So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[Tom 1]

See, this is what I mean.
How do you plan on demonstrating that "miracles" actually occur?
What is a "miracle" even?

You say that it has no place in a materialist view. That's true. Neither is there a place in such a view for any other thing that can't be shown to being real. Like golden unicorns or leprechauns.

This is my point.... the "objection" that you expressed, really only becomes relevant once you can point to an actually occuring phenomena or thing, which doesn't "fit" into a materialist worldview.

But that's not what you do... Instead, you are pointing to things of which it can't be shown if it is actually real, or just only exists in your imagination.

Why would anyone have to "accomodate" for things in their worldview, which can't even be differentiated from non-existing things??

First, establish that the thing is actually real. Then we can discuss if it fits in any particular worldview or not. Otherwise, what's the point? What are we even discussing then?

You’re creating your own argument (rather than responding to what I posted), and kind of proving my point. I’ll continue with your other post response as that might have some forward movement.

 

[Tom 1]

The brain is what you do your thinking with and your thinking is heavily influenced by your experiences, prior knowledge, beliefs, etc.

That’s kind of the lite version of the idea. Most of what I’ve read about it is in works dealing with several issues but I’ll try and pull out some quotes. There’s not much point discussing it if you don’t have some understanding of what I mean, but the evidence suggests something more than the idea of influence in a borderline conscious sense, more like an underlying framework our minds/brains construct to interpret inputs and make sense of our instinctive/emotional reactions to different things, and use those interpretations effectively to create our own versions of reality, which are also influenced by everything that might come under the whole nature/nurture umbrella. Really, if you think about it, it’s a necessary function of the tiny amount of knowledge we have about anything at all, combined with our need to make sense of what is going on and live life. Nb. I’m not talking about affects of consciousness in the quantum theory sense, but what neuroscience and psychology can tell us about what goes on inside our brains.

 

[Heissonear]

Is it just subjective?

A definition I just just stole from the web.
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Which must be the opposite of: natural
For which another stolen definition is
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Which apparently means anything human is not natural so supernatural?.
Dont think anyone would agree with that.

So does it relate the behaviour or whether a cause can be modelled?

Telepathy is beyond reasonable doubt statistically, (not that Dawkins will ever let it in to his limited view of the world) but even though it is not understood, so does that make it "supernatural"? Dawkins would say so as part of a determination to debunk it!

Does it relate to the model? Which can only ever be incomplete

The only things that ever get to go in the scientific model (ie laws) by definition are things that repeat or can be repeated, or for which there is an axiomatic model. So is a one off by definition superanatural?
So was the big bang by definition supernatural?

Or is it because (from the top definition) the laws dont work.
Laws break down at a black hole..so is that supernatural?

A lot of quantum events break laws, in fact hawking agrees with me...when he defines "model dependent reality" as some phennomena have multiple models that can never be reconciled.
One happens to give the right answer, the other a wrong one.
So are quantum events supernatural (eg spooky action at a distance)

Or does anything that violates the assumption of the deterministic causal evolution of the universe supernatural. In which case all quantum actions do!

Like "extraordinary" "supernatural" even "magic" is seemingly just subjective.

To me, if the evidence says it happened beyond reasonable doubt, it happened beyond reasonable doubt,. It is ergo natural, (ie nature portrayed the behaviour) whether or not you like what happened you can no longer call it supernatural!

It seems to me...
Whether people call it supernatural largely depends on whether you believe it true, whether or not the evidence says it.

It also seems to me...
Science must treat the evidence the same whether or not people "Like" the conclusion!
But it doesnt.
Some kind of evidence are not alllowed into research programs or journals - the gatekeepers of the establishment are very protective as what they allow in...

Which is the point at which they say "supernatural" meaning not in the "nature they like!

Discuss

Not really discussion: beyond natural power, is Grace from the God of the Bible. It has many manifested forms in the natural. But is rooted in a Being's Power towards us.

Many Bible verse examples. I will list two which I have experienced firsthand towards personal salvation:

1. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

2. His Spirit working within our spirit (innermost)

As one turns to God and submits to Him, and for life above living after the fallen nature we have, Grace is given. To be renewed (a process) in mind, will and in walk and talk.

