Posit: The Concept of the Supernatural Cannot Exist.

[lovemuffin]

What idea 'contrary to my own' are you imagining that I am not open to?

None. You wrote that "you are saying that unless your opponent concedes your worldview from the outset", which I read to be a general comment about the whole semantic issue, and so the "you" in my response was intended to be general. It should not be necessary to concede to my worldview. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's obvious that there's been difficulty communicating about some of the semantics, but from what you've said, I think we can move on.

How are you defining 'spirit'?

I'm not sure that I am prepared to give a comprehensive definition, but I tend to view the word within a symbolic framework that, in reference to anthropology, contrasts the spiritual awareness of humanity with the senses and the intellect. Or which contrasts the Logos as that aspect of the Divine which can be spoken of, is intelligible, logical, and intellectually accessible (hence theology: the logos about the theos) with the Spirit, the aspect which is beyond the grasp of mind, thinking, and logic. That's why I wanted to amend my prior post to say that in talking about reality beyond the "physical", I had in mind that aspect of the "physical" which corresponds to Logos: which is objectively available, characterized by law in a mathematical and logical way. The exemplar of the "physical" in this sense is physics as a discipline. The locus of the "spiritual" is something like prayer, meditation, the interior human life. Hence what I said about the necessity of purity of heart as a method.

Also, I'm sorry that this is getting off topic, all these threads end up bleeding together to me. All the topics are inter-related. If quartermass wishes, we could go to one of those other threads.

 

[Bunyip]

None. You wrote that "you are saying that unless your opponent concedes your worldview from the outset", which I read to be a general comment about the whole semantic issue, and so the "you" in my response was intended to be general. It should not be necessary to concede to my worldview. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's obvious that there's been difficulty communicating about some of the semantics, but from what you've said, I think we can move on.



I'm not sure that I am prepared to give a comprehensive definition, but I tend to view the word within a symbolic framework that, in reference to anthropology, contrasts the spiritual awareness of humanity with the senses and the intellect. Or which contrasts the Logos as that aspect of the Divine which can be spoken of, is intelligible, logical, and intellectually accessible (hence theology: the logos about the theos) with the Spirit, the aspect which is beyond the grasp of mind, thinking, and logic. That's why I wanted to amend my prior post to say that in talking about reality beyond the "physical", I had in mind that aspect of the "physical" which corresponds to Logos: which is objectively available, characterized by law in a mathematical and logical way. The exemplar of the "physical" in this sense is physics as a discipline. The locus of the "spiritual" is something like prayer, meditation, the interior human life. Hence what I said about the necessity of purity of heart as a method.

Also, I'm sorry that this is getting off topic, all these threads end up bleeding together to me. All the topics are inter-related. If quartermass wishes, we could go to one of those other threads.

Thanks for responding, but I don't really see what you mean. Cheers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

If the concept didn't exist, you couldn't be positing anything about it (or have a word for it).

 

[George-ananda]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Whether we mean 'supernatural' in terms of religious miracles, or whether we mean it in terms of ghosts or other such events, I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

Conjecture:

Anything with the label 'supernatural' which is found to be a real part of the physical world (let us say someone proves ghosts exist), then whatever is behind that must be underpinned by a scientific principle and must, therefore, be a natural occurrence (assuming that no technology is the cause).

Anything natural cannot be supernatural, and anything supernatural which is proveable is, by default, natural, meaning that the concept fo the supernatural cannot exist.

Discuss.

You are correct. But colloquially 'supernatural' are things that don't fit into the materialist worldview. Even ghosts are natural technically but are supernatural in the colloquial use of the word.

 

[George-ananda]

If the 'spirit' did/does exist, then it must be measurable, and made up of materials familiar to the natural and scientific world (like atoms, electrons, quarks, etc).

Not necessarily. You are assuming only our known physical realm is real. I believe there are other realms of different vibratory and dimensional levels not detectable by the physical realm. The 'astral' after-world realm is an example. We only detect that which is within our familiar three-dimensions and vibratory ranges; that doesn't argue that what we physically experience is all that exists.

