Supernatural philosophy/natural philosophy

[sandwiches]

If I try your patience, it might be best if you just ignored me. If you want an answer from me, we'll do it my way.

I could name any number of physical things that I bet you could not produce if I demanded it. A past example I have used is Kim Jong Un. Given today's technology, North Korea could easily forge the video evidence of his existence. So, prove it to me. Right now. Make Kim Jong Un appear at my desk. Just prove it already.

Sorry. "Proving" the existence of a person just doesn't work that way. One must have their cooperation.

I don't get the analogy... Are you saying that the "evidence" of your god is fabricated?

 

[The Engineer]

Actually, that’s a very true statement. If we are commanded to come to God through faith, then if He allowed absolute proof it would mean that there no longer is pathway to salvation, since faith is the belief in things unproven.

Doesn't that mean that Intelligent Design can't be true? After all, if it was true, then that would mean that there is evidence for God, which would mean that faith was no longer needed and no one who understood Intelligent Design could ever get salvation.

However, there are supernatural things which are sometimes recorded by devices intended to record the natural world. For example, a voice is clearly heard speaking on a recording when there was clearly nobody present to speak.

Source?

Is that natural or supernatural?

Assuming that it's supernatural is an absolute negative statement. I explained in some of my earlier posts why one can't make such statements.

It was recorded so it must be natural, but no human voice made the sound so it has to be supernatural.

Source?

The cynical can pass all such recordings off as forgeries, but does denying something make it untrue?

Yeah, I pass them as forgeries. Unless you can show me good evidence that such cases exist.

Reports of hauntings are voluminous enough to overload your hard drive.

Not if you exclude the ones that are faked by MTV or easily explained by natural phenomenons.

Can they all be fakes?

Yes.

To the person who believes only in the natural, physical world they must be.

Who decided that ghosts must be supernatural, anyway? If they interact with the natural world, how can they be supernatural?

If a single one is real, then he would have to admit that there are things beyond what we can see, feel, hear or understand.

There are things that we don't understand yet, but making the assumption that we will never understand them, ever, is still silly. Absolute negative statement, and all. I hate sounding like a broken record.

To the naturalist it is impossible to see the future, but precognition is well documented even if not completely understood or believed.

Please, show me a single peer reviewed study that proves precognition. Just a single one.

Many have reported hearing voices when nobody was around or seeing figures that seemed to vanish before them.

We call them schizophrenics and epileptics.

If a single one of these encounters is real, then naturalism cannot be the exclusive governing philosophy.

Except if there's a natural explanation for ostensibly supernatural phenomenons.

The scientific explanation is not necessarily the truth.

The supernatural explanation is not even an explanation.

It’s not superstition to believe in the supernatural if it does, in fact, exist.

Too bad it doesn't exist.

It is not soundness of logic to simply dismiss the supernatural if it cannot be invalidated.

It is soundness of logic to simply dismiss the supernatural if it cannot be validated.

While many times people make up explanations for things that they can’t understand and attribute it to magic or sorcery, the fact is the very complexity of our world indicates the work of a supernatural designer.

How is our world more complex than all other objects in the universe? Wait, I already know the answer: Not at all!

Except for the fact that it has a biosphere. Still hardly an indication of a supernatural designer, as this can easily be explained by evolution.

If God is real then His angels are real, the devil is real, his demons are real, and all manner of scary things are possible.

Too bad God isn't real, either.

 

[sandwiches]

You see it your way, I see it mine. IMO the problem is a wall that prevents acceptance of any definition that might be offered.

In all honesty, I don't remember any definition but it could very well be selective amnesia on my part. Now, I'm assuming such a definition included a definition of the "natural," right?

 

[Resha Caner]

In all honesty, I don't remember any definition but it could very well be selective amnesia on my part. Now, I'm assuming such a definition included a definition of the "natural," right?

I'm sorry that I failed to make our conversation a memorable one.

IMO the only useful definition of "natural" that doesn't imply some sort of pantheism is an earthly ecosystem which does not include people. As such, the word doesn't really apply to the discussion here.

When I first started wrestling this question, I preferred the word "physical" because of its link to physicalism. However, based on the stubborn insistence of some that the physical completely encompasses all interactions, I am willing to use the word "material" instead if that will make the conversation easier.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm sorry that I failed to make our conversation a memorable one.

IMO the only useful definition of "natural" that doesn't imply some sort of pantheism is an earthly ecosystem which does not include people. As such, the word doesn't really apply to the discussion here.