 

[USincognito]

The term is more generally used than that.

For example - the idea of "ghost" isn't necessarily a presumption of an external power, just a divorce of a soul from a body, that can then have a separate existence. But all would call that supernatural.
And that is the problem. If that happens it is part of what constitutes the fabric of the the world so in reality is either natural if it exists, or non existent. In neither case is it supernatural.

It seems to me... the word is most commonly used subjectively used by non believers of a phenomenon to describe their disbelief in it!

Some (me for instance) differentiate between paranormal and supernatural. Ghosts fall into a gray area.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't necessarily would agree with the wording...
So let's just stick to something more abstract: your worldview, your beliefs, your way of looking at things,... is determined by your life experiences, memories, thought patterns, etc, which are somehow stored in your brain. Your overall "brain state" if you will.

I'ld agree with that. The brain is what you do your thinking with and your thinking is heavily influenced by your experiences, prior knowledge, beliefs, etc. Sure.

Looking forward to seeing where you are going with this...

Here’s an example to illustrate what I mean, keeping it basic for the sake of discussion -

Fact: the human brain evolved over time
Fact: environment and experience played a role in that evolution
Fact: some results of affects of experience and environment became hardwired, responses and reactions that are not part of our conscious thought patterns
Fact: although there is plenty that is unknown, enough is known about the environment our ancestors lived in to form some speculative ideas about the origins of some human cognitive functions/behaviours etc
Speculation: taking one idea among many, some specialists have posited that through hunting in groups, encountering other groups of humans etc people developed the ability to intuit and speculate about the emotional states and intentions of other people who weren’t present, and that this hardwired ability explains how humans might find the notion of ‘invisible’, spiritual, beings intuitive. And this is where the narrative kicks in - a simplified materialist view might be something like ‘because we can see how this mechanism might work, the notion of spiritual beings is entirely explained as a function of the evolved brain, therefore God doesn’t exist’. I would interpret that as a rejection of a simplistic notion of God, not of an actual god, but what is also interesting is comparing one secular view with another, e.g. in this case with Jung’s ideas about spirit and spirituality, and the kind of instinctive resistance that can result from making that comparison (e.g. in an online forum!). This is where the putting up of barriers against other ideas within the same broad narrative - i.e. within atheist, secular thinking - can be seen.

Personally, I see it as a kind of defence mechanism against the unconscious, deep rooted fear we all have of the unknown. One of the best illustrations I’ve come across for putting human knowledge in perspective is that of our collective knowledge as a tiny island in the midst of a limitless ocean, coupled with the idea that while it is possible to incrementally increase the size of the island, the extent of the ocean cannot be reduced, the idea being that we have know way of knowing how the wider context of the unknown determines the meaning of what we do know. So, what we do, subconsciously, is to build narratives around what we do know and stick to those limits, and the conscious self is only vaguely involved in this process.

To explore these ideas further, if you want to, I’d recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s well-known work on scientific paradigms, and Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some (me for instance) differentiate between paranormal and supernatural. Ghosts fall into a gray area.

I'll guess that paranormal is the unexplained that's potentially amenable to scientific explanation, and supernatural is the unexplained that cannot by definition have a scientific explanation?

If so, the question is then, can one distinguish them in practice, and if so, how?

 

[USincognito]

I'll guess that paranormal is the unexplained that's potentially amenable to scientific explanation, and supernatural is the unexplained that cannot by definition have a scientific explanation?

If so, the question is then, can one distinguish them in practice, and if so, how?

Personally I go phenomena by phenomena. Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, ESP, telekinesis, etc. would be paranormal. Things with a religious component like demonic possession, angels, etc. would be supernatural.

But that's just my dividing line.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Personally I go phenomena by phenomena. Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, ESP, telekinesis, etc. would be paranormal. Things with a religious component like demonic possession, angels, etc. would be supernatural.

But that's just my dividing line.

Ah, OK. That seems fair enough.

