Proof of the Supernatural

Originally posted by sonhouse
What about Clarke's law: Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be supernatural ( he said magic, same thing.)

Yes, but this is not about using technology to walk on water. For instance if I carry a lot of metal in my pockets and have a large magnet above me that guides me over the water, it might appear that I'm walking on water, but I'm not.

So, we have to imagine someone who can actually walk on water simply by the use of willpower. Surely, we can agree that that would be a supernatural act based on our understanding of the laws of physics? If not, then all bets are off, I'd think. Maybe in the far future willpower has allowed someone to construct a universe, peek into the history of said universe and is/was/has been observing us (I'm of course talking about god). Not supernatural.

Lastly, there is a big difference between "is supernatural" and "appears supernatural".

Originally posted by Great King Rat
So, we have to imagine someone who can actually walk on water simply by the use of willpower.

How will you know he is simply using his will power? And if he is, then that is not supernatural, but some new phenomena called 'will power' surely?
It is my claim that you cannot present any evidence that suggests that the supernatural is involved.

Surely, we can agree that that would be a supernatural act based on our understanding of the laws of physics?
Actually, the moment you admit the existence of the supernatural, then all bets are off.

Lastly, there is a big difference between "is supernatural" and "appears supernatural".
Yes, there is. But it is my claim that anyone who says 'it appears supernatural' simply hasn't thought it through. What they should say is 'I don't understand it'. When you say 'it appears supernatural' you are saying 'I don't understand it but I think I am so knowledgeable about the world that it should be impossible'. Actually claiming something is supernatural is a position of arrogance, it is a claim that you know enough about the world to know that the event is impossible - although this kind of contradicts itself because you are also claiming it just happened. So you use the word 'supernatural' which basically means 'the impossible is possible'. And although you are being illogical, you will typically get away with it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I like the alternate true story, Jesus Lived In India.

That version goes like this: JC did not die on the cross, you will note for some reason he was cut down like a day or two early, so then they lathered him in aloe and other HEALING herbs. So he survived, no resurrection AND he decides that being alive is a good thing, hitails it out of town up the s ...[text shortened]... This is MUCH more believable than ANY so-called resurrection your religious folk think happened.

It may be more reasonable to you, but it is a lie.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Perhaps you missed where I said that all these things "could be called" supernatural. I was not declaring them as such. But some people do.

And no, you miss it again.

Calling a thing 'supernatural' doesn't mean it IS, and therefore, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I could call my chicken tenders 'goldfish' and then claim that I eat goldfish. That doesn't mean that neither chicken tenders nor goldfish exist, or that I eat neither of them.

Have you ever eaten those goldfish crackers?

Originally posted by sonhouse
What about Clarke's law: Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be supernatural ( he said magic, same thing.)

How was Jesus stopping a storm or giving sight to a man that was blind from birth some kind of magic trick?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How will you know he is simply using his will power? And if he is, then that is not supernatural, but some new phenomena called 'will power' surely?
It is my claim that you cannot present any evidence that suggests that the supernatural is involved.

[b]Surely, we can agree that that would be a supernatural act based on our understanding of the laws of ...[text shortened]... ossible is possible'. And although you are being illogical, you will typically get away with it.

I have seen this line of reasoning often and I don't buy it.


Lets take a look at this hypothetical.


There is a 'reality' which is a virtual world running as a simulation on computers.

The elements of this simulation interact according mathematical rules which
are from a perspective from those inside the simulation identical to the laws of
physics we see in our reality. The beings in this simulation can apply the principles
of science to determine what these rules are in the same way we do in our reality.

However, this virtual reality contains cheat codes.

If you say the 'magic' words the the simulation will allow things to occur that definitively
violate the otherwise inviolate laws of physics of the simulation.

Now these magic cheat codes could follow a set of strict rules, but those rules are different
and independent of the rules followed by the rest of the simulation.

There is absolutely no universal laws which combine the two.

This could look like [as an example] the magic in the Harry Potter novels.


Which include as a matter of course violations of conservation of energy, conservation of
momentum, the laws of thermodynamics... ect ect.

These laws apply perfectly and universally until magic is involved, and then go back to
working perfectly afterwards.



Now if the term supernatural is to have any possible referent, then I think that this should
qualify. It encompasses what people generally mean by the term, and doesn't just define
the supernatural out of existence like some kind of conjuring trick.



