Supernatural: definition

[Lincoln]

I have.

But it was a Porsche, no?

You will have to supply Rebecca deMornay (who I had a thing for when the movie came out...)

[Matthias]

Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. It describes the change of life after it began.

Well, evolution was once explained to me in a way that included the start of life. Randomly, amino acids formed, and some of these lasted longer than others, and eventually they fused into DNA and cells formed and viola! Life.

As for the definition of supernatural, that is whatever ignores universal laws.

[kudayta]

Yeah that's not what evolution is. That's abiogenesis Matthias.

[Matthias]

Thanks for the clarification.

[CanadysPeak]

I'll try again. There can be no supernatural.

I am natural.

If I see something, that's a natural event. If I smell something, that's a natural event. If I think something, that's a natural event. If I believe something, that's a natural event. All these events are understandable, and demonstrable, as biological processes. All natural.

Suppose there were a thing not natural. How would I know either the thing or the thingness of it, save by natural processes, and that would show it to be natural.

Even to the point that I believe in a God, that God becomes natural. Just as my imagining that a Yugo can compete at Watkins Glen doesn't make a Yugo any less natural, were I to believe that some God created the universe doesn't make that God any less natural. Things can be natural without being true; for example, there would be nothing supernatural about the Pirates winning the series this year, but it cannot possibly be true.

[Fuqin]

Lincoln -

An example of something supernatural that wasn't ultimately natural.

On that point I was reading something the other day and I whish now id kept track of it , but it just seemed obvious to me at the time , in any case it was about ancient perceptions in nature and I think it pertains here.
Consider the wind we take it completely for granted that we understand it as being something that has substance (physical),
however people did not always understand this they could feel it, they inhaled it to stay ‘alive’ it was in and around them, it seemed to come from nowhere and it was invisible, they called it - (spirit) and one that seemed omnipresent at that’
now I’m going to throw a hypothetical suggestion in here to make this all relative , suppose we still had no way of understanding the air we breathed, might we not use the word supernatural to describe it ?
Maybe not!
But for me it satisfies at least how the word is used by some.
perhaps the best word for us in this case is >>unexsplained<<

CanadysPeak-

Suppose there were a thing not natural. How would I know either the thing or the thingness of it,

I used to live in a wooden house in a row of houses all built with their stumps planted straight into lime stone capping, I was standing at the end of the hallway one night and herd some one run down the hall towards me, ‘I could see nothing’ I have to say my blood chilled at first it was very real, this went on for three days, now I was just scratching my head, I had already thrown supernatural explanations out the door (education) but could still not explain it , I had one friend convinced it was a genuine ghost, it was interesting he was almost delirious with excitement over it.
Anyway garbage night and I’m taking the bin down the drive between my house and the new neighbors, I here running noises! Ahh! Turns out to be a chance harmonic set up between the two houses, when ever there daughter would run down there hallway I could here it clear as a bell stump for stump running down my hall way.
My friend called it supernatural.
I was simply curious , well aside from the first instance,

[ronjanec]

Magic: The use of means(as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces; An extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source(both definitions are from Merriam-Webster)

The Harry Potter movies were blockbusters all over the world: Belief in the supernatural, and in religion itself, is discouraged by the modern education system and is considered downright silly and foolish by the same: Yet, many educated people went to see these movies, and probably believe that some of this magic is possible in real life. Some scientists have even said that very advanced future science will be like magic, so they probably believe in this stuff too. The vast majority of people in the U.K have very little interest in religion, yet they obviously love movies about the supernatural, and also probably believe in some of this stuff too. Interesting.

[kudayta]

So, enjoying fiction means that you have to believe in it too? And coming up with ways to technologically simulate the gadgets seen in fictional movies means you have to believe in the supernatural? I don't see how that follows.

[ronjanec]

I have.

But it was a Porsche, no?

You will have to supply Rebecca deMornay (who I had a thing for when the movie came out...)

No, you are thinking of a different movie: In this movie it was a vintage Ferrari: If I could supply Rebecca deMornay, I would keep her for myself Lincoln, because I also had/have a thing for her myself.

[kudayta]

Wow. I just looked it up. She's 50 years old. Man I'm getting old.

[Lincoln]

In Risky Business, Joel drives his father's Porsche 928. Perhaps you are thinking of Ferris Buehler's Day Off? That was a Ferrari. Don't you remember "Porsche...there is no substitute."?

If you can't even keep your movies straight, you're outta luck with De Mornay.

Kudayta...I just looked her up too. I also conclude that I'm getting old. But she's aged rather well and is still beautiful. I am therefore forced to conclude that I am still young and studly. (Or should that be in the irrational thread?)

[ronjanec]

So, enjoying fiction means that you have to believe in it too? And coming up with ways to technologically simulate the gadgets seen in fictional movies means you have to believe in the supernatural? I don't see how that follows.