 

[quatona]

Personally I go phenomena by phenomena. Cryptozoology, UFOlogy, ESP, telekinesis, etc. would be paranormal. Things with a religious component like demonic possession, angels, etc. would be supernatural.

Do you decide that a priori investigating the problems, i.e. is it an assumption (or is the decision a conclusion)?
Once the decision has been made, what does the difference mean for the further methodology of investigation and research?
If the decision is a conclusion: How do you arrive at it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Supernatural simply means beyond our current understanding.....

 

[Mountainmike]

Supernatural simply means beyond our current understanding.....

Does it?

Problem is that makes a lot of main stream science supernatural: like wave function collapse , dark matter, distant galaxy rotation speeds because they can't be explained. Indeed Marie curies darkened films would then be supernatural prior to the development of the science of radiation. So on.

Once the evidence is repeatable by an experimenter , seems to me the phenomenon is natural, whether or not it can be explained. Problem is that definition makes telepathy natural!

 

[USincognito]

Do you decide that a priori investigating the problems, i.e. is it an assumption (or is the decision a conclusion)?
Once the decision has been made, what does the difference mean for the further methodology of investigation and research?
If the decision is a conclusion: How do you arrive at it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you use a specific example to help me figure out what you mean?

My comment was merely how I differentiate between two different words used to describe non-mundane phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You’re creating your own argument (rather than responding to what I posted), and kind of proving my point. I’ll continue with your other post response as that might have some forward movement.

I don't see how.
You're saying that there are phenomena that can't be accomodated by a materialist worldview.
And when I ask for example, it turns out that you don't actually have any except some religious claim (which can only be "accomodated" by your specific religion, and I use quotes for obivous reasons).

That kind of makes your accusation rather pointless in my view.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That’s kind of the lite version of the idea. Most of what I’ve read about it is in works dealing with several issues but I’ll try and pull out some quotes. There’s not much point discussing it if you don’t have some understanding of what I mean, but the evidence suggests something more than the idea of influence in a borderline conscious sense, more like an underlying framework our minds/brains construct to interpret inputs and make sense of our instinctive/emotional reactions to different things, and use those interpretations effectively to create our own versions of reality, which are also influenced by everything that might come under the whole nature/nurture umbrella. Really, if you think about it, it’s a necessary function of the tiny amount of knowledge we have about anything at all, combined with our need to make sense of what is going on and live life. Nb. I’m not talking about affects of consciousness in the quantum theory sense, but what neuroscience and psychology can tell us about what goes on inside our brains.

Ok.

So what's your point?

EDIT: I see you posted another reply. I'm guessing that's where you make your point. Ignore this.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't see how.
You're saying that there are phenomena that can't be accomodated by a materialist worldview.
And when I ask for example, it turns out that you don't actually have any except some religious claim (which can only be "accomodated" by your specific religion, and I use quotes for obivous reasons).

That kind of makes your accusation rather pointless in my view.

My post doesn’t assume that existence is only possible in a material form, yours does.

 

[Tom 1]

Ok.

So what's your point?

There are things that can be called factual within the material worldview, but as a worldview it is a fictional narrative. It can’t be anything else.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here’s an example to illustrate what I mean, keeping it basic for the sake of discussion -

Fact: the human brain evolved over time
Fact: environment and experience played a role in that evolution
Fact: some results of affects of experience and environment became hardwired, responses and reactions that are not part of our conscious thought patterns
Fact: although there is plenty that is unknown, enough is known about the environment our ancestors lived in to form some speculative ideas about the origins of some human cognitive functions/behaviours etc
Speculation: taking one idea among many, some specialists have posited that through hunting in groups, encountering other groups of humans etc people developed the ability to intuit and speculate about the emotional states and intentions of other people who weren’t present, and that this hardwired ability explains how humans might find the notion of ‘invisible’, spiritual, beings intuitive. And this is where the narrative kicks in - a simplified materialist view might be something like ‘because we can see how this mechanism might work, the notion of spiritual beings is entirely explained as a function of the evolved brain, therefore God doesn’t exist’. I would interpret that as a rejection of a simplistic notion of God, not of an actual god, but what is also interesting is comparing one secular view with another, e.g. in this case with Jung’s ideas about spirit and spirituality, and the kind of instinctive resistance that can result from making that comparison (e.g. in an online forum!). This is where the putting up of barriers against other ideas within the same broad narrative - i.e. within atheist, secular thinking - can be seen.

