So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[Mountainmike]

Just wondering.... why would you expect an atheist to come up with a definition of "supernatural"? Isn't it the job of the one who believes the supernatural exists, to define it?

Because atheists use the word frequently discussing theists, so they must know what they intend by it! Your use of the word already frames an opinion.

Doh!

I can easily shoot most of the definitions to bits with critical thinking demonstrating them as a purely subjective opinion , which often captures much mainstream science into their definitions incidentally.

So what do YOU mean-you used the word? Be precise.
I presume you did have a meaning intended?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You prove my point entirely.
Just critical thinking.

Problem-

The model doesn't work.

That isn't actually correct.
The model DOES work. There are just some things were it is insufficient.

Just like with newtonian physics. That model also works. It's just insufficient once you start dealing with very high speeds or whatever, when relativistic effects need to be accounted for.

You have choices.
1/ Alter the axiomatic concept of mass or
2/ Alter the axiomatic relationships with mass
Or
3/ keep the definition of mass and presume there is just more of it
For which
4/there is a need to define a mass field or particle(s) that account for 3/ and also explain invisibility.

For the poster to say "dark matter " is somehow " real"
- he is first treading the dangerous philosophical road of assuming any of it is "real" outside the model

The effect is very real. There factually IS something that produces those gravitational forces. In that sense, dark matter is real.

The thing is, science doesn't know what dark matter actually IS.
But that there is something causing those gravitational forces, is pretty much fact. We observe those forces. We detect those forces. We just don't know exactly what is causing them.

But notwithstanding that:
In deciding the model needs changing and saying dark matter is " real" he is preferring choice
3/ over 1/ or 2/
And since he has no evidence for 4/ to support it

The evidence is the gravitational forces we observe and detect, but can't account for.
There's nothing wrong with the model of observable matter with mass. Why would it need to be changed?

It is clearly just belief which is
" confidence in absence of sufficient evidence"

No. Hypothesis aren't a matter of "belief". Scientific hypothesis, or even theories for that matter, are "believed" in science.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs.

Please note also that very fast particles also increase mass, ( i.e. Some Evidence that modifications type 1/ 2/ may be possible) so dark matter approach 3/ is not the only one possible. Relativity altered 1/ AND 2/ - until relativity mass was not linked to behaviour - after relativity - mass was made dependent on speed. The model is just a model. It changes.

I'll let the scientists come up with the models and take their word over yours any day of the week.

If you think you know better then the brightest working physicists alive today, you are most welcome to contact them and explain them your ideas.

Then you can return here and start ranting again about what-I-can-only-call conspiracies among the community for "not wanting to look at your evidence".

And if I were you I would study Hawking concept of model dependent reality before trying to play a card you don't understand which will lose you this card trick!

I don't have anything to lose. Or to win for that matter.
I'm not a physicist and I won't pretend to know better then them. Heck, I won't even pretend to even understand what all that dark matter/energy is really all about. I stick to superficial lay-men explanation thereof, because that's about as far as my knowledge on the subject goes.

I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I actually have something usefull to contribute in those fields.

I'll happily lecture you on software design patterns etc though, which is my area of expertise.

I will throwback Anthony Rizzi.

Drop more names, namedropper.

And what... no Dawkins rants this time? You disappoint!

Read " science before science"
Even Feynman was far more questioning of how science really relates philosophically to the real world than his oft quoted " shut up and calculate"implies.

EVEN Feynman? Wauw!

QED from critical thinking.

Critical thinking is good. But when it crosses over into arrogance, that's where I get out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because atheists use the word frequently discussing theists, so they must know what they intend by it! Your use of the word already frames an opinion.

Actually, when I mention it in a discussion with a theist, it's always in response to claims...
In my experience, lots of theists define it rather differently. When I talk about it, I'll adopt the definition of the person I'm talking to at that specific time.

I can easily shoot most of the definitions to bits with critical thinking demonstrating them as a purely subjective opinion , which often captures much mainstream science into their definitions incidentally.

I absolutely agree that the definitions of "supernatural" are rather subjective.
After all, it's kind of hard to have an objective definition of things that can't be shown to objectively exist ;-)

I mean... how do you "objectively" define that which is by definition undetectable?
In order to come up with an objective definition, you'ld require something that can be independently and objectively studied first.....

You can have an objective definition of what a hamster is.
You can't have such an objective definition of unicorns.

So what do YOU mean-you used the word? Be precise.

In general, I'ld say: those things that violate / suspend / ignore natural laws.
That seems to be the common core of just about all definitions of "supernatural" that believers ever presented me with.