When I first started wrestling this question, I preferred the word "physical" because of its link to physicalism. However, based on the stubborn insistence of some that the physical completely encompasses all interactions, I am willing to use the word "material" instead if that will make the conversation easier.

So, material and "immaterial?"

What do the material and immaterial encompass, respectively?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, material and "immaterial?"

What do the material and immaterial encompass, respectively?

Post #20, though I'm still wordsmithing it a bit to best capture my intent. I say that because I garbled the nonphysical (i.e. immaterial) phrase a bit. It might be better stated:

Nonphysical: A thing that is nonphysical is always active, exhibits at least one constant or continuous property, and is indivisible.

 

[sandwiches]

Post #20, though I'm still wordsmithing it a bit to best capture my intent. I say that because I garbled the nonphysical (i.e. immaterial) phrase a bit. It might be better stated:

Nonphysical: A thing that is nonphysical is always active, exhibits at least one constant or continuous property, and is indivisible.

Now first off, may I ask on what you based this on? To be blunt, it seems that you picked those definitions based on what you imagine or think God to be. Am I way off base?

 

[KCfromNC]

the belief that there is no supernatural, and that nature or matter/energy is all there is. Some secular scientists are agnostic about the existence of some sort of God, but all are united in arbitrarily assuming that all phenomena can and must be explained naturalistically.

You really should tell people where you are copying this text from, otherwise it looks like you're trying to pass it off as your own writing.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You really should tell people where you are copying this text from, otherwise it looks like you're trying to pass it off as your own writing.

He took it from creation.com, which explains the hodgepodge of horrible apologetics and scientific ignorance.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Supernatural/nonphysical/immaterial/spiritual/magical/whatever... I don't really care what you call it.

Does this thing have an integrated relationship with nature?

If yes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other phenomena, including scientific scrutiny. In which case, why call it 'supernatural/immaterial/etc' at all? Just expand the definition of 'natural' to include that phenomena and throw the loaded buzzwords out the window.

If no, then its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence.

Take your pick. With either answer, you're talking about a vacuous non-concept.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now first off, may I ask on what you based this on? To be blunt, it seems that you picked those definitions based on what you imagine or think God to be. Am I way off base?

That's a very leading question, but I'll do my best to answer.

Did I develop these definitions in order to guarantee a pre-determined outcome? No. I was actually surprised by some of the implications of attempting this little project. Am I influenced by my Christian beliefs? Of course. As I've said many times, everyone makes assumptions, and people need to understand what those are.

What did I base this on? I've mentioned it before. I assumed some scientist and/or philosopher would have already proposed a definition, so I set out to find one. I found virtually nothing. However, I did find one excellent paper that provided a starting point: What are Physical Objects? by Markosian. Then, you, Wiccan_Child, KCfromNC, and I had an earlier discussion on this (even if you don't recall that) which provided me some further ideas to chew on.

Why did you ask the question that you did in post #4?

 

[sandwiches]

That's a very leading question, but I'll do my best to answer.

Did I develop these definitions in order to guarantee a pre-determined outcome? No. I was actually surprised by some of the implications of attempting this little project. Am I influenced by my Christian beliefs? Of course. As I've said many times, everyone makes assumptions, and people need to understand what those are.

It was a leading question but I thought I was open enough what I was asking.
And I do think it's perfectly natural that you'd be influenced by your other beliefs and prior knowledge of course and you answered my question in your second sentence. Thanks!

What did I base this on? I've mentioned it before. I assumed some scientist and/or philosopher would have already proposed a definition, so I set out to find one. I found virtually nothing. However, I did find one excellent paper that provided a starting point: What are Physical Objects? by Markosian. Then, you, Wiccan_Child, KCfromNC, and I had an earlier discussion on this (even if you don't recall that) which provided me some further ideas to chew on.

Why did you ask the question that you did in post #4?

I asked because I feel it's very rare when someone comes out and defines "supernatural" as anything other than vague assertions, feelings, etc and while I do like that you have definitions, I do have to make sure I'm on the same page as you:

Material:
1) A thing that is physical is something that can be at rest - A thing which can stop moving in relationship to... the observer/absolutely/something else?

2) exhibits mass - "a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration" In other words, it exhibits inertia. So, the Higg's Boson is probably in play here

3) extension while at rest - I'm not sure what extension means here, to be honest. And also, are you saying that the material or physical only exhibit mass when at rest as well?

