Natural vs. Supernatural: Real Distinction or Made-Up Crap?

[Ponder This]

Is Science Natural? The asphalt road outside my door is not "existing or caused by nature". It was made by man.
Just because it is unnatural, does not mean it does not exist.
An asphalt road is not supernatural (i.e.attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the Laws of Nature).
What are the so-called "Laws of Nature"? These "laws" are something presumed to exist and that Science attempts to describe.
They are inherently natural, but arguably unknowable, because Science is ultimately nothing more than man's best guess. That is why when defining the supernatural, it is defined as "beyond scientific understanding or the Laws of Nature". It is understood that the "Laws of Nature" are not fully described by science. It is also understood that even though science doesn't yet describe a phenomenon, it may eventually describe said phenomenon. In this way, the definition of the supernatural can be understood subjectively or objectively. Science provides a subjective point of view. The "Laws of Nature" provide an objective point of view. Even though we do not know what the so-called "Laws of Nature" are exactly, we feel intuitively that they must exist.

At this point, it should be clear that something isn't quite right. The Laws of Nature are not something we have fully described. We purport to believe in them and devote all our science towards the end of demystifying them. And for the man that is sooooo arrogant that he thinks he understands the Laws of Nature, we have created the term "supernatural" so that we can carry on a meaningful conversation with out bruising his ego too much. And let's not forget we have a nice little cubby-hole for God to hide in. Isn't that sweet?

When I think about the question of the supernatural, I think about this asphalt road outside my home. It wasn't brought into being through any known "natural" process. Yet, there it is, plain as day, existing right outside my door.

 

[dust1n]

Is the multiverse natural or supernatural? How does it differ from God?

• Beyond Our Universe
  
• Beyond Observation
• Untestable
• Unfalsifiable

It seems these oft-made criticisms against God apply equally well against the multiverse. It also seems, given the definition of supernatural used by many in here, that the multiverse would qualify as such.

If I met someone who "believed" in multiverses as adamantly as people believe in god, they would be just about as far as science as one can get. Your reasoning is sound here... it's just that no one is making the claim that the multiverse is real.

 

[dust1n]

Multiverse is a theory which is currently unproven, so in that respect it's similar to God. It seems likely that eventually we will work out a way to see beyond the observable universe and then be able to test the multiverse theory.

Unlikely so, even if anything was there, the light would never reach us.

I heard that one cosmologist has been looking for evidence of collisions, for example.

Around 2010, scientists such as Stephen M. Feeney analyzed Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data and claimed to find preliminary evidence suggesting that our universe collided with other (parallel) universes in the distant past.[38][39][40] However, a more thorough analysis of data from the WMAP and from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution 3 times higher than WMAP, failed to find any statistically significant evidence of such a bubble universe collision.[41][42] In addition, there is no evidence of any gravitational pull of other universes on ours.[43][44]

Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dust1n]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

Not even close.

Nature is the totality of all physical and material existence.

Anything which exists in nature is natural.

Anything which is posited to exist outside of nature or above nature is supernatural.

God is supernatural.

Science relies on observations of repeatable physical and material phenomenon by multiple parties, to the point of predictability, and deduction.

Therefore, god, as a supernatural entity, can not be confirmed nor denied, nor given any attributes or personality whatsoever, by scientists, at least.

 

[dust1n]

Personally, I find Quantum Tunneling and Relativity pretty close to being 'Supernatural'.
As a Civil Engineer, I like Newtonian Physics.

Well luckily, you won't have to take into account any quantum phenomenon when building a successful structure. Newtonian Physics works for us in a lot of ways.

 

[dust1n]

Is Science Natural? The asphalt road outside my door is not "existing or caused by nature". It was made by man.

Man is natural. What man and animals and plants do, in fact, exist in the natural world. The asphalt road exists because of a series of physical events. The asphalt road outside your house will erode from water, and crack. The plants will exploit them.