I presume you did have a meaning intended?

As said, I adopt the meaning of the one I'm talking to, since in my experience a lot of "believers" define it in different ways.

But, as also said, the common denominator seems to be those things that

violate / suspend / ignore natural laws. ​

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still using two words you have not defined with precision, and the case of " explain" not at all. I jump to no conclusion till you do, because your sentence is rather meaningless without precise definitions.

This is an exercise in pure critical thinking.

You have said "supernatural" is that Which is not capable of "explanation" rather than that which has not yet been explained , implying a judgement of what is temporal lack of " explanation" from permanent.

I asked you two critical questions
First - what do YOU mean by "explanation" - do you just mean "consistent with the scientific model" as it currently is?

Explain would mean to logically account for all related observations related to an idea.

In which case and by which definition relativistic effects must have been "supernatural" Until the model was modified to include it - a direct consequence of that definition of " explain"

So define "explain." Precisely please.

Did so above.

Which leads on to the other obvious problem:

Second - how do you know apriori a phenomenon or data set will not be "explained" in the future, so how can you determine what is temporal or permanent lack of explanation in order to categorise anything as supernatural?

I.e. You would then be basing " explain" and so " supernatural" on a prediction of how the scientific model will evolve.

Such definition, clearly causes the need to predict the future of how the scientific model may evolve, so is certainly subjective opinion , and therefore "supernatural " is thereby proven a subjective classification.

Science and philosophy must be precise. You cannot use subjectivity for classification - which is then just opinion or prejudice.

So define PRECISELY what you mean by " explain" to give meaning to your proposed ( but so far blurred ) definition of " supernatural", and on that basis tighten up the definition of supernatural.

And remember how I warned you about jumping to conclusions? Let's try to keep false accusations out of this. With "explain" defined my prior definition of supernatural should now be clear.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Starting to wonder if some folks don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and how we get from the former to the latter.

 

[quatona]

Because atheists use the word frequently discussing theists

If I am not entirely mistaken you were the thread starter.
As of now, I personally don´t consider "supernatural" a useful term.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You prove my point entirely.
Just critical thinking.

Problem-

The model doesn't work.
It would need much more "mass" to make it add up.
Noting that most ( not some) of it is missing!


You have choices.
1/ Alter the axiomatic concept of mass or
2/ Alter the axiomatic relationships with mass
Or
3/ keep the definition of mass and presume there is just more of it
For which
4/there is a need to define a mass field or particle(s) that account for 3/ and also explain invisibility.

For the poster to say "dark matter " is somehow " real"
- he is first treading the dangerous philosophical road of assuming any of it is "real" outside the model

But notwithstanding that:
In deciding the model needs changing and saying dark matter is " real" he is preferring choice
3/ over 1/ or 2/
And since he has no evidence for 4/ to support it

It is clearly just belief which is
" confidence in absence of sufficient evidence"

Please note also that very fast particles also increase mass, ( i.e. Some Evidence that modifications type 1/ 2/ may be possible) so dark matter approach 3/ is not the only one possible. Relativity altered 1/ AND 2/ - until relativity mass was not linked to behaviour - after relativity - mass was made dependent on speed. The model is just a model. It changes.

And if I were you I would study Hawking concept of model dependent reality before trying to play a card you don't understand which will lose you this card trick! I will throwback Anthony Rizzi. Read " science before science"
Even Feynman was far more questioning of how science really relates philosophically to the real world than his oft quoted " shut up and calculate"implies.


QED from critical thinking.

There is another possibility that mainstream ignores. There is no need to redefine mass or to add exotic indescribable and unknown particles.

Instead just treat plasma which makes up 99.9% of the universe like plasma.....

Then admit to themselves that plasma halos exist with up to twice the mass of the galaxy right where they propose their dark mysterious force.

It is only mysterious because they can’t bring themselves to admit the electromagnetic force is 10^39 powers stronger than their gravity only model..... never mind that only particle physics and electrodynamic theory is used in every single laboratory to describe plasma behavior.

Until they start using the correct physics for the correct states of matter all they will be left with is Fairie Dust......

 

[Mountainmike]

If I am not entirely mistaken you were the thread starter.
As of now, I personally don´t consider "supernatural" a useful term.

I was the one questioning the usefulness of the word! that was the point of the thread
So we agree...

But it is often used by theists on these threads , and in different ways.
I wondered if any could define it in a robust enough way that does not exclude either validated evidence or aspects of mainstream science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That isn't actually correct.
The model DOES work. There are just some things were it is insufficient.