Maybe just believe it could be possible? I don't know. Many people who read horoscopes every day, tell me they don't believe in this stuff: If you want to copy something supernatural, you probably have at least a small amount of belief in the supernatural thing you are trying to copy.

[Lincoln]

For the record, I don't believe one iota in magic and the supernatural (whatever that means) and I loved the Harry Potter stories. I also like Tolkien's stuff, but I don't believe in elves. I love an awful lot of science fiction, but I note that there is "fiction" in the title.

It's perfectly fine to enjoy a story set in a world the way you wish it could be. The problem that many religious people make is that they mix up "the way I wish it could be" with "the way it is."

[ronjanec]

In Risky Business, Joel drives his father's Porsche 928. Perhaps you are thinking of Ferris Buehler's Day Off? That was a Ferrari. Don't you remember "Porsche...there is no substitute."?

If you can't even keep your movies straight, you're outta luck with De Mornay.

Kudayta...I just looked her up too. I also conclude that I'm getting old. But she's aged rather well and is still beautiful. I am therefore forced to conclude that I am still young and studly. (Or should that be in the irrational thread?)

Your right. I was thinking of the Ferris movie(duh) I am pretty sure that she does not belong to this forum, so I still may have a shot(I hope she doesn't mind that my mom has to come with us on our dates?)

[Lincoln]

See, I have an edge. I can pick her up in my own Porsche. I won't have to have my Mom drive us there.

[ronjanec]

For the record, I don't believe one iota in magic and the supernatural (whatever that means) and I loved the Harry Potter stories. I also like Tolkien's stuff, but I don't believe in elves. I love an awful lot of science fiction, but I note that there is "fiction" in the title.

It's perfectly fine to enjoy a story set in a world the way you wish it could be. The problem that many religious people make is that they mix up "the way I wish it could be" with "the way it is."

Maybe someone like yourself and Kudayta can enjoy this without believing in any of this supernatural stuff, but I still believe that this shows that more people believe in the supernatural than anyone probably realizes.

[ronjanec]

See, I have an edge. I can pick her up in my own Porsche. I won't have to have my Mom drive us there.

So what are you going to do on your date with her? Talk about particle physics? Next!

[kudayta]

Well, even if it was just me and Lincoln that didn't believe in the supernatural, that still wouldn't make it true.

[Lincoln]

So what are you going to do on your date with her? Talk about particle physics? Next!

One important life lesson. As women get older, they value more intelligence and accomplishment. He who was a geek as a youngster gets increasing traction as time goes on.

And, of course, it doesn't hurt that it's a well known fact that physicists are very desirable mates: studly, brilliant, charming, debonair, ....

[ronjanec]

Many people who supposedly do not believe in the supernatural also own a ouija board: Or have at least played this game. Again, I think many more people believe in the supernatural than we realize.

[ronjanec]

Well, even if it was just me and Lincoln that didn't believe in the supernatural, that still wouldn't make it true.

Even with the exceptions, I still believe that even in a educated society, more people believe in the supernatural than anyone realizes.

[kudayta]

And I fail to see how that's at all relevant.

[ronjanec]

So what are you going to do on your date with her? Talk about particle physics? Next!

One important life lesson. As women get older, they value more intelligence and accomplishment. He who was a geek as a youngster gets increasing traction as time goes on.

And, of course, it doesn't hurt that it's a well known fact that physicists are very desirable mates: studly, brilliant, charming, debonair, ....

Another important life lesson: As women get older, they also value money.

[Lincoln]

My impression is that this is true of the younger ones as well.

And, as kudayta has suggested, millions of kids go to sleep on December 24th every year with great expectations. That doesn't make their expectations reasonable. Actually, their expectations are more reasonable than most. At least they have concrete evidence to support their hypothesis.

[ronjanec]

My impression is that this is true of the younger ones as well.

And, as kudayta has suggested, millions of kids go to sleep on December 24th every year with great expectations. That doesn't make their expectations reasonable. Actually, their expectations are more reasonable than most. At least they have concrete evidence to support their hypothesis.

Well, I believe the younger ones are usually more interested in looks, love, motivation, and personality, while the older ones are smart enough to realize that that don't pay the rent.

[Lincoln]

And, just so we're clear on this, how many older ones have you dated?

[ronjanec]

And, just so we're clear on this, how many older ones have you dated?

Well none actually. But I knew a lot of older girls at the health club I used to belong to: Knew a lot of younger ones too(heh heh) A friend of mine was 50, and not very well off, and he used to go out with the 19 year olds! I of course do not aprove of this!(ok, because it wasn't me) But I did go out with one of the 29 year olds before my mom got sick(women really love those muscles heh heh)

[Victor]

Here's an attempt to resurrect the original topic.

But, and here's the kicker, since I define "everything" to be "everything," and you bifurcate the world into "physical" and "spiritual," it is your responsibility to define the dividing line between the two classes. I don't have that problem. And, to be useful, it must be sufficiently clear (the dividing line) so as to be totally unambiguous. We might then fight over whether the bifurcation makes sense (I'll likely say it doesn't,) but at least we'll finally be talking about crucial ideas and not ambiguous, unclear, irritating, words.