 

[Ponder This]

Man is natural. What man and animals and plants do, in fact, exist in the natural world. The asphalt road exists because of a series of physical events. The asphalt road outside your house will erode from water, and crack. The plants will exploit them.

It is curious. I mean "Man is natural" and yet the adjective "unnatural" seems to be a better descriptor for the asphalt road then the word "natural" is.
Let me put it another way. If you wanted to prove Intelligent Design, you would look for something like an asphalt road occurring naturally. To prove asphalt roads are natural is to provide evidence of Intelligent Design because Asphalt Roads are Intelligently Designed (i.e. are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process). Naturally, this assumes that you think Intelligence is not an undirected process...

 

[dust1n]

It is curious. I mean "Man is natural" and yet the adjective "unnatural" seems to be a better descriptor for the asphalt road then the word "natural" is.

I would disagree. Roads are as natural to human civilization as the wheel is. Building roads is about as unnatural as feeding myself.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

No by definition God is the category of reality to which we are appealing to in order to explain the contingency of the natural world in the first place. If God were natural then such an appeal really would be a case of special pleading. God is a loaded term but here it is simply the necessary characteristics this other reality must have in order to serve as the logically consistent explanation for the world we do experience through our senses. As it turns out however these characteristics are the very same ones attributed to the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. When you put this logical necessity together with the historicity of that revealed God then you do get I think a very strong case that such a God might indeed really exist. In my opinion this is many orders of magnitude more probably than the any other possibility for the world we experience.

However this is just Thomism 101.

A great book that addresses this question is Edward Freser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.

Anther book which treats the subject well is Etienne Gilson's Being and Some Philosophers.

That makes little sense.

Language, for example, is a closed semiotic system, a contingent system. Every definition of a word uses other words, and they use other words, and so on. There are no ways to describe the meaning of the signs and symbols that make up language without using additional signs and symbols of language.

Based on your reasoning, it would be impossible for two people to communicate through language because you would need external references for meaning outside of language to understand what language is and how it works.

A metaphysical understanding of the universe is necessary of you want to justify God's existence, but it is not necessary to understand the universe itself.

 

[outhouse]

Is Science Natural?

Its a fallacious question. It has no real meaning.

Science is our attempt to explain the natural world we live in. Is it natural that some people do this? yes it is.

They are inherently natural, but arguably unknowable, because Science is ultimately nothing more than man's best guess

Your factually wrong.

Our attempt to explain nature is done so with factual evidence in many cases. We can know quite a bit, and learn as we observe nature

 

[outhouse]

And let's not forget we have a nice little cubby-hole for God to hide in. Isn't that sweet?

No its human nature.

We see how man creates deities, and we se how man created mythology to explain the concepts.


Sorry that science has pushed back mythology and placed god in the gaps of many peoples knowledge. Its not our fault the gaps keep shrinking as mythology is highlighted for what it is.


The only issue here is that some theist refuse credible education and knowledge, and cannot accept the reality of this situation.

 

[asier9]

That makes little sense.

Language, for example, is a closed semiotic system, a contingent system. Every definition of a word uses other words, and they use other words, and so on. There are no ways to describe the meaning of the signs and symbols that make up language without using additional signs and symbols of language.

Based on your reasoning, it would be impossible for two people to communicate through language because you would need external references for meaning outside of language to understand what language is and how it works.

A metaphysical understanding of the universe is necessary of you want to justify God's existence, but it is not necessary to understand the universe itself.

I can't help you out here. You need to figure out your fallacies on your own. Obviously if what you assume was being asserted was actually what was being asserted then yes it would indeed make little sense. However what I am actually saying is that we can use words to refer to concepts, and this obviously is how people use language to communicate all the time. As for the rest of the stupidity you utter I don't care about putting any energy into disabusing you of it. There is obviously room for reasonable people to disagree, but if it were really as obviously one sided as you suggest then we'd all just all be fools. The arrogance then for you to assume the problem must be that, and not instead a confusion in your own understanding I can only interpret as further evidence of the aforementioned stupidity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not even close.