Just like with newtonian physics. That model also works. It's just insufficient once you start dealing with very high speeds or whatever, when relativistic effects need to be accounted for.

Except we are not dealing with very high speeds where relativistic effects must be accounted for in the galactic rotation problem.....

The model simply does not work because the model is only good at describing non-ionized matter, .1% of the universe, and so 95% Fairie Dust is needed as a rescue device.

The effect is very real. There factually IS something that produces those gravitational forces. In that sense, dark matter is real.

No, there is an unknown force at work. They add just enough Farie Dust to make their numbers come out right, without any evidence dark matter exists. All the while ignoring vast plasma halos of twice the mass of the galaxy right where their Farie Dust is supposed to exist.... It isn’t Dark anymore, we have been able to observe those plasma halos for years.....

The thing is, science doesn't know what dark matter actually IS.
But that there is something causing those gravitational forces, is pretty much fact. We observe those forces. We detect those forces. We just don't know exactly what is causing them.

No, something is adding a force that causes things to rotate against the calculations for the gravitational model and exactly as an electrodynamic model predicts. Without any need of postulating ad-hoc theory, but just accept plasma behaves like plasma, not solids, liquids and non-ionized gasses.....

The evidence is the gravitational forces we observe and detect, but can't account for.
There's nothing wrong with the model of observable matter with mass. Why would it need to be changed?

Because you have observed enough plasma in those halos to account for up to twice more than the galaxy itself. And this is only the plasma at 2 million K and higher.....

No. Hypothesis aren't a matter of "belief". Scientific hypothesis, or even theories for that matter, are "believed" in science.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs.

And yet despite 80+ years of null results, you still believe. Despite finding plasma halos existing where your Fairie Dust was supposed to exist, you still believe.....

I'll let the scientists come up with the models and take their word over yours any day of the week.

If you think you know better then the brightest working physicists alive today, you are most welcome to contact them and explain them your ideas.

Then you can return here and start ranting again about what-I-can-only-call conspiracies among the community for "not wanting to look at your evidence".



I don't have anything to lose. Or to win for that matter.
I'm not a physicist and I won't pretend to know better then them. Heck, I won't even pretend to even understand what all that dark matter/energy is really all about. I stick to superficial lay-men explanation thereof, because that's about as far as my knowledge on the subject goes.

I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I actually have something usefull to contribute in those fields.

I'll happily lecture you on software design patterns etc though, which is my area of expertise.



Drop more names, namedropper.

And what... no Dawkins rants this time? You disappoint!




EVEN Feynman? Wauw!



Critical thinking is good. But when it crosses over into arrogance, that's where I get out.

That’s the problem, you have abandoned critical thinking and simply wait to be told what to believe by people that had to add 95% Fairie Dust to a theory already 99.8% correct without it.

You make a mockery of Newton’s laws and General Relativity by continually refusing to accept that accuracy..... and simply realize you are dealing with separate states of matter which behave differently as shown in every single laboratory that exists.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was the one questioning the usefulness of the word! that was the point of the thread
So we agree...

But it is often used by theists on these threads , and in different ways.
I wondered if any could define it in a robust enough way that does not exclude either validated evidence or aspects of mainstream science.

Supernatural simply means beyond our ability to explain (with our current knowledge).

Lightning was once considered supernatural. As were the fox fire on ships masts.....

All have rational scientific explanation now, but it was not always so.

 

[Mountainmike]

The whole point of the argument about dark matter is an error term in equations that says it doesnt work! In fact most of the matter is missing by the standard model.

I gave you the scientific perspective.
Dark matter is only one way to try to fix the model.
It is the least damaging to the core model, to imagine real non interacting matter.

But like "displacement current" in maxwells equations, what is needed may be a correction which just has dimensions of current, but may not be a real current. Which is more in province 2/ of my options.
In short the matter may simply not exist. Until someone finds something to attach the label too who knows? Einsteins cosmological constant was just a fudge because equations didnt work without it. He later called his "greatest blunder".

I may be persuaded at some point that putting extra (real) matter or fields into the equations makes sense in terms of observations. But for as long as there is no evidence it represents an observable entity, it remains a belief for those who hold it. Another way to look at it, is matter and mass may be given a more complex relationship. Some matter may be given greater mass (as indeed are fast particles present)

Which was the entire point of raising it.

Some peoples definitions of "supernatural" would certainly pull in dark matter as an "unintended consequence" of sloppy definition.

