Natural vs Supernatural

[Erebus]

A bit of both perhaps. We know things work on the quantum level and we know things work on the macro level. It's bringing them together in a consistent theory that's the issue. If supernatural events are real, then they are just another aspect of this TOE, albeit an underdeveloped one.

So yes, they are the same thing, and yes it is only called supernatural because we can't accurately explain it yet, but we can accurately explain quantum mechanics for the most part and yet we don't consider all events quantum events.

In short, Clarke's third law run wild.

Ok that makes sense. Would you consider all unexplained phenomena to be supernatural within this understanding or only those of a particular "flavour" (such as ghosts, psychic abilities etc)

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ok that makes sense. Would you consider all unexplained phenomena to be supernatural within this understanding or only those of a particular "flavour" (such as ghosts, psychic abilities etc)

Assuming they can't be explained away by hallucination, malfunctions in the brain, or some other already defined explanation, probably. It would have to be something that we couldn't explain with the knowledge we have currently in any sense yet still objectively real, like quantum events.

 

[Erebus]

Assuming they can't be explained away by hallucination, malfunctions in the brain, or some other already defined explanation, probably. It would have to be something that we couldn't explain with the knowledge we have currently in any sense yet still objectively real, like quantum events.

Ok cool, I can understand that point of view

 

[idav]

Assuming they can't be explained away by hallucination, malfunctions in the brain, or some other already defined explanation, probably. It would have to be something that we couldn't explain with the knowledge we have currently in any sense yet still objectively real, like quantum events.

I saw a movie last night where a demon was able to get into peoples heads and was able to be in two places at once. Stuff that really goes beyond common knowledge. I was certain he was using quantum mechanics to his advantage.

 

[Evolutionary Model]

Just wanted to do a head count, can people list supernatural answers that have been replaced by naturalistic ones and visa versa.

To my knowledge this will be a bit one sided but I guess it leads me to ask what makes supernatural assumptions likely given the poor track record of such assumptions.

For one, we now know that the moon is not chased across the sky by spirit wolves.

 

[McBell]

For one, we now know that the moon is not chased across the sky by spirit wolves.

How do we "know" that?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How do we "know" that?

How do we know what we know? And then how do we know that we know that we know that? And why do hot dogs and hot dog buns come in different amounts!? Why I say!

 

[Penumbra]

"Supernatural" can be a useful word to quickly refer to a set of claims that mainstream science does not currently regard as something that has been shown to be true, but that still have substantial belief among people. This can include psychics, ghosts, gods, demons, spells, reincarnation, and so forth.

More concisely, there is no real divide between that which is supernatural, and what which is natural. Natural things are fairly understood, and the set of things considered "supernatural" are either not true, or not yet understood, depending on the particular claim. When one becomes understood and proven, it gets categorized as natural.

-The concept of information and energy traveling through a pure vaccuum (electromagnetic radiation) seems rather supernatural in some contexts.
-Quantum mechanics may seem rather supernatural in some contexts. It's pretty weird.
-The concept of neutrinos traveling through us billions of times per second without being detected may make them seem supernatural.
-The concept that spacetime is not a static field in which we exist, but instead a dynamic and alterable part of the system may seem supernatural. The physics of time travel, curved space, and relativity are intuitively "out there".

There is set of things we think we understand to a degree, and things we don't understand. There is a set of concepts that are objectively true and real, and a set of concepts that do not really exist in the universe. These two spectra can overlap to a degree.

 

[Orias]

To my knowledge this will be a bit one sided but I guess it leads me to ask what makes supernatural assumptions likely given the poor track record of such assumptions.

Probably the fact that some people can't even agree on what they saw that happened right in fron of their eyes

 

[RomCat]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

 

[Orias]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

Thats not true, there are multiple theories that suggest the Universe has always been.

Even the big bang theory has had its ideas evolved on that perhaps the Universe has expanded and collapsed numerous times.

And to be literal, in the Natural world of things we as humans can create something out of nothing, possessing the ability to conjure our Minds into this view we call existence.

But then again, One could argue that the makings of the Mind to indeed did not come from nothing, propagate and expand

 

[CaptainBritain]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

Thats not what Science has admitted, if there is a peer reviewed paper that has reached a scientific consensus on the matter please provide a link.

Look up Quantum singularity.

Even if what you spouted there was in any way true, it would only be an acknowledgement of a creator if you jumped to that conclusion straight off the bat without considering any others.

But rest easy God has some time to hide in that gap in human knowledge yet.
That is a very good example of a supernatural answer though, im wondering do you know of any super natural answers that have been found to be true via human enquiry?

 

[McBell]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

So where did this creator come from?

 

[outhouse]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

LOL








:bonk:

 

[meogi]

If one posits the supernatural, one also posits the ability for anything to happen. Laws degrade and reality falls apart, while at the same time being unchanged. The supernatural is a worthless proposition imo.

 

[tumbleweed41]

OK

lets look at witching for water, It is a phenomina that no one can begin to explain.

but it works.

No, it doesn't.

[SIZE=+0] At Kassel, north of Frankfurt, Germany, the scientific group Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) in 1992 set up a very efficient and effective site for testing dowsing in cooperation with a local television station. A plastic pipe of suitable size was buried fifty centimeters beneath a level section of field, through which a very large flow of water could be directed from a switching valve. The test area was protected by a large tent, and the position of the buried pipe was prominently marked by a broad red and white stripe. The challenge for the dowsers was not to find the pipe, but only to say whether water was flowing in it or not.
In response to advertisements, GWUP obtained thirty dowsers, mostly from Germany but also from Denmark, Austria, and France. Each dowser was required to perform ten “open” trials in which he or she would know whether or not the water was flowing, and they would have to obtain 100 percent results at that time. This set of trials would provide GWUP with a baseline from which to judge the subsequent twenty “closed” trials which immediately followed, in which they did not know the answer. In all cases, both with the open and closed tests, the “on” or “off” condition was decided by the random selection of a marked ball from a bag.
Each dowser was asked to make, in advance, a statement expressing any objections he might have to the procedure and stating his or her expected success rate. Each and every problem was satisfied and each dowser expected 100 percent success, as attested by the signatures. Then each subject was asked to use his or her dowsing ability to scan the area in which the test was to be performed, to see if any underground distraction was present.
At the end of three days of testing, GWUP announced the results of almost a thousand bits of data to the assembled dowsers. A summary of their results produced just what would be expected according to chance.[/SIZE]

James Randi Educational Foundation — An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Origin of the Universe.
In the natural world something can not
come out of nothing. Yet, science now
admits that the Universe was created
in an instance out of nothing. This is
an implicit acknowlegement that there
is a Creator.

Cause and Effect only apply when Energy/Matter interacts with Space/Time.
None of which apply to the Big Bang or Singularity.
One cannot logically say that a Cause is necessary for the Universe to begin without ignoring the necessity for interaction.


Thus replacing your answer based on supernatural with the natural.

 

[Silver]

........

On the flip side for an Atheist such as I the question why is there something rather than nothing, is one question I cant see a natural answer too but I hold that there must be one in spite of any evidence.

Imagine if humans could devise a way of bringing themselves into existence from nothing. This could account for why there is something rather than nothing, and it's a natural answer too.

 

[David M]

Just wanted to do a head count, can people list supernatural answers that have been replaced by naturalistic ones and visa versa.

To my knowledge this will be a bit one sided but I guess it leads me to ask what makes supernatural assumptions likely given the poor track record of such assumptions.

Pretty much every single large scale natural phenomena goes on the first list.

Can't think of anything for the second one offhand.

 

[Willamena]

Just wanted to do a head count, can people list supernatural answers that have been replaced by naturalistic ones and visa versa.

Not a one.

To my knowledge this will be a bit one sided but I guess it leads me to ask what makes supernatural assumptions likely given the poor track record of such assumptions.

Probably the underlying assumptions about supernatural assumptions.