4) and is divisible. - So, it has constituent parts such as subparticles, etc.

Now, from that I'll assume that the immaterial or nonphysical exhibits the "opposite" properties then

Immaterial:
1) A thing that is nonphysical is always active - I'm not sure what you mean by "active" but using the opposite of the first property of the material I'd say you mean that it cannot be at rest in relation to some point of reference.

2) in some way exhibits a constant property - like mass??? I'll need clarification on this and how this differs from the material

3) , and in some way is continuous - I'm guessing this relates to the "extension" part of the material but since I didn't understand what exhibiting extension while at rest means I don't know what either property mean in this context

4) and indivisible. - Has no constituent parts. Cannot be broken down into anything else.


So, if you could look over the break down I made and elaborate, clarify, and/or correct where needed, I'd also like to ask something else:
What about things which might exhibit only some of those properties or objects which might exhibit properties of both material and immaterial?

 

[Resha Caner]

Material:
1) A thing that is physical is something that can be at rest - A thing which can stop moving in relationship to... the observer/absolutely/something else?

An inertial reference frame.

2) exhibits mass - "a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration" In other words, it exhibits inertia. So, the Higg's Boson is probably in play here

Yes.

3) extension while at rest - I'm not sure what extension means here, to be honest. And also, are you saying that the material or physical only exhibit mass when at rest as well?

Leibniz (I believe it was him) objected to Descartes' idea of extension. He played a Zeno's Paradox kind of game, insisting things could be forever divided until they had no extent. Maybe, but current physics seems to disagree. Measurements do not go below some quantum level. At the same time, current physics also dismisses classical ideas like the radius of an electron. What current physics can do, however, is mark the position of an electron (at the expense of knowing its momentum). Therefore, the simplest system with extent would be 2 particles where the extent is the distance between the positions.

I'm not saying the material would only exhibit mass at rest. I don't see how that requirement would even make sense. I'm only saying it must have a rest mass.

4) and is divisible. - So, it has constituent parts such as subparticles, etc.

Yes, but not in a theoretical sense. Anything physical can be divided into an infinite number of mathematical points. That is not what I mean by divisible, but rather that it can be divided by some actionable means into subparticles which then have their own unique properties.

Immaterial:
1) A thing that is nonphysical is always active - I'm not sure what you mean by "active" but using the opposite of the first property of the material I'd say you mean that it cannot be at rest in relation to some point of reference.

That's basically it, but I'll be honest that I'm not quite sure I have this one properly worded yet.

2) in some way exhibits a constant property - like mass??? I'll need clarification on this and how this differs from the material

Yes, mass would be an example. By definition every electron has the same rest mass, yet since an electron does not have extent until it is paired with some other particle, it is not, by itself, material. I believe that incorporates Wiccan's definition of the immaterial, which is a particle that doesn't interact with any other particles. Another example of a constant property would be the speed of light.

3) , and in some way is continuous - I'm guessing this relates to the "extension" part of the material but since I didn't understand what exhibiting extension while at rest means I don't know what either property mean in this context

Note that I made a modification, pairing this up with #3 as an and/or. An example would be time. Another example would be space, though I'm not convinced space exists. It basically means something that has no quantum measurement, though I realize people will argue with me and say it is possible there might be a quantum time.

4) and indivisible. - Has no constituent parts. Cannot be broken down into anything else.

Yes.

What about things which might exhibit only some of those properties or objects which might exhibit properties of both material and immaterial?

At this point my intent is that for something to be material, it must have all the properties listed. I'm not placing the same requirement on the definition of immaterial, as that would necessitate a third category, which seems to just kick the can down the road.

 

[sandwiches]

At this point my intent is that for something to be material, it must have all the properties listed. I'm not placing the same requirement on the definition of immaterial, as that would necessitate a third category, which seems to just kick the can down the road.

Good deal. I think I'm with you, so far. If something lacks one or more of the properties of what we call "material" it goes in the "immaterial" category. So, what's next? What can we use these categories for? Is this related to the "mind-brain" problem, the cause of the universe, God, ghosts, spirits, etc? And if so, how?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, what's next? What can we use these categories for? Is this related to the "mind-brain" problem, the cause of the universe, God, ghosts, spirits, etc? And if so, how?

First of all, for myself, I'm interested in knowing if I have made any technical or logical mistakes. For example, did I use terms like "rest" or "mass" in a way that simply isn't compatible with current physics. Or, did I create a contradiction?