That isn't actually correct.
The model DOES work. There are just some things were it is insufficient.

Just like with newtonian physics. That model also works. It's just insufficient once you start dealing with very high speeds or whatever, when relativistic effects need to be accounted for.



The effect is very real. There factually IS something that produces those gravitational forces. In that sense, dark matter is real.

The thing is, science doesn't know what dark matter actually IS.
But that there is something causing those gravitational forces, is pretty much fact. We observe those forces. We detect those forces. We just don't know exactly what is causing them.



The evidence is the gravitational forces we observe and detect, but can't account for.
There's nothing wrong with the model of observable matter with mass. Why would it need to be changed?



No. Hypothesis aren't a matter of "belief". Scientific hypothesis, or even theories for that matter, are "believed" in science.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs.



I'll let the scientists come up with the models and take their word over yours any day of the week.

If you think you know better then the brightest working physicists alive today, you are most welcome to contact them and explain them your ideas.

Then you can return here and start ranting again about what-I-can-only-call conspiracies among the community for "not wanting to look at your evidence".



I don't have anything to lose. Or to win for that matter.
I'm not a physicist and I won't pretend to know better then them. Heck, I won't even pretend to even understand what all that dark matter/energy is really all about. I stick to superficial lay-men explanation thereof, because that's about as far as my knowledge on the subject goes.

I'm not so arrogant as to pretend that I actually have something usefull to contribute in those fields.

I'll happily lecture you on software design patterns etc though, which is my area of expertise.



Drop more names, namedropper.

And what... no Dawkins rants this time? You disappoint!




EVEN Feynman? Wauw!



Critical thinking is good. But when it crosses over into arrogance, that's where I get out.

 

[Mountainmike]

Supernatural simply means beyond our ability to explain (with our current knowledge).

Lightning was once considered supernatural. As were the fox fire on ships masts.....

All have rational scientific explanation now, but it was not always so.

As I point out that definition (which is one way to look at it) makes many things supernatural.
Like Abiogenesis, Dark matter, Dark Enegry And so on...

However I point out the other word implicit in your definition "explanation" - which also needs defining.

You mean by "explain" is consistent with the existing scientific model - which is in a permanent state of transition.

 

[quatona]

But it is often used by theists on these threads , and in different ways.
I wondered if any could define it in a robust enough way that does not exclude either validated evidence or aspects of mainstream science.

Experience seems to show that any formerly claimed "supernatural" phenomenon ceases to be "supernatural" as soon as it is validated by evidence/and or science. Then it becomes "natural".

 

[Mountainmike]

But with precision : using "explain" to mean take "logical account" can only be in context of "logically consistent with existing scientific model" -

Which labels things presently not explained by the model as supernatural. Like the matter imbalance (aka dark matter)

Which contradicts this presumption in a previous post....
The distinction between not and cannot.

"I would say the supernatural is not only the unexplained, but things that cannot be explained by the sciences. "Not explained" does not mean the supernatural."

The problem is the one I said:
The only way of postulating "cannot" be explained rather than "not explained" is to assume the future development of the model to know whether "not explained" is permanent or temporary.
Which presumes guessing the future therefore is subjective.

The point I am trying to make is none of the definitions work.
Nobodies definition.

Dawkins calls telepathy supernatural. Pseudo science and so on.

I could easily postulate several possible amendments to the model to accomodate telepathy. (note they are not hypotheses, I have nothing to test)
1. That it is to do with proximity, but an (invisible) dimension associated with people gives vector distance, that makes successful recipients close.
2. An as yet unknown radiation.
3. That conscience really is a separate energy field that interacts. (soul if you like)
4. Spooky actions at a distance (already postulated in quantum theory)
All manner of others.

And there is precisely no more or less evidence for any of them than there is for "real" dark matter as opposed to an error in the model equations.

Ah but you say....there is no "evidence " it even happens.
But then there wasnt any for gravity waves for a very long time....
So are they really different in status?

And so on...

I actually hope in Dawkins lifetime the definitive experiment is done on telepathy and even he has to eat his bigotted and prejudiced hat. Not because he doesnt believe in it, but because he refuses to look at evidence.
Because I believe it is real. I am not ashamed to say it.

Explain would mean to logically account for all related observations related to an idea.



Did so above.


And remember how I warned you about jumping to conclusions? Let's try to keep false accusations out of this. With "explain" defined my prior definition of supernatural should now be clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But with precision : using "explain" to mean take "logical account" can only be in context of "logically consistent with existing scientific model" -

Which labels things presently not explained by the model as supernatural. Like the matter imbalance (aka dark matter)

Which contradicts this presumption in a previous post....
The distinction between not and cannot.