 

[Mycroft]

Not necessarily. You are assuming only our known physical realm is real. I believe there are other realms of different vibratory and dimensional levels not detectable by the physical realm. The 'astral' after-world realm is an example. We only detect that which is within our familiar three-dimensions and vibratory ranges; that doesn't argue that what we physically experience is all that exists.

That's upon you to prove. Unless you can, it's not something I can factor in.

 

[George-ananda]

That's upon you to prove. Unless you can, it's not something I can factor in.

I believe a serious investigation of a whole range of subjects colloquially called paranormal would conclude that there is very, very strong evidence (not proof) that there do indeed exist things/events that cannot be satisfactorily explained by a materialist worldview. To me, it makes sense to factor these investigations into my overall worldview.

I believe we live in a universe dramatically more complex than the materialist envisions.

If you wish to believe such things shouldn't be considered without proof (whatever proof would look like) then that is fine but you will have, I believe, an impoverished view of the whole.

 

[Mycroft]

I believe a serious investigation of a whole range of subjects colloquially called paranormal would conclude that there is very, very strong evidence (not proof) that there do indeed exist things/events that cannot be satisfactorily explained by a materialist worldview. To me, it makes sense to factor these investigations into my overall worldview.

I believe we live in a universe dramatically more complex than the materialist envisions.

If you wish to believe such things shouldn't be considered without proof (whatever proof would look like) then that is fine but you will have, I believe, an impoverished view of the whole.

Belief is irrelevant to serious investigation, however.

 

[George-ananda]

Belief is irrelevant to serious investigation, however.

Belief has no part in a serious investigation, I agree. After investigation though, we each form our own opinion of what was learned. That is how human reasoning works.

 

[Bunyip]

This seems once again to be the simple logical failure of equivocation.

The concept of the supernatural can not exist? Well concepts do not exist as such anyway - they are conceptual as opposed to existent. Unless you use a different definition of 'exists' in which case it is just equivocation.

They exist as concepts, which is a different meaning then when we say 'elephants exist'.

 

[lovemuffin]

I don't think it's equivocation, just slightly poor wording. It seems clear that what he is positing is that the concept of supernatural is incoherent, and thus does not refer to anything, rather than positing that the concept as concept is nonexistent.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think it's equivocation, just slightly poor wording. It seems clear that what he is positing is that the concept of supernatural is incoherent, and thus does not refer to anything, rather than positing that the concept as concept is nonexistent.

The problem is, that it is proving impossible for those who see the supernatural or spirit as 'existent' or 'real' to present their argument in any way that does not rely on such poor wording.

Look at it this way; If I said that elephants exist - I mean that elephants actually exist, they occupy physical space in the universe. They are material, real, actual physical organisms.

However when somebody says that consciousness, spirit, the supernatural exists - they mean something very different. They mean that consciousness is a real phenomenon - not that it occupies physical space in the u universe, or that it is material, real, actual in the same sense as the elephant.

As far as I can see, all of the threads on these related topics boil down to switching, swapping and equivocating between these different definitions. The spirit world is made 'real' by dint of word play alone.

As such all discussion gets stuck on definitions and never gets past that to the meat of the disagreement.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not necessarily. You are assuming only our known physical realm is real. I believe there are other realms of different vibratory and dimensional levels not detectable by the physical realm. The 'astral' after-world realm is an example. We only detect that which is within our familiar three-dimensions and vibratory ranges; that doesn't argue that what we physically experience is all that exists.

I agree. I think that someday we will be able to detect those things with technology, but our science really needs to advance. We can't even land a human on another planet and we haven't gone back to the moon, never mind other solar systems, galaxies and even more never mind other dimensions or going through a black hole (which I think are gateways to other dimensions). Our science is still pretty elementary compared to what it could be.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is, that it is proving impossible for those who see the supernatural or spirit as 'existent' or 'real' to present their argument in any way that does not rely on such poor wording.

We say, if it exists then it is natural. Hence the technical meaning of the world 'supernatural' does make sense to us believers either. However, as I have said many times, 'supernatural' does indeed have a colloquial meaning of things that dramatically do not fit in the current materialistic science's worldview (i.e. ghosts, astral bodies, etc.).

