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

[PsychoSarah]

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?

Evaluation of observations made by myself and others, of multiple perspectives, combined with actively testing certain conclusions to see how probable they are. Through this I make conclusions of my own, and this is what I view to be likely. I don't deal in absolutes, so I never assume myself to be correct, only that the conclusions I make appear to be those most likely based on the evidence.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Evaluation of observations made by myself and others, of multiple perspectives, combined with actively testing certain conclusions to see how probable they are. Through this I make conclusions of my own, and this is what I view to be likely. I don't deal in absolutes, so I never assume myself to be correct, only that the conclusions I make appear to be those most likely based on the evidence.

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

Would you agree with the above?

To give you an example of what the above looks like in everyday language:


If I told you there was a tree in your backyard, that statement would be true if and only if there actually was a tree in your backyard.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

Would you agree with the above?

To give you an example of what the above looks like in everyday language:


If I told you there was a tree in your backyard, that statement would be true if and only if there actually was a tree in your backyard.

No, I view the concept of truth and reality as different. Reality is what is, truth is how our minds attempt to process it, despite our limitations. There are many "truths" but only 1 reality.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, I view the concept of truth and reality as different. Reality is what is, truth is how our minds attempt to process it, despite our limitations. There are many "truths" but only 1 reality.

So if there was a tree in your backyard and I said:

"There is a tree in your backyard."

That would be a false statement?

I am confused

 

[variant]

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.

The definition I addressed was "appears" to transcend natural laws.

How do we differentiate between things that appear to transcend the laws of physics and those things that transcend the laws of physics?

 

[quatona]

So if there was a tree in your backyard and I said:

"There is a tree in your backyard."

That would be a false statement?

I am confused

The question is "without you processing reality - is there a tree, to begin with?"
the fact that the statement is made from within the reference frame of your inner map oft reality doesn't render it exactly "false", though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"There is a tree in your backyard."

That would be a false statement?

No, that may very well be a true statement.

The statement "There is a tree in your backyard" is a truth, and that exists solely in your mind.

However, that biological entity that physically exists in the backyard that is the referent of the truth is part of reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

So if there was a tree in your backyard and I said:

"There is a tree in your backyard."

That would be a false statement?

I am confused

No, the statement would be correct, but whether or not it was true to you would depend on how accurate you viewed your own statement.

 

[KCfromNC]

which is more important to you:

1. ordering your life according to the truth

or

2. ordering your life according to your desires

Both. For example, it is important to satisfy my desires for food and shelter, yet I can't ignore the truth of, say, gravity or needing to pay for them in the process.

 

[Eudaimonist]

which is more important to you:

1. ordering your life according to the truth

or

2. ordering your life according to your desires

Ordering my desires according to the truth, then ordering my life according to my desires.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lollerskates]

Would ten verified medical miracles be enough or would you need 1,000 verified medical miracles?

What evidence would you need?

If you can prove the "supernatural" can occur in the "natural" world, then it is no longer "super," but natural. It doesn't matter if you can explain it or not. But, this is a paradox: either the natural world encompasses things we consider both natural and "super," or the natural world is bounded by a set of rules that categorically classify things into nature and "supernature."

The latter begs questions like, "on whose authority were these set of rules determined to be the (upper and lower) boundary of the natural world," and, "why is the natural world bounded in the first place?"

I am personally inclined to believe nature is both natural and "supernatural," and "super" is a euphemistic prefix describing human inability to explain something through the four major arms of science: math/physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

'Supernatural' is an ontologically vacuous, incoherent non-concept. Remedy that fact, then I will be able to consider what evidence for it might look like.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, the statement would be correct, but whether or not it was true to you would depend on how accurate you viewed your own statement.

I asked you if the statement would be true.

You said it would be.

What makes the statement true?

If I say that there is a tree in your backyard, what would make that statement a true statement and what would make it false?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The definition I addressed was "appears" to transcend natural laws.

How do we differentiate between things that appear to transcend the laws of physics and those things that transcend the laws of physics?

investigation

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

The question is "without you processing reality - is there a tree, to begin with?"
the fact that the statement is made from within the reference frame of your inner map oft reality doesn't render it exactly "false", though.

i have no good reason to think that the world of physical objects I perceive with my five senses does not objectively exist.

When I go to Jerusalem and walk down the Via Dolorosa, I have no good reason to think that the street exists only in my mind. That prior to me arriving in the Old City and stepping onto the street that it did not actually exist.

Your question is one a solipsist might ask. In the absence of some defeater for the reliability of my five senses, I am rational to conclude that the world of physical objects I perceive actually exists.

I have no good reason to think that the Sun exists as a mere projection of my imagination.

I have good reasons to think that the Sun existed before I was born and will continue to exist long after I die.

Just because we cannot step outside of our senses to test their veridicality it does not follow that therefore we should believe the world of physical objects we perceive is illusory.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I asked you if the statement would be true.

You said it would be.

What makes the statement true?

If I say that there is a tree in your backyard, what would make that statement a true statement and what would make it false?

Honesty and correctness are two different things

 

[variant]

investigation

How would we investigate this, how would we run an examination of evidence if we don't know what evidence looks like?

 

[Faith Unites]

I think the real problem falls in trying to understand what the supernatural actually is. Just because God does something that can be explained doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't divine interaction. Many of the miracles in old testament can be explained with natural phenomena but the real point is the timing of such miracles. When you combine timing with one of these phenomena you really start to struggle with just logically explaining something away. There will will always be people that just chalk it up to chance, but at the end of the day probabilities will still only take you so far. Ironically, it starts to make more sense to just believe in the miracle.

 

[keith99]

Plenty, I have a wild imagination (first thing that came to mind was my arm spontaneously popping off, putting on a hat, doing a little dance, then reattaching to my body as if nothing happened. What, I'm weird.)

Having your arm do it or someone else's?

Because if you are just seeing it all it means is you are on a holodeck and one of your friends did a bit of programming.

One huge problem with any proposed Supernatural event is Clarke's Law.

 

[bhsmte]

Would ten verified medical miracles be enough or would you need 1,000 verified medical miracles?

What evidence would you need?

If there was evidence of what you call "the super natural", it would cease to be super natural any longer, because we would have objective verifiable evidence to understand what it is, through natural means that can be measured.

So in the meantime, you can certainly believe in the super natural based on faith, which is what you would need to do.