Posit: The Concept of the Supernatural Cannot Exist.

[bobhikes]

That by being so, it is a perfectly (what we call) natural thing and not a supernatural thing at all. And that this applies to everything else. So everything currently considered 'supernatural' that can be found to 'have a basis in physicality' (shall we say?) is automatically not supernatural. So there can be no such thing as the 'supernatural' as an entire concept.

The problem is that most things supernatural can not be found to have a basis in physicality. When they do you can call them natural. Until we find that basis what should we call them? Super seems to be a good indicator of something that could be natural but we don't have the ability to prove currently. It will take an expansion of our technology or knowledge or for better words someone or something Super.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course not -'non-physical matter' is a contradiction in terms.

It is not a contradiction. The physical plane has physical matter reducible to our familiar atoms, electrons etc.. The astral plane has astral matter of very different and finer composition and other dimensional characteristics. This type of matter is not part of a materialist worldview.

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.

When would I ever say concepts conflict with materialism. I can't imagine why anyone would say that either. maybe you're misunderstanding some people here.

 

[Bunyip]

It is not a contradiction. The physical plane has physical matter reducible to our familiar atoms, electrons etc.. The astral plane has astral matter of very different and finer composition and other dimensional characteristics. This type of matter is not part of a materialist worldview.

'Matter' is a reference to the physical. If it is matter, it is physical - unless you mean something different by ' matter ' in which case we are talking about different things.

When would I ever say concepts conflict with materialism. I can't imagine why anyone would say that either. maybe you're misunderstanding some people here.

What I am failing to see is why you insist on using terms like ' matter', 'exists', 'real' and so on to refer to the immaterial. It seems to acheive nothing other than obfuscation.

The topic here is:The CONCEPT of the supernatural can not exist.

I am saying that concepts can exist without any challenge to materialism. Materialism accepts that concepts exist. They are not physical, material, substance - they are abstracts, concepts.

I do hope that helps to clarify my position, I really do want to communicate with you beyond semantics.

 

[George-ananda]

'Matter' is a reference to the physical. If it is matter, it is physical - unless you mean something different by ' matter ' in which case we are talking about different things. What I am failing to see is why you insist on using terms like ' matter', 'exists', 'real' and so on to refer to the immaterial. It seems to acheive nothing other than obfuscation.

English just lacks accepted terms for different types of matter; the best I can do when communicating with you is to talk about physical matter, astral matter, etc. Materialism holds only the existence of physical matter. Astral matter is composed of finer building blocks outside of our normal three-dimensional space. One could call astral matter 'matter' but it is not the matter that is part of the materialist worldview.

 

[Bunyip]

English just lacks accepted terms for different types of matter; the best I can do when communicating with you is to talk about physical matter, astral matter, etc.

Yes, I can see that. And no offence - but there is a lot of equivocation between those two distinct contexts.

Materialism holds only the existence of physical matter.

No, concepts can still exist - the non-physical. This seems to be where we are not connecting.

Astral matter is composed of finer building blocks outside of our normal three-dimensional space. One could call astral matter 'matter' but it is not the matter that is part of the materialist worldview.

What is astral matter?

 

[Caligula]

Let me spin it another way for you:

Let's say jesus (suspending all disbelief here) really did turn water into wine. There must be a scientific principle behind that. Now assuming no technology was used, that makes the event of 'turning water into wine' a natural event, not a supernatural one.

This reminds me of another dilemma: the micro-miracles, where "micro" denotes a huge miracle in itself and is used only to "split" a miracle. Let's take, for example, the resurrection of Lazarus. Most would say that there was one miracle involved there: the resurrection. That's all and we can now mind other business. To which I say: wait just a minute, we're not done yet! The resurrection of Lazarus can not be a stand-alone miracle. There are thousands of other miracles, each one incredible in its own, that had to occur and I want to understand how that works. Was the microbial flora of the stomach restored? What happened with the dead tissue, the fluidity of blood etc.? Let's take a look at a microscopic level and see what should happen in order for one to be properly "restored" after he was dead. I'm not just questioning miracles from a skeptic perspective but I want to fully understand what are the proposals and implications a miracle pose.

For the water into wine miracle - what exactly happens at a molecular level? What kind of grape-less wine we're talking about? What flavor, what aroma and why did Jesus chose a particular one? Meaningless questions? Well, I beg to differ. It matters for me. I won't just swallow the miracles idea like a pelican. Bringing one person back to life implies bringing billions of other living matter back to life and it doesn't stop at that .