The problem is the one I said:
The only way of postulating "cannot" be explained rather than "not explained" is to assume the future development of the model to know whether "not explained" is permanent or temporary.
Which presumes guessing the future therefore is subjective.

The point I am trying to make is none of the definitions work.
Nobodies definition.

Dawkins calls telepathy supernatural. Pseudo science and so on.

I could easily postulate several possible amendments to the model to accomodate telepathy. (note they are not hypotheses, I have nothing to test)
1. That it is to do with proximity, but an (invisible) dimension associated with people gives vector distance, that makes successful recipients close.
2. An as yet unknown radiation.
3. That conscience really is a separate energy field that interacts. (soul if you like)
4. Spooky actions at a distance (already postulated in quantum theory)
All manner of others.

And there is precisely no more or less evidence for any of them than there is for "real" dark matter as opposed to an error in the model equations.

Ah but you say....there is no "evidence " it even happens.
But then there wasnt any for gravity waves for a very long time....
So are they really different in status?

And so on...

I actually hope in Dawkins lifetime the definitive experiment is done on telepathy and even he has to eat his bigotted and prejudiced hat. Not because he doesnt believe in it, but because he refuses to look at evidence.
Because I believe it is real. I am not ashamed to say it.

If you deliberately try to misunderstand a post then how do you expect others to enter into a meaningful discussion?

 

[Mountainmike]

If you deliberately try to misunderstand a post then how do you expect others to enter into a meaningful discussion?

The points I make are valid.
If explain means "logical consistency with existing scientific model"

The only way of distinguishing "does not explain"(implying temporary) and "cannot explain"(implying never) are by reference to future development of the model. And are therefore speculation - so subjective.

Otherwise give a robust definition to distinguish "not explain" and "cannot explain" as a present rather than future judgement. How can I determine which is which apriori?

Both philosophy and science necessarily pick legalistic nits.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The whole point of the argument about dark matter is an error term in equations that says it doesnt work! In fact most of the matter is missing by the standard model.

I gave you the scientific perspective.
Dark matter is only one way to try to fix the model.
It is the least damaging to the core model, to imagine real non interacting matter.

But like "displacement current" in maxwells equations, what is needed may be a correction which just has dimensions of current, but may not be a real current. Which is more in province 2/ of my options.
In short the matter may simply not exist. Until someone finds something to attach the label too who knows? Einsteins cosmological constant was just a fudge because equations didnt work without it. He later called his "greatest blunder".

I may be persuaded at some point that putting extra (real) matter or fields into the equations makes sense in terms of observations. But for as long as there is no evidence it represents an observable entity, it remains a belief for those who hold it. Another way to look at it, is matter and mass may be given a more complex relationship. Some matter may be given greater mass (as indeed are fast particles present)

Which was the entire point of raising it.

Some peoples definitions of "supernatural" would certainly pull in dark matter as an "unintended consequence" of sloppy definition.

Name one place we have sent a probe into space and haven’t discovered actual electric currents????

There is no need to add fictional current correction when we observe actual electrical currents every place we have sent a probe and actually looked for them....

Needless to say, is this the point in the discussion where we need to explain what causes magnetic fields????

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

“In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).“

Magnetic field - Wikipedia

“Magnetic fields surround and are created by magnetized material and by moving electric charges (electric currents)”

Science still hasn’t learned. Electric currents flow on the outside of wires at the speed of c. Moving electrons in the wire moving at centimeters per minute are not the cause of current, they are a byproduct of it. If there are electrons capable of being moved, they will do so, if not, the current will flow anyways. This is why they can’t really figure out what displacement current is.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I point out that definition (which is one way to look at it) makes many things supernatural.
Like Abiogenesis, Dark matter, Dark Enegry And so on...

However I point out the other word implicit in your definition "explanation" - which also needs defining.

You mean by "explain" is consistent with the existing scientific model - which is in a permanent state of transition.

And they are supernatural at this point in time. It does not mean they will “always” be supernatural.......

Except for Dark Matter and Dark Energy which only exist because they ignore 99.9% of the universe and the state of matter it is composed of, treating it like solids, liquids and non-ionized gassed instead of plasma....

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

​

After Staff Review​

​

This Thread ​

Is Now​

Permanently Closed​

RV: Multiple Flames
​

MOD HAT OFF​