Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[brbubba]

Not really. Even the best and most honest ghost-hunters have produced absolutely nothing in terms of verifiable or remotely compelling.

Science is the study of the natural, so in what way can science be used to demonstrate or prove the existence of the supernatural?

I've only seen a few episodes and they've had fully formed apparitions, shadows and objects moving by themselves. Is it a scientific setting that can be verified, probably not, but I don't see anyone volunteering to verify their "evidence."

Someone else posted a great quote, something along the lines of the supernatural is just the natural that science has yet to explain. Supernatural only means outside the explanation of science. You could argue that dark matter is supernatural since it hasn't been proven or observed yet.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've only seen a few episodes and they've had fully formed apparitions, shadows and objects moving by themselves. Is it a scientific setting that can be verified, probably not, but I don't see anyone volunteering to verify their "evidence."

Someone else posted a great quote, something along the lines of the supernatural is just the natural that science has yet to explain. Supernatural only means outside the explanation of science. You could argue that dark matter is supernatural since it hasn't been proven or observed yet.

No, it's not.

The supernatural is something that is not only outside of, but almost entirely contradicts or goes against the known laws of the natural world. The "supernatural is the just the natural" quote does not mean that "the supernatural exists we just need to research it". It's a quote about the fleeting nature of our idea of the supernatural, and how such an idea falls apart when we apply logic and reason to it, and how not understanding something does not inherently make it supernatural or unexplainable.

 

[brbubba]

No, it's not.

The supernatural is something that is not only outside of, but almost entirely contradicts or goes against the known laws of the natural world. The "supernatural is the just the natural" quote does not mean that "the supernatural exists we just need to research it". It's a quote about the fleeting nature of our idea of the supernatural, and how such an idea falls apart when we apply logic and reason to it, and how not understanding something does not inherently make it supernatural or unexplainable.

No what's not?

Supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

So now you are saying that because we don't understand something like a ghost, we shouldn't say it's supernatural or unexplainable??? Or are you in the camp that believes that all the supernatural world is simply a figment of the human imagination?

 

[Skeptisch]

The point being, if you look for it, it's there.

:witch::dracula::bat:

 

[painted wolf]

There's plenty of evidence! Even those dumb ghost hunter shows have plenty of evidence. The point being, if you look for it, it's there. Science however reasons that the burden of proof is above and beyond photographic or video evidence.

LoL.. your evidence is a crappy, clearly rigged, hookum TV show?

And the definition of verifyable scientific evidence gets downgraded by several notches.

Their more interested in first proving that the supernatural exists at all.

If you don't understand why this is wrong, then science can't help you.

wa:do

 

[brbubba]

LoL.. your evidence is a crappy, clearly rigged, hookum TV show?

If you don't understand why this is wrong, then science can't help you.

wa:do

That's just an example that's easily accesible to people.

Well is it true or not? The criteria for the supernatural in the science world is proving that it exists at all instead of proving that it has been witnessed. This goes back to my rare amazonian rainforest creature analogy. Why is the burden of proof so much higher than that found in the natural world?

 

[PolyHedral]

Because there are so many things that people might be confusing with the "supernatural". It has to be verified that it's none of them, and something genuinely new.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No what's not?

Supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
SOURCE: supernatural - definition of supernatural by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to being above or beyond what one holds to be natural"
SOURCE: Supernatural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

su·per·nat·u·ral / ˌsoōpərˈnach(&#601rəl/
• adj. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: a supernatural being.
∎ unnaturally or extraordinarily great: a woman of supernatural beauty.
• n. (the supernatural) manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.
SOURCE: Oxford English Dictionary, 2009

So, your definition is wrong, or at least inaccurate.

So now you are saying that because we don't understand something like a ghost, we shouldn't say it's supernatural or unexplainable???

No, the fact that their existence cannot be tested for or understood by any scientific method and that their existence violates basic laws of biology and physics means that they're supernatural.

Also, it's not a case of "understanding". It's a case of demonstrating their existence - which nobody has ever been able to do. Did you even read my post?

Or are you in the camp that believes that all the supernatural world is simply a figment of the human imagination?

Not just imagination, but wishful thinking, misunderstanding, delusion, gullibility or outright dishonesty. Of course, not all are true of all people, but I find that everyone I know who claims to believe in some aspect of the supernatural does so as a result of one or more of the above.

 

[brbubba]

So, your definition is wrong, or at least inaccurate.

No, the fact that their existence cannot be tested for or understood by any scientific method and that their existence violates basic laws of biology and physics means that they're supernatural.

Not just imagination, but wishful thinking, misunderstanding, delusion, gullibility or outright dishonesty. Of course, not all are true of all people, but I find that everyone I know who claims to believe in some aspect of the supernatural does so as a result of one or more of the above.

My definition came from Mirriam Webster, stop grasping for straws.

Please enlighten me how their existence violates basic biological and physical laws.

If you want to call me delusional for seeing a fully formed apparition walk right in front of me then fine, but I'll be damned if I'm ever going to call myself delusional.

 

[PolyHedral]

Please enlighten me how their existence violates basic biological and physical laws.