The miracle proposal does not get rid of the hundreds of question that arise. How did the miracle altered the nature, in microscopic details? Proposing the idea of a miracle can not evade the legitimacy of such a question. The only "answer" a miracle provides is tied to the desired results and not to the process itself.
What EXACTLY are the miracles in "turning water into wine"? I only ask one to name/enumerate them, not to explain them (...duh, that's why we call them miracles in the first place).

 

[George-ananda]

No, concepts can still exist - the non-physical. This seems to be where we are not connecting.

You may not be grasping that I'm saying 'concepts' can certainly exist in materialism. But ultimately they are reducible to material movement in brains in materialism. Why the continued confusion on this point? My comment was saying materialism only accepts the existence of what I call 'physical matter'; but from physical matter concepts can arise.

Maybe my question to you should be; where do you think we disagree about the concepts of materialism and the OP discussion. Maybe we don't disagree on the concepts but are talking past each other.

What is astral matter?

What is 'physical matter' too? It's all challenging philosophically. Astral matter is matter of a higher vibratory rate and existing beyond the physical three-dimensions. Some Theosophical literature gets into all this in great detail.

 

[roger1440]

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.

Supernatural is a term used when there isn’t any explanation for something or an event. It’s like SIDS, (sudden infant death syndrome). SIDS doesn’t explain why an infant died. SIDS used to be blamed on the demon Lilith, (the taker of children). In 3,000 years we haven’t made any progress to explain why infants die. At least modern man isn’t blaming it a demon. That is a tiny step forward.

 

[George-ananda]

This reminds me of another dilemma: the micro-miracles, where "micro" denotes a huge miracle in itself and is used only to "split" a miracle. Let's take, for example, the resurrection of Lazarus. Most would say that there was one miracle involved there: the resurrection. That's all and we can now mind other business. To which I say: wait just a minute, we're not done yet! The resurrection of Lazarus can not be a stand-alone miracle. There are thousands of other miracles, each one incredible in its own, that had to occur and I want to understand how that works. Was the microbial flora of the stomach restored? What happened with the dead tissue, the fluidity of blood etc.? Let's take a look at a microscopic level and see what should happen in order for one to be properly "restored" after he was dead. I'm not just questioning miracles from a skeptic perspective but I want to fully understand what are the proposals and implications a miracle pose.

For the water into wine miracle - what exactly happens at a molecular level? What kind of grape-less wine we're talking about? What flavor, what aroma and why did Jesus chose a particular one? Meaningless questions? Well, I beg to differ. It matters for me. I won't just swallow the miracles idea like a pelican. Bringing one person back to life implies bringing billions of other living matter back to life and it doesn't stop at that .

The miracle proposal does not get rid of the hundreds of question that arise. How did the miracle altered the nature, in microscopic details? Proposing the idea of a miracle can not evade the legitimacy of such a question. The only "answer" a miracle provides is tied to the desired results and not to the process itself.
What EXACTLY are the miracles in "turning water into wine"? I only ask one to name/enumerate them, not to explain them (...duh, that's why we call them miracles in the first place).

I am one who definitely believes in miracles (more from modern occurrences than ancient Biblical claims).

Some groups, like Theosophists, do get into details of how miracles can occur. For example turning water into wine can be the simultaneous dematerialization of water with the materialization of wine. In fact physical matter like wine can also be teleported from an existing source. Many of these things are called siddhis (yogic powers) in the Hindu traditions, I believe the evidence indicates that the most advanced masters have these powers that are documented in detail if one cares to look.

It is hard for us to imagine as matter seems immutable to the will of our consciousness. But not for an advanced master. This is also part of the philosophy that consciousness is the only real thing and matter is a product of consciousness.

 

[catch22]

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.

The whole premise is faulty. Your main arguing point is semantics, at best.

First, dimensional theory probably precludes any argument you can reasonably make. I'm no expert on it, but my flimsy understanding of it explains your reasoning (eg: if God exists on a higher dimension, He can reasonably and easily manipulate the lower dimensions that would appear "magical" and/or arbitrary to us lower dimensional observers). At some point, you'd probably have to transcend "nature" and enter some other realm of existence or creation, or whatever you want to call it.

Second, supernatural doesn't necessarily mean it's inexplicable through nature, that is, unobservable. Storms probably seemed supernatural to our prehistoric ancestors, but we now have reasonable understanding of why or how storms form and are expressed. It's not such a mystery, afterall. Heck, we can even scan for the change in conditions in order to accurately PREDICT when storms will form.

However, if I could wave my hand and make it rain, and I could do this at any time whenever I wanted, you'd be intrigued, no? That's "supernatural" for lack of a better term.

This is along the lines of your reference of turning water into wine. This is a different scenario. People shouldn't be able to do that. Similarly, raising someone from the dead after they have been dead for four solid days and begin to stink of decay should not happen, either. So if someone could do it, why can they?

Even if we could identify and observe the molecules changing in the process of water becoming wine, we wouldn't necessarily have the ability to reproduce the effect in the way Christ did it (He touches water and prays, it becomes wine; we'd have to do some other arduous "natural" task to achieve the same results). Like the dead guy coming to life, we could see how or why they came back to life (heart restarted, necrosis was reversed) -- we simply could not explain reasonably why it was able to take place when Jesus spoke the words for Lazarus to get up and come out of his tomb.

We can bring people back from death through adrenaline shots or CPR. But it's not the same thing, is it?

By your logic gravity is at best supernatural. We can observe gravity. We cannot reproduce it or even reasonably explain it. We surely cannot create it or manipulate it directly.

If a guy came along and could alter gravity around himself in order to levitate or crush buildings, we'd be intrigued. Even if we can observe the change in force, there'd be no explanation as to why he can manipulate it and no one else could.

In other words: concepts can exist. Supernatural is a concept. Therefore, the supernatural does indeed exist.

 

[Bunyip]

George

Materialism holds that physical matter is all that exists as matter. It does not in any way rule out the 'existence' of abstracts, concepts - the non-physical.

You may not be grasping that I'm saying 'concepts' can certainly exist in materialism. But ultimately they are reducible to material movement in brains in materialism. Why the continued confusion on this point?

Yes concepts are reducible to the physical

My comment was saying materialism only accepts the existence of what I call 'physical matter'; but from physical matter concepts can arise.

The confusion then is in that last sentence George - No materialism does not only accept the existence of physical matter as you are defining 'exists'. The non-physical can exist within the materialist position - but there is a distinction between the conceptual and the actual.

be my question to you should be; where do you think we disagree about the concepts of materialism and the OP discussion. Maybe we don't disagree on the concepts but are talking past each other.

Where we disagree is in two key areas:
1. You refer to 'materialist science' which is a tautology in the sense that science is the study of the material universe. So it is an incoherent term that is misleading - it infers a bias that does not exist.
2. You keep using terms like 'exists', 'substance', 'material', 'real' to refer to the non-existent , insubstantial, immaterial and unreal - it is where the confusion comes in to play. You seem to see concepts and abstractions as having some kind of immaterial substance - although of course 'immaterial substance' is a contradiction in terms. Why you describe the immaterial in contradictory terms is what I do not see.

What is 'physical matter' too? It's all challenging philosophically. Astral matter is matter of a higher vibratory rate and existing beyond the physical three-dimensions. Some Theosophical literature gets into all this in great detail.

But such a 'matter' is surely metaphor? You are talking about a religious concept - not a scientific one, as no such 'higher vibratory matter' is known to exist.
I think this is an area of significant confusion also - 'Astral matter' is surely metaphoric, not actually matter and yet you use language that presents it as matter. Why do you do that?
As to physical matter - I would define that as a tautology. Physical in this context means material, real, substantial, actual, existent.

 

[George-ananda]

Sigh,

I think this is an area of significant confusion also - 'Astral matter' is surely metaphoric, not actually matter and yet you use language that presents it as matter. Why do you do that?

Maybe this is where you are not getting me.

"Astral matter' is not metaphoric I hold it to be real. Just like 'physical matter' is real.

 

[Bunyip]

Sigh,

Maybe this is where you are not getting me.

"Astral matter' is not metaphoric I hold it to be real. Just like 'physical matter' is real.

Yes, that us where the confusion comes in - 'real' is a synonym of 'physical'. In what way is astral matter 'real'? To be both 'real' and 'immaterial' is a contradiction in terms. My confusion come from the fact that you appear unable to describe your position without employing exactly such a contradiction in terms.

When you say that astral matter is real - the problem is that it is neither matter, nor real in the physical sense - so you are equivocating between two distinct and different definitions of 'matter' in a single sentence.

What i am asking is if your position can be expressed in a way that does not rely on such an equivocation?

(Just to make myself clear - I am not insisting on any specific definitions ok? I am not trying to argue semantics - all i am asking is that you express the distinction you are making in a way that does not rely on equivocating between two different definition of the same word in the same statement. It is this equivocation that is confusing me, and I think acting as a barrier to further discussion.)