Personally, I see it as a kind of defence mechanism against the unconscious, deep rooted fear we all have of the unknown. One of the best illustrations I’ve come across for putting human knowledge in perspective is that of our collective knowledge as a tiny island in the midst of a limitless ocean, coupled with the idea that while it is possible to incrementally increase the size of the island, the extent of the ocean cannot be reduced, the idea being that we have know way of knowing how the wider context of the unknown determines the meaning of what we do know. So, what we do, subconsciously, is to build narratives around what we do know and stick to those limits, and the conscious self is only vaguely involved in this process.

To explore these ideas further, if you want to, I’d recommend reading Thomas Kuhn’s well-known work on scientific paradigms, and Jordan Peterson’s Maps of Meaning.

Not really sure what your larger point is, but it sounds to me as if this is an appeal to ignorance coupled with what seems to be a strawmen.

For starters, I don't waste my time trying to "disprove" god(s) or constructing arguments "against" god(s). Primarily, because I consider it a waste of time to try and disprove unfalsifiable claims.

As far as I am concerned, it is upto the theist to construct arguments FOR their god(s). I am an atheist, because I see theists fail in that every time they try. So by making points that supposedly end up in "...therefor god doesn't exist", would be essentially strawmanning my position. Or the atheist position, for that matter.

The question of how our brain works and how human behaviour and thought patterns originated... while interesting, doesn't seem to be relevant to the existance of god(s) imo.
Especially not, if the only point seems to be "science doesn't know/understand". That would be the "appealing to ignorance" part.

There's lots of stuff that science doesn't know/understand yet. I don't see the point of using such ignorance and pretending / hinting that it can be used to point to god(s).

 

[Tom 1]

Not really sure what your larger point is, but it sounds to me as if this is an appeal to ignorance coupled with what seems to be a strawmen.

For starters, I don't waste my time trying to "disprove" god(s) or constructing arguments "against" god(s). Primarily, because I consider it a waste of time to try and disprove unfalsifiable claims.

As far as I am concerned, it is upto the theist to construct arguments FOR their god(s). I am an atheist, because I see theists fail in that every time they try. So by making points that supposedly end up in "...therefor god doesn't exist", would be essentially strawmanning my position. Or the atheist position, for that matter.

The question of how our brain works and how human behaviour and thought patterns originated... while interesting, doesn't seem to be relevant to the existance of god(s) imo.
Especially not, if the only point seems to be "science doesn't know/understand". That would be the "appealing to ignorance" part.

There's lots of stuff that science doesn't know/understand yet. I don't see the point of using such ignorance and pretending / hinting that it can be used to point to god(s).

I think we´re having two separate discussions here. I’m not trying to prove the existence of God. I’m interested in how people come to adopt different world views, and what those world views are made up of. For me it’s a matter of curiosity rather than trying to prove one point or another, so from that perspective these kinds of discussions can be informative.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My post doesn’t assume that existence is only possible in a material form, yours does.

Maybe I missed something. Or maybe you did. Or you are confusing me with someone else.
But when exactly did I say that I subscribe to a dogmatic materialist view?

I don't, by the way.

If asked, I'ld have to say that I subscribe to an evidence based world view.
So far, it seems that all things that exist are physical. I'm unaware of any "non-physical" thing that exists.

Does that mean that non-physical things don't exist? No.
Does that mean that I believe that ONLY physical things exist? No.

It just means that I am only aware of evidence for physical things.
If you wish to claim that non-physical things exist too, you are more then welcome to state your case and present the evidence. Lacking such evidence, why would I accept your claims?

Also note, I'm not talking about "abstract" things that only exist in people's minds. I'm talking about actual existance, independent of humans and/or brains. Objective existence, if you will.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are things that can be called factual within the material worldview, but as a worldview it is a fictional narrative. It can’t be anything else.

I don't know what that means.