Which part of a ghost being able to walk through solid objects doesn't violate physics?

 

[brbubba]

Which part of a ghost being able to walk through solid objects doesn't violate physics?

If a ghost is energy then there isn't anything to say that it can't walk through a solid object. Or even if a ghost is an alternate dimensional being, who knows if that object exists in it's dimension.

 

[PolyHedral]

If a ghost is energy then there isn't anything to say that it can't walk through a solid object.

If a ghost is energy, it travels at the speed of light, as all other massless particles do.

Or even if a ghost is an alternate dimensional being, who knows if that object exists in it's dimension.

Dimensions don't work in the way you're suggesting they do. If you're talking about alternate universes, then it shouldn't show up at all in our universe.

 

[Smoke]

No what's not?

Supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

So now you are saying that because we don't understand something like a ghost, we shouldn't say it's supernatural or unexplainable??? Or are you in the camp that believes that all the supernatural world is simply a figment of the human imagination?

If those are the operative definitions of "supernatural," and people can see and even videotape ghosts, then ghosts are by definition not supernatural.

 

[painted wolf]

That's just an example that's easily accesible to people.

It's also an example of what is wrong with ghosthunting.

Well is it true or not? The criteria for the supernatural in the science world is proving that it exists at all instead of proving that it has been witnessed.

That is because witnesses can be mistaken... if you prove it exists you prove it can be genuinely witnessed.

This goes back to my rare amazonian rainforest creature analogy. Why is the burden of proof so much higher than that found in the natural world?

It isn't... the rare Amazonian creature leaves tracks, hair, DNA, corpses and so on. You need more than one of these to prove the existance of the Amazonian creature.. why should Ghosts be any different?

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My definition came from Mirriam Webster, stop grasping for straws.

Quoting from three separate definitions is hardly "grasping at straws". I believe you were the first person to bring out the dictionaries.

Please enlighten me how their existence violates basic biological and physical laws.

Living things cannot continue to exist or function in any way after the death of the brain. Living things cannot pass through solid objects unharmed.

If you want to call me delusional for seeing a fully formed apparition walk right in front of me then fine, but I'll be damned if I'm ever going to call myself delusional.

Of course you wouldn't. If you knew that what you experienced was a delusion then you wouldn't be deluded. The fact that you choose to believe that your experience is absolutely genuine would make you delusional.

By the way, I didn't call you delusional. You could just be mistaken, gullible or dishonest.

 

[brbubba]

Living things cannot continue to exist or function in any way after the death of the brain. Living things cannot pass through solid objects unharmed.

Of course you wouldn't. If you knew that what you experienced was a delusion then you wouldn't be deluded. The fact that you choose to believe that your experience is absolutely genuine would make you delusional.

By the way, I didn't call you delusional. You could just be mistaken, gullible or dishonest.

That's assuming a lot, like the fact that a ghost would even be a human living after death. There could be plenty of other explanations, energy imprint recurring in time, multidimensional being, etc.

So let me ask you this question, if that happened to you would you think of yourself as delusional??? Because there are thousands of people out there that are delusional.

 

[Skeptisch]

Because there are thousands of people out there that are delusional.

Over a hundred million alone in the United States seem delusional:

Forty percent of Americans, according to polls taken by Gallup at regular intervals since 1982, "deny that humans evolved from other animals and think that we -- and by implication all life -- were created by God within the last 10,000 years." Such figures vary around the globe. A full 85% of Iceland's population believes we developed from earlier species, but only 27% share that view in Turkey, an Islamic country.

How about you, brbubba, what do you think?

Delusion: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[brbubba]

Over a hundred million alone in the United States seem delusional:

Forty percent of Americans, according to polls taken by Gallup at regular intervals since 1982, "deny that humans evolved from other animals and think that we -- and by implication all life -- were created by God within the last 10,000 years." Such figures vary around the globe. A full 85% of Iceland's population believes we developed from earlier species, but only 27% share that view in Turkey, an Islamic country.

How about you, brbubba, what do you think?

Delusion: an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

That's an absurd comparison. Creationists draw conclusions based around their own interpretation of the bible, they didn't directly witness an apparition. Also science doesn't disprove the existence of ghosts. Science simply says that ghost like experiences can be reproduced in a laboratory through reproduction of certain procedures.

 

[painted wolf]

That's assuming a lot, like the fact that a ghost would even be a human living after death. There could be plenty of other explanations, energy imprint recurring in time, multidimensional being, etc.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is that science would work on a way to test these explainations... rather than just endlessly propose them.

If a ghost is a genuine something rather than a trick of perception, then there is a way to measure it, study it and quantify it. (like a rare Amazonian creature)
But then, if you can do that... it isn't supernatural, but natural.

wa:do

 

[Skeptisch]

Science simply says that ghost like experiences can be reproduced in a laboratory through reproduction of certain procedures.

Many here have been trying to reason with you, but the above shows you are beyond reason and appear to be heavily into the belief of belief.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”.
Carl Sagan

Chances are you are just having fun with us.
I sincerely hope that is the case for your own sake.