Second, does someone object to the definitions I've created? If so, I'd like to understand the reasons for their objection. If their reasons don't create an exclusion problem, then I expect I will discover something that is new for me - something I will have to wrestle with and either accept or reject.

Once it seems we're past those two things, we are in a "let the chips fall where they may" situation. For example, as my definition currently stands, I believe the conclusion would be that light is immaterial ... and possibly some other things such as neutrinos, dark matter (which would then be a misnomer), etc. I've also mentioned that I think it would make time immaterial. If not those things, I've pondered some outgrowths of affine geometry that might force a conclusion that immaterial things exist.

If a Christian and an unbeliever came to an agreement that something immaterial exists, that would be huge. I actually doubt we would get to that point, so how far ahead do you want me to speculate? If that did occur, we could ponder questions such as: We know the material can have life. Can the immaterial also have life? And so forth.

But even if we don't get that far, I think the discussion might serve to shed some light - that even if unbelievers don't agree with any of it maybe they can begin to see how a believer can accept the existence of something immaterial and that it can interact with the material.

 

[sandwiches]

First of all, for myself, I'm interested in knowing if I have made any technical or logical mistakes. For example, did I use terms like "rest" or "mass" in a way that simply isn't compatible with current physics. Or, did I create a contradiction?

Second, does someone object to the definitions I've created? If so, I'd like to understand the reasons for their objection. If their reasons don't create an exclusion problem, then I expect I will discover something that is new for me - something I will have to wrestle with and either accept or reject.

Once it seems we're past those two things, we are in a "let the chips fall where they may" situation. For example, as my definition currently stands, I believe the conclusion would be that light is immaterial ... and possibly some other things such as neutrinos, dark matter (which would then be a misnomer), etc. I've also mentioned that I think it would make time immaterial. If not those things, I've pondered some outgrowths of affine geometry that might force a conclusion that immaterial things exist.

If a Christian and an unbeliever came to an agreement that something immaterial exists, that would be huge. I actually doubt we would get to that point, so how far ahead do you want me to speculate? If that did occur, we could ponder questions such as: We know the material can have life. Can the immaterial also have life? And so forth.

But even if we don't get that far, I think the discussion might serve to shed some light - that even if unbelievers don't agree with any of it maybe they can begin to see how a believer can accept the existence of something immaterial and that it can interact with the material.

I don't see any problems with your definitions but I am not a physicist. Now, let's assume we've accepted the definitions and we call light "immaterial" as per your definition. Then what?

Again, to be blunt, I am afraid this will turn into an equivocation very quickly. Quite honestly, I don't think those definitions take us anywhere. Imagine if we had defined the "immaterial" as objects that are blue and everything else is "material." This doesn't get an atheist any closer to understanding why a theist believes in a deity or spirits nor would an atheist be surprised that the "material" (non-blue objects) can interact with the "immaterial" (blue objects.) We've simply defined words is all.

 

[variant]

"Supernatural philosophy" would be more highly regarded if it weren't so simmilar to "makeing stuff up to suit what you wish to believe".

 

[Resha Caner]

Quite honestly, I don't think those definitions take us anywhere.

Definitions were requested. I gave them. Now they're too arbitrary. Quite honestly, I think the target is moving. If not, please give me a definition of "material" and/or "physical" that addresses this shortcoming.

 

[sandwiches]

Definitions were requested. I gave them. Now they're too arbitrary. Quite honestly, I think the target is moving. If not, please give me a definition of "material" and/or "physical" that addresses this shortcoming.

I never said they're too arbitrary and you ignored the entirety of my post. I just don't know how they help you or anyone else. So, again, I accept your specific definitions of "immaterial" and "material." Now what? How does this help me understand why you believe in God or what the spirit is?

 

[Resha Caner]

I never said they're too arbitrary ...

You didn't use that word, but if my definitions are no better than saying things are blue and not blue, you came pretty close.

... and you ignored the entirety of my post.

You repeated a question I had already answered.

So, again, I accept your specific definitions of "immaterial" and "material."

I assume you mean this in a "for the sake of the argument" sort of way.

Now what? How does this help me understand why you believe in God or what the spirit is?

It doesn't. Your paraphrase of what I said earlier belies a misunderstanding between us - one I've tried to explain many times. I see definitions as a means for closing that gap, but maybe the ones I gave are not yet fundamental enough. I'm just not sure you're actually interested enough to dig deeper.

So, let me ask you a question. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 3E8, which is denoted as c. What is your position on the ontology of the number c?