I am going to make a case that science can only explore some sense experiences. Science cannot explore metaphysics. To say that metaphysics is useless would itself be a useless statement, and is thus self-defeating.

Karl Popper, in his Logic of Scientific Discovery, explicitly demarcates what empirical science can do and what is left for metaphysics. It is important to note that he leaves important truths for the metaphysical realm. It would seem like several people in this thread think that science is the only way of establishing truth; that idea would be something like logical positivism, and I think Popper does a fantastic job in showing how ill-formed an idea that is. Here's Popper, explaining how there are sense experiences which cannot be explored by science:

Every experimental physicist knows those surprising and inexplicable apparent 'effects' which in his laboratory can perhaps even be reproduced for some time, but which finally disappear without trace. Of course, no physicist would say that in such a case that he had made a scientific discovery (though he might try to rearrange his experiments so as to make the effect reproducible). Indeed the scientifically significant physical effect may be defined as that which can be regularly reproduced by anyone who carries out the appropriate experiment in the way prescribed. No serious physicist would offer for publication, as a scientific discovery, any such 'occult effect', as I propose to call it – one for whose reproduction he could give no instructions. The 'discovery' would be only too soon rejected as chimerical, simply because attempts to test it would lead to negative results. (It follows that any controversy over the question whether events which are in principle unrepeatable and unique ever do occur cannot be decided by science: it would be a metaphysical controversy.)

I would like to emphasize the last sentence, in parentheses. What this is saying is that we cannot, scientifically, argue whether certain rare, unpredictable events do or do not happen. Therefore, if our evidence is of this form, it cannot be discussed scientifically. I don't see how it is valid to dismiss all such experiences as hallucinations. So, we have a kind of evidence which is not empirical, but is evidence!

Here, a supernatural event can be an event which falls into Popper's "non-science" category above. Now, it's actually a matter of faith, whether you think such an event is supernatural, or just an event way out on some bell curve. I have yet to find a way to make science cover this category, while maintaining the rigorous methodology that so many of you love, and which, admittedly, works very well, for some kinds of problems.

Another definition of the supernatural could be that of the point at infinity. I brought a similar idea up in this thread, but it is important to note that while the current model of our universe, LCDM, mathematically might be infinite, physicists can only observe a finite amount of the universe. Thus, thinking about the point at infinity cannot be a scientific operation. And yet, if we want to strive for the truth most efficiently, we may very much want to pontificate about the point at infinity and aim for it, which might just help us approach "the truth" more efficiently. Indeed, Michael Friedman might agree exactly, based on his Dynamics of Reason, where he says that philosophy drives science. Romans 11:33 and Ephesians 3:8 both describe God as being unfathomable – one would "fathom" the depth of an ocean by dropping a sounding line and monitoring when it hit bottom. With God, however, the sounding line never hits bottom.

[Lincoln]

Your post isn't quite on topic, although I'll grant you it is clearly intended to be.

As a scientist who has many times seen the equipment do something I didn't understand, I can attest that bizarre things happen. Some times I pursue it to find out what it is. Some times I don't. When I pursue it long enough, I usually can reproduce the effect. And, some times, I run out of ideas without figuring it out.

However it's quite leap from having "something I can't figure out" to "supernatural." I can't figure out women either, but they're not supernatural...

Supernatural doesn't mean inexplicable. After all, assuming angels were flittering around all the time, waving their swords and making mighty prophecies, everyone would see them and some would call them supernatural. (Not me, by the way.)

And this is another topic, but we had a long thread over the subject in the past, the inexplicable is not metaphysical. After all, if one of my colleagues tells me that the equipment did something funny, I don't think that they're a liar. I think what the report is likely...after all, they've established themselves as clear and critical observers. The phenomenon occurred, this is not in dispute. It is the cause that is not established.

You might draw an analogy with people who claim to see isolated miracles. And one might occur. However it's quite a different thing. It's hard to go from "man, I couldn't figure it out...the electrical current in detector element 32 went totally haywire" to "and then there was this bush which burned without burning and it spoke to me and told me to kill redheaded paper deliverers." The first is credible and the second a lot less so. (We call it psychotic, in fact.) However, even if the second did occur it is pretty incredible and incredible claims require more evidence than the mundane ones.

Finally, why is it that in today's day and age, with infinite cameras everywhere, that the supposed supernatural miracles are not far better documented?

[ronjanec]

Right before a friend of my sister died, he claimed that he could see a number of angels standing all around him in his hospital room: No one else in the room saw them, and no video recorder could have recorded this because they were obviously invisible to everyone and anything else.

Why no visible videos of supernatural miracles? Except for an end of life situation like this and invisible to everyone else, I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming to see a visible supernatural miracle in this day and age. With a few very rare exceptions(Lourdes?), the time for visible supernatural miracles was two thousand years ago.