• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Supernatural

Russell797 said:
However, that we do see it under the proper conditions or by using a prism means the spectrum of light is is a naturally occurring feature which we can detect with our senses. We think there is a naturally occurring substance we call dark matter, because we have seen the consequences of it's presence even if we don't yet know what it is. It acts on matter and light through one of the 4 fundamental forces (gravity) that we are aware of.

We can see the spectrum of light because it represents another of the 4 fundamental forces, electromagnetism.

Something like a ghost or spirit will not exist under the governance of any of the 4 forces. Therefore how is it that people are "seeing" these things? I have no doubt they believe they are "seeing" something and that they interpret the experience as being a window into something they believe exists, but with zero actual explanation it ends right there. The assumption that what is being experienced has something to do with the supernatural has no basis in logic.
Click to expand...

The universe is naturally occurring and we haven't even scratched the surface of what's out there and how it works.

I have no doubt they believe they are "seeing" something and that they interpret the experience as being a window into something they believe exists
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head right there. Now, go out and convince people that fear is a brain seizure. And we have no idea what dark matter is, but like quantum theory, all points to the conclusion that energy and consciousness are in fact the same. Plants have consciousness.

Drugs don't create the effect: they trigger the brain to create it. So the ability is always there.
 
Russell797 said:
That maybe millions of people experience events is not in question. What is in question and actually doubted is the interpretation that what they have experienced is supernatural. There is zero evidence for that assumption no matter how convinced they may be.
Click to expand...

The experiences are only doubted by people who have not had them.

Think about that.
 
maquiscat said:
You are operating under the premise that such things that are labeled "supernatural" are not real, yet there is no real evidence as such, other than the argument that even if ghosts exists (example use only) then they are natural. If we don't know enough to artificially create the conditions to see a ghost, then how can we show anything one way or the other. At one point in our collective history, it was unknown on how to artificially created the conditions for making a rainbow. I will agree with you that one cannot creat the conditions to experience things that are not real, but it does not automatically follow that because you cannot currently create the conditions to experience something that it must not be real.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about creating conditions artificially to demonstrate they are real. We understand scientifically how a rainbow occurs. There can be no scientific explanation of the supernatural because it is not natural which means it is not real. Supernatural means beyond nature. There is nothing beyond nature. There can be no conditions that create something that is supernatural.
 
jet57 said:
Perception is reality. The rainbow comparison is just to illustrate the point. The sun revolved around the earth until we found out that it wasn't true. Subjective truth is just that; in the eