What would be sufficent evidence to prove that the super natural exist?

[tacdon]

The problem with the question is two fold.

One, the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is too vague.

Two, the term 'prove' is rather loose as well. What is 'proof' of Juliet's love to Romeo may not convince his parents. What is proof to a conspiracy theorist is not so convincing to a scientist or even a prosecuting attorney.

Fun fun in your brain, whew.

 

[mrorvelle]

I do not think there is a nugget of evidence that will do this for anyone. First, belief is always by grace. Second, evidence comes as a broad portfolio of evidence. I encourage you to check out The Deity Debate (thedeitydebate.weebly.com) as it gives a lot of answers.

 

[durangodawood]

Two, the term 'prove' is rather loose as well. What is 'proof' of Juliet's love to Romeo may not convince his parents. What is proof to a conspiracy theorist is not so convincing to a scientist or even a prosecuting attorney.

"Convince" is better.

"Proof" is for mathematics and whisky.

 

[variant]

"Convince" is better.

"Proof" is for mathematics and whisky.

People can become 'convinced' without much if any evidence though.

In this case we have people convinced of the supernatural and they can't even define it so that we could tell what evidence for it would look like compared to evidence of something else entirely.

 

[Stellar Vision]

Look at what the title of your thread explicitly asks us.



Now do a substitution on your response

tacdon: What would be sufficient evidence to prove that the higgs boson exists?


quantona: A proper definition of "the higgs boson" would be a good first step.


tacdon: People have different definitions of what the higgs boson is. Whatever floats their boat let that be their higgs boson definition for this question.

 

[tacdon]

Look at what the title of your thread explicitly asks us.



Now do a substitution on your response

Now, lets do it in reverse put supernatural back there again and see what people say.

It seems like some people can't or won't make a definition for supernatural. I hesitate to make a definition or even copy a definition of supernatural. Even if I did put a definition of supernatural, someone on here would argue that. I was trying to avoid all that, but it looks like no matter what I do it is an issue. Here is a definition of supernatural.

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

 

[PsychoSarah]

Now, lets do it in reverse put supernatural back there again and see what people say.

It seems like some people can't or won't make a definition for supernatural. I hesitate to make a definition or even copy a definition of supernatural. Even if I did put a definition of supernatural, someone on here would argue that. I was trying to avoid all that, but it looks like no matter what I do it is an issue. Here is a definition of supernatural.

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

That definition works for me, short and sweet. Now watch as other people tear it apart.

 

[tacdon]

That definition works for me, short and sweet. Now watch as other people tear it apart.

They probably would, but I think this thread might be played out.

 

[La vérité]

Well it comes down to the fact that pretty well no one on this planet wants anything to do with actual proof of there being a higher power out there somewhere. They ask for it, but when proof is presented to them they spit at it, or ignore it in an instant.

If you google "Bible Code Introduction 156 462" without the quotes, you can find the proof of Jesus Christ for instance.

If you find the Bible Code Introduction website, click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the webpage take you on a webpage tour of such proof. It's about 10 minutes long.

As usual, endless examples of the rejection of truths will appear in posts below AND NO ONE will even bother to take a look at the proof itself, guaranteed 99.9.... percent. Or actual proof of God's existance often is instantly placed under the title of "Spamming". It's a no God win situation. God is banned always unless it is reduced to a mere "BELIEF" in God.

 

[Davian]

Now, lets do it in reverse put supernatural back there again and see what people say.

It seems like some people can't or won't make a definition for supernatural. I hesitate to make a definition or even copy a definition of supernatural. Even if I did put a definition of supernatural, someone on here would argue that. I was trying to avoid all that, but it looks like no matter what I do it is an issue. Here is a definition of supernatural.

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Is what David Copperfield does on stage supernatural?

 

[tacdon]

Is what David Copperfield does on stage supernatural?

There ya go, thanks proved my point.

 

[Davian]

There ya go, thanks proved my point.

Happy to oblige.

Have you considered a far more parsimonious explanation for why your robust definition is so elusive?

 

[quatona]

Now, lets do it in reverse put supernatural back there again and see what people say.

It seems like some people can't or won't make a definition for supernatural. I hesitate to make a definition or even copy a definition of supernatural. Even if I did put a definition of supernatural, someone on here would argue that. I was trying to avoid all that, but it looks like no matter what I do it is an issue. Here is a definition of supernatural.

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

The "appear to" in your definition makes it easy for me to say I believe in the "supernatural", as defined by you.

 

[Chany]

Well it comes down to the fact that pretty well no one on this planet wants anything to do with actual proof of there being a higher power out there somewhere. They ask for it, but when proof is presented to them they spit at it, or ignore it in an instant.

If you google "Bible Code Introduction 156 462" without the quotes, you can find the proof of Jesus Christ for instance.

If you find the Bible Code Introduction website, click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen", and let the webpage take you on a webpage tour of such proof. It's about 10 minutes long.

As usual, endless examples of the rejection of truths will appear in posts below AND NO ONE will even bother to take a look at the proof itself, guaranteed 99.9.... percent. Or actual proof of God's existance often is instantly placed under the title of "Spamming". It's a no God win situation. God is banned always unless it is reduced to a mere "BELIEF" in God.

Number codes? Really?

Keep in mind many of us were Christian. We did look for evidence to justify our beliefs, and we found none. In fact, some of us feel lied to.

 

[balonius]

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

As a definition of "supernatural", how about "occurrence without a physical cause"?

b

 

[variant]

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

OK, so all we have to do to evidence the supernatural is to have evidence that "appears" to tranced natural laws.

So, you've given us a definition that automatically excludes natural things that are simply very unusual if they "appear" to transcend natural laws (and thus are supernatural).

So, with that definition in mind the required evidence is one observed instance.

The problem though is that all unexplained natural phenomena that appear to transcend known laws are now supernatural.

Natural = Supernatural

A = ~A

So, I detect a problem with your definition.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Number codes? Really?

Keep in mind many of us were Christian. We did look for evidence to justify our beliefs, and we found none. In fact, some of us feel lied to.

which is more important to you:

1. ordering your life according to the truth

or

2. ordering your life according to your desires

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

OK, so all we have to do to evidence the supernatural is to have evidence that "appears" to tranced natural laws.

So, you've given us a definition that automatically excludes natural things that are simply very unusual if they "appear" to transcend natural laws (and thus are supernatural).

So, with that definition in mind the required evidence is one observed instance.

The problem though is that all unexplained natural phenomena that appear to transcend known laws are now supernatural.

Natural = Supernatural

A = ~A

So, I detect a problem with your definition.

supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD) is that which is not subject to the laws of physics, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

which is more important to you:

1. ordering your life according to the truth

or

2. ordering your life according to your desires

1, because 2 is just lying to myself and would cause more issues in the long run than the brief benefits it would have.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

1, because 2 is just lying to myself and would cause more issues in the long run than the brief benefits it would have.

the question was directed to chany but since your responded, i will respond with a follow up:

1. how do you determine what is true?