred the match is supernatural.

We send Fred to school and he learns about chemistry and eventually Fred becomes an explosive expert.
The match is no longer magic, illogical or supernatural for Fred.

To Fred the match changed from Illogical and magic to logical and predictable following orderly principles.

For Fred the match follows natural laws and is no longer supernatural.

Everything that happens is governed by natural laws.

For God there is no supernatural law because God knows everything and to God all laws are natural laws that are explainable predictable and logical.

Refusal to accept that super natural laws exist is an arrogant clam that an individual is like God and knows everything.

Each generation clams “nothing exists that is supernatural” and then proves the previous generations identical calm was false by discovering new natural laws that govern previously unknown sciences.

Duane

Good stuff but a few points of contention.

- There are no "natural laws." There are supernatural laws (immovable statutes) and natural abidance, natural following or natural shadows cast. A crude example-

Plato's Cave (animated version) - YouTube

-Naturalism or materialism is a philosophy which occupies the niche of anti-god. It puts matter before mind and states that reality is reducible to material substances.

- the supernatural laws which govern the behavior of the elements and the basic modes of reality are not entirely the same. Man for example is a law of its own, bacteria another, bacteria to man phenomena is a materialistic contrivance.

 

[philadiddle]

Good stuff but a few points of contention.

- There are no "natural laws." There are supernatural laws (immovable statutes) and natural abidance, natural following or natural shadows cast. A crude example-

-Naturalism or materialism is a philosophy which occupies the niche of anti-god. It puts matter before mind and states that reality is reducible to material substances.

- the supernatural laws which govern the behavior of the elements and the basic modes of reality are not entirely the same. Man for example is a law of its own, bacteria another, bacteria to man phenomena is a materialistic contrivance.

Can you give an example of a supernatural law?

 

[duordi]

Are my definitions wrong?

I agreed to accept the definitions the wiki link took you to.

I was just trying to clearify my position.

Golly-gee-wiz, I can't post a websters definition for every word I type.

You people are a tough audience.

Duane

P.S. I am going back to the main thread, this one is getting off of my screen.

 

[philadiddle]

Are my definitions wrong?

I agreed to accept the definitions the wiki link took you to.

I was just trying to clearify my position.

Golly-gee-wiz, I can't post a websters definition for every word I type.

You people are a tough audience.

Duane

P.S. I am going back to the main thread, this one is getting off of my screen.

The main problem with your argument, and the reason it will only make sense to you is because of this: "I intrepreted "Natural law" to be any law which is understood."

As you said, it is your own definition, and it is why your argument falls apart. You are relating the supernatural to natural laws but you aren't talking about natural laws, you are talking about what we understand which is knowledge of the natural laws. Gravity was a natural law even before we understood it, our perception doesn't change reality.

 

[duordi]

Gravity was a natural law even before understood it, our perception doesn't change reality.

We always understood gravity!
Things fall. It is predictable and repeatable.
How hard is that to understand.

We didn’t wait for newton to describe it mathematically.

That’s why it wasn’t supernatural.

Supernatural is like how did Jesus raise Lazarus after he was dead three days.
We can not explain it or repeat it.
We don’t understand it.

Now we are talking supernatural.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Thanks,

I understand now why the others refuse to consider that the unknown can be logical even if it is not understood.

They can not accept anything but what they previously thought and will accept no logic or argument which might change their thinking.

An interesting thing that comes from their thought process is that once something is determined to be objectionable ( or supernatural ) it can never be understood because they believe it can't be understood.
This statement is self fulfilling because if "it can't be understood" then why try to understand it? Which means it will never be understood.

It is interesting that Plato did not have the man from the surface walk across the screen to demonstrate his ability to be a shadow? Perhaps if a shadow commanded them to leave the dungeon they would.

Faith is stronger then logic. I tried logic. It dosen't work.

Duane

 

[philadiddle]

Gravity was a natural law even before understood it, our perception doesn't change reality.

We always understood gravity!
Things fall. It is predictable and repeatable.
How hard is that to understand.

We didn’t wait for newton to describe it mathematically.

That’s why it wasn’t supernatural.

Supernatural is like how did Jesus raise Lazarus after he was dead three days.
We can not explain it or repeat it.
We don’t understand it.

Now we are talking supernatural.

Duane

Sigh...

People used to think that thunderstorms were supernatural. Were they supernatural at that time or have they always been a natural occurrence regardless of our perception?