Nature is the totality of all physical and material existence.

Anything which exists in nature is natural.

Anything which is posited to exist outside of nature or above nature is supernatural.

God is supernatural.

Science relies on observations of repeatable physical and material phenomenon by multiple parties, to the point of predictability, and deduction.

Therefore, god, as a supernatural entity, can not be confirmed nor denied, nor given any attributes or personality whatsoever, by scientists, at least.

What do you mean by "physical and material existence"?

Edit: how is it different from just "existence"?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I can't help you out here. You need to figure out your fallacies on your own. Obviously if what you assume was being asserted was actually what was being asserted then yes it would indeed make little sense. However what I am actually saying is that we can use words to refer to concepts, and this obviously is how people use language to communicate all the time. As for the rest of the stupidity you utter I don't care about putting any energy into disabusing you of it. There is obviously room for reasonable people to disagree, but if it were really as obviously one sided as you suggest then we'd all just all be fools. The arrogance then for you to assume the problem must be that, and not instead a confusion in your own understanding I can only interpret as further evidence of the aforementioned stupidity.

The example of language was a metaphor for the reasoning behind your argument. Enjoy your Cartesian Circle and thank you for your time.

 

[dust1n]

What do you mean by "physical and material existence"?

Tangibility.

Edit: how is it different from just "existence"?

All other existences are those that are posited in a realm of intangibility.

 

[shawn001]

Is Science Natural? The asphalt road outside my door is not "existing or caused by nature". It was made by man.
Just because it is unnatural, does not mean it does not exist.
An asphalt road is not supernatural (i.e.attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the Laws of Nature).
What are the so-called "Laws of Nature"? These "laws" are something presumed to exist and that Science attempts to describe.
They are inherently natural, but arguably unknowable, because Science is ultimately nothing more than man's best guess. That is why when defining the supernatural, it is defined as "beyond scientific understanding or the Laws of Nature". It is understood that the "Laws of Nature" are not fully described by science. It is also understood that even though science doesn't yet describe a phenomenon, it may eventually describe said phenomenon. In this way, the definition of the supernatural can be understood subjectively or objectively. Science provides a subjective point of view. The "Laws of Nature" provide an objective point of view. Even though we do not know what the so-called "Laws of Nature" are exactly, we feel intuitively that they must exist.

At this point, it should be clear that something isn't quite right. The Laws of Nature are not something we have fully described. We purport to believe in them and devote all our science towards the end of demystifying them. And for the man that is sooooo arrogant that he thinks he understands the Laws of Nature, we have created the term "supernatural" so that we can carry on a meaningful conversation with out bruising his ego too much. And let's not forget we have a nice little cubby-hole for God to hide in. Isn't that sweet?

When I think about the question of the supernatural, I think about this asphalt road outside my home. It wasn't brought into being through any known "natural" process. Yet, there it is, plain as day, existing right outside my door.

The "asphalt road" obeys the laws of nature like gravity, was made out of natural products that also obey the laws of nature and has a chemical composition of known elements and eventually need to be replaced due to Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. .

"we have created the term "supernatural"

History has shown why we have the term for sure through things we couldn't explain until science explained them, although of course not everything. Which is why we still have supernatural and superstitions.

 

[shawn001]

Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Supernatural science: Why we want to believe - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News

 

[shawn001]

A reason to believe
Religion may fill the human need for finding meaning, sparing us from existential angst while also supporting social organization, researchers say.

A reason to believe

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A reason to believe
Religion may fill the human need for finding meaning, sparing us from existential angst while also supporting social organization, researchers say.

A reason to believe

C'mon folks...that ain't science....atheism may also fill a human need for finding meaning....but so what...apostate religious institutions may be corrupt, but so are communist and secular socialist institutions...humanity is.just one step in cosmic evolution above the animal kingdom, par for the course....

 

[McBell]

humanity is.just one step in cosmic evolution above the animal kingdom, par for the course....

Says who?
And what are they basing this claim on?