 

[Cephus]

Let's say jesus (suspending all disbelief here) really did turn water into wine. There must be a scientific principle behind that. Now assuming no technology was used, that makes the event of 'turning water into wine' a natural event, not a supernatural one.

I wouldn't go that far though. It doesn't automatically make it a natural event, that's a logical fallacy. However, I'd have to ask those who believe it was a supernatural event how they came to that conclusion, since pretty much by definition, there are no tests they can perform to verify it and no examples to compare it to. Hence, the only rational position one can have with regard to the supernatural is "I don't know". It's no different than claiming that magic is real. Prove it. Back it up. It's entirely unimpressive until you can.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, that us where the confusion comes in - 'real' is a synonym of 'physical'.

I don't hold that they are synonyms. Brahman is real but is not physical.

In what way is astral matter 'real'?

In the same way physical plane matter is real.

To be both 'real' and 'immaterial' is a contradiction in terms.

'Astral matter' is material but not physical-material. Plus Brahman/Consciousness I hold to be immaterial but real.

 

[Cephus]

Sigh,

Maybe this is where you are not getting me.

"Astral matter' is not metaphoric I hold it to be real. Just like 'physical matter' is real.

Let us know when you have any to produce, then we'll take your claim seriously.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't hold that they are synonyms. Brahman is real but is not physical.

Denying that they are synonyms is just pointless George, look it up the the dictionary - they are synonyms. If you define them in a way that they are NOT synonyms - you need to specify how you are defining them. I honestly do not see any point of pretending that two words are not synonyms when every dictionary will demonstrate that they are. It seems a pointless distraction. If you are defining them in a way that they are not synonyms PLEASE just supply your definitions - that will make things so much clearer.

In the same way physical plane matter is real.

No, that is not true. Physical matter is detectable, measurable and obeys the laws of physics - your astral matter has none of those qualities. It is not physical material and I believe you know that.

'Astral matter' is material but not physical-material. Plus Brahman/Consciousness I hold to be immaterial but real.

George you just said that astral matter is real in the SAME WAY physical matter is real - then you say that astral matter is NOT physical material. You are contradicting yourself, and then wondering why I am confused.

So astral matter is real in the same way physical matter is real, but it is at the same time different from physical material in that it is not material? So it is both material and not-material?

How can you not see the dissonance there? You say that two things are the same, and not the same in the same sentence - if they are the same but not the same, what is the difference?

 

[Bunyip]

George

Maybe we can simplify: You say Brahma is real but not physical.

In English 'real' and 'physical' are synonyms. If you are not using 'real' to refer to physical existence - what are you defining it as? I ask because this is confusing - 'real' but not 'physical' is a contradiction in terms in English. I understand you deny that they are synonyms - but that doesn't wash.

I'm not insisting on a specific definition, I'm not demanding, dictating or ever suggesting one - I am just saying that under their common definitions they are synonyms - and your just denying that they are is confusing. If you are defining 'real' and 'physical' in a way that is not synonymous - it would really help if you could supply those definitions?

 

[Cephus]

George

Maybe we can simplify: You say Brahma is real but not physical.

In English 'real' and 'physical' are synonyms. If you are not using 'real' to refer to physical existence - what are you defining it as? I ask because this is confusing - 'real' but not 'physical' is a contradiction in terms in English. I understand you deny that they are synonyms - but that doesn't wash.

I'm not insisting on a specific definition, I'm not demanding, dictating or ever suggesting one - I am just saying that under their common definitions they are synonyms - and your just denying that they are is confusing. If you are defining 'real' and 'physical' in a way that is not synonymous - it would really help if you could supply those definitions?

I'm quibbling, but I wouldn't agree that "real" and "physical" are synonyms. There are plenty of things that are not physical, but are "real" for all intents and purposes. Ideas are not physical. Concepts are not physical. They do exist. Gods are just conceptual, they are things that we made up in our heads and so long as we keep them in that vein, they are real. It's when people start pretending that they are more than concepts that we run into issues. That's when we have to start asking them to back up their claims and those claims are really rationally indefensible.

 

[lovemuffin]

synonymous does not mean completely equivalent.

Synonym, n. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language. "Real" does not mean exactly the same thing as "physical", even if they are synonymous (the thesaurus here lists material as a synonym of real, but not physical; although it lists real as a synonym of physical in the other direction. heh)