Because otherwise you have to stand there and tell me that if you were suddenly confronted
with Harry Potter magic that you still wouldn't think the word supernatural was applicable.







Perhaps we could define it something like this... [going for gist rather than rigour]

There are the laws of physics which govern the 'natural world'.

The supernatural would be events that conform to some second independent set of rules/laws.


An example being demonstrated nicely in the Discworld novel "Guards Guards".

They have small 'swamp' dragons which are about the size of dogs, and which have complex
internal chemical factories of digestive systems, which produce hydrogen to fill flight sacks
to make them buoyant enough to fly, and also natural napalm which they use to burn off
excess hydrogen and as a method of offence/defence... their digestion often goes wrong
which usually causes them to explode. These are naturally explicable.

Then there are the 'Nobel' Dragons which are like the classical mythical dragons, tens of meters long
many tons in weight, and breath fire like plasma. Which can only exist because they support themselves
with magic. [which is in plentiful supply on the disk]


The magic allows for a temporary [localised] suspension of the laws of physics.


Which makes to my mind a reasonable meaning for supernatural.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How will you know he is simply using his will power? And if he is, then that is not supernatural, but some new phenomena called 'will power' surely?
It is my claim that you cannot present any evidence that suggests that the supernatural is involved.

[b]Surely, we can agree that that would be a supernatural act based on our understanding of the laws of ...[text shortened]... ossible is possible'. And although you are being illogical, you will typically get away with it.

I haven't read GF's post yet so I may be saying things he already said, but...

I don't think you and I are really in disagreement here... Well, except for the fact that I think walking on water is supernatural and you don't :-)

One thing that we agree on, is that supernatural things cannot - by definition - exist. And anything that exists, is not - by definition - supernatural.

So, with regards to walking on water, we must ask "does walking on water exist, and if not, do we have sufficient reasons to assume that it will be possible to exist in the future?" And I say no, it has never been possible, it isn't possible and based on our current understanding of the universe, it will never be possible. It is impossible, exactly because it defies the laws of nature. Hence, supernatural.

Mount Sinai- proof of the supernatural

YouTube

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is absolutely no universal laws which combine the two.

That makes no sense. A union of the laws combines the two.

These laws apply perfectly and universally until magic is involved,
...so, not universally.

Now if the term supernatural is to have any possible referent, then I think that this should qualify.
And I don't think it should. If Harry Potters magic exists, then we should consider it part of the natural world.

It encompasses what people generally mean by the term, and doesn't just define the supernatural out of existence like some kind of conjuring trick.
The term supernatural is a conjuring trick.

Because otherwise you have to stand there and tell me that if you were suddenly confronted with Harry Potter magic that you still wouldn't think the word supernatural was applicable.
If I was suddenly confronted? Yes, I might say 'it looks supernatural'. But would I grant that it is supernatural? No. I would say 'hey, new laws of science!'.

There are the laws of physics which govern the 'natural world'.

The supernatural would be events that conform to some second independent set of rules/laws.
But who decides which set of laws is the 'natural' one?
Can we already do this with regards to the laws of physics? Is the strong nuclear force 'natural' and the weak nuclear force 'supernatural'?

Which can only exist because they support themselves
with magic. [which is in plentiful supply on the disk]
So basically an as yet unknown mechanism that you have chosen to call 'magic' to hide your ignorance. If you didn't know about hydrogen, you would have called the little Dragons 'magic' too.

The magic allows for a temporary [localised] suspension of the laws of physics.
So basically the same thing as hydrogen does, until you learn about the gas laws and atomic mass.

Which makes to my mind a reasonable meaning for supernatural.
But the problem is it is not reasonable. The truth is, once you discovered what this extra set of laws was, and wrote it down in a physics textbook, you would suddenly change your mind and decide that in fact you will keep it in the 'natural' category.

The word 'supernatural' doesn't mean 'another set of laws', nor 'another set of laws I am ignorant of'. It means 'another set of laws that I refuse to be questioned about', or 'another set of laws that don't have to conform to rationality'.

Michael Rood on Ron Wyatt and the Red Sea Crossing

YouTube

Proof of the supernatural - Red Sea Crossing

YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
That makes no sense. A union of the laws combines the two.

[b]These laws apply perfectly and universally until magic is involved,
...so, not universally.

Now if the term supernatural is to have any possible referent, then I think that this should qualify.
And I don't think it should. If Harry Potters magic exists, then we should conside ...[text shortened]... use to be questioned about', or 'another set of laws that don't have to conform to rationality'.[/b]

You are playing games of semantics.

You are defining supernatural out of existence and making the word no longer
mean what all normal people think it means.

This gets us nowhere.


And I was very explicit in my examples. The 'supernatural' things I was describing were
explicitly NOT following the laws of physics... and I don't mean the laws as we know them.
I mean the laws as they are.

Like cheat modes in a computer game where suddenly the laws don't apply.

Harry Potter magic is utterly and completely impossible and in violation of all known laws of
physics. They CANNOT be reconciled.

What you would have to have are the laws of physics we currently know.
And then a separate and independent set of rules that only apply in the presence of magic.

That second separate set of rules encompasses the supernatural.


Now I don't think any such set of rules exist, we have no evidence that there is anything
other than the one universally applicable set of laws.


However, IF we were to discover magic as I have described it. Situations where an entirely
new and independent set of rules applied. Supernatural is a perfectly good term for it.
AND importantly it works with what people commonly think of as the supernatural.

Which means your not just defining the concept out of existence and causing unnecessary
arguments with those who do believe in it.

Simply defining the idea out of existence looks like, and is, cheating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The supernatural is by definition, impossible to give either proof or evidence for. But then I doubt you actually know the meaning of the words 'proof' or 'supernatural'.

I don't think you're considering occurrences which we are not able to reconcile with known rules of nature.
Unless and until such time that any occurrence can be explained via natural laws/rules, it is by definition a supernatural event.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't think you're considering occurrences which we are not able to reconcile with known rules of nature.
Unless and until such time that any occurrence can be explained via natural laws/rules, it is by definition a supernatural event.

No, we just don't understand it. Our limited understanding of stuff doesn't make something supernatural - or "above the laws of nature". The laws of nature do not stop where we cease to understand them. We're not that important.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
No, we just don't understand it. Our limited understanding of stuff doesn't make something supernatural - or "above the laws of nature". The laws of nature do not stop where we cease to understand them. We're not that important.

It is supernatural if it is beyond our understanding of how nature works--- and it is especially supernatural if it is beyond how nature works.
So we either gain a new understanding of how nature works, or it (the event) reveals itself to be beyond how nature works... either way, unless/until it can be explained by our understanding of how nature works, it is supernatural.

Our body of information regarding the way nature works is all we have to go by; it doesn't matter if we know a little or know a lot: we can only work with what we know.

So either our knowledge gets expanded (entirely plausible and possible) or the event is truly out of the bounds of nature's domain (also entirely plausible and possible, given historical accounts).

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are defining supernatural out of existence and making the word no longer
mean what all normal people think it means.

What I am trying to do is say that what people mean by 'supernatural' is actually incoherent.

I mean the laws as they are.
Or rather as they are except when the supernatural is involved.

Like cheat modes in a computer game where suddenly the laws don't apply.
Or rather a new set of laws apply.

Harry Potter magic is utterly and completely impossible and in violation of all known laws of physics. They CANNOT be reconciled.
Until they are actually observed happening, then somethings got to give:
1. It could be the 'known laws of physics' are incomplete.
2. What you thought you observed didn't actually happen.
What you cannot honestly claim is that the known laws of physics are valid and complete, and Harry Potter magic does happen.

Now I don't think any such set of rules exist, we have no evidence that there is anything other than the one universally applicable set of laws.
What I don't buy, is that the laws could ever be said to be separate. After all, they can only be observed when acting within spacetime. So why even claim they are separate?

However, IF we were to discover magic as I have described it. Situations where an entirely new and independent set of rules applied.
And it is my claim that this would be impossible to do.
Gravity and electromagnetism, are, to all intents and purposes, separate rules, but you don't categorise them as separate. Why? Maybe gravity is the supernatural?

Which means your not just defining the concept out of existence and causing unnecessary arguments with those who do believe in it.
My issue is actually with people who use it as a 'you can't question me' card.
If you actually ask one of these believers what the rules are that the supernatural follows, or whether those rules can be determined scientifically, they will come up with some excuse, and claim that for some reason the supernatural is not subject to scientific investigation.
Does anything in your definition of separate categories explain why one category is not subject to scientific investigation, but the other is?