 

[Willamena]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Whether we mean 'supernatural' in terms of religious miracles, or whether we mean it in terms of ghosts or other such events, I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

Conjecture:

Anything with the label 'supernatural' which is found to be a real part of the physical world (let us say someone proves ghosts exist), then whatever is behind that must be underpinned by a scientific principle and must, therefore, be a natural occurrence (assuming that no technology is the cause).

Anything natural cannot be supernatural, and anything supernatural which is proveable is, by default, natural, meaning that the concept fo the supernatural cannot exist.

Discuss.

Bravo. It's a sad thing that we've forgotten what 'nature' means.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Whether we mean 'supernatural' in terms of religious miracles, or whether we mean it in terms of ghosts or other such events, I posit that the concept of the supernatural cannot exist.

Conjecture:

Anything with the label 'supernatural' which is found to be a real part of the physical world (let us say someone proves ghosts exist), then whatever is behind that must be underpinned by a scientific principle and must, therefore, be a natural occurrence (assuming that no technology is the cause).

Anything natural cannot be supernatural, and anything supernatural which is proveable is, by default, natural, meaning that the concept fo the supernatural cannot exist.

Discuss.

On the other hand, if you are saying there is no such thing as the super- natural, i.e. something that fundamentally transcends nature, then you are saying that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by those same laws... that don't work

 

[Bunyip]

We say, if it exists then it is natural. Hence the technical meaning of the world 'supernatural' does make sense to us believers either.

Sure, we are on the same page there.

However, as I have said many times, 'supernatural' does indeed have a colloquial meaning of things that dramatically do not fit in the current materialistic science's worldview (i.e. ghosts, astral bodies, etc.).

Sorry, but that seems incoherrant to me - you are contradicting yourself. None of those things conflict with the scientific worldview - as you said, if we discover telepathy it would be natural and therefore within the materialist scientific worldview (to use your term). All of those notions (astral bodies, telepathy, ghosts etc) fit perfectly into a materialist scientific worldview. They fit into a very broad category of science, bursting full of such concepts - the things we do not yet understand. That science does not understand something, or can not explain it does not in any way infer that it is external to the scientific worldview.

 

[Bunyip]

On the other hand, if you are saying there is no such thing as the super- natural, i.e. something that fundamentally transcends nature, then you are saying that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by those same laws... that don't work

If you define supernatural (as I believe George Ananda is doing, and upon which I concurr) as that which science does not yet fully understand or have an explanation for, then the apparent dissonance is resolved.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, we are on the same page there. Sorry, but that seems incoherrant to me - you are contradicting yourself. None of those things conflict with the scientific worldview - as you said, if we discover telepathy it would be natural and therefore within the materialist scientific worldview (to use your term). All of those notions (astral bodies, telepathy, ghosts etc) fit perfectly into a materialist scientific worldview. They fit into a very broad category of science, bursting full of such concepts - the things we do not yet understand. That science does not understand something, or can not explain it does not in any way infer that it is external to the scientific worldview.

I am talking about the materialist scientific worldview. From Wikipedia:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions

You are trying to give materialism too broad a definition. Materialism holds that only physical matter exists and all that exists is the interaction of physical matter. There are no other planes, no-nonphysical matter, etc..

Sure open-minded science can allow for any possibility but that is not materialism.

 

[Bunyip]

I am talking about the materialist scientific worldview. From Wikipedia:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions

You are trying to give materialism too broad a definition. Materialism holds that only physical matter exists and all that exists is the interaction of physical matter.

George you went from 'materialist scientific worldview' to defining 'materialism', I know what materialism is.

There are no other planes, no-nonphysical matter, etc..

Of course not -'non-physical matter' is a contradiction in terms. What is the conflict? Concepts still exist - just not as material. Sure, all that exists is either substance or the result of material interactions - but this is only when defining 'exists' as in it has a physical presence. Concepts still exist within materialism - as concepts., as distinct from as physical quanta.
That concepts exist as concepts does not conflict with materialism at all George, I am frankly amazed that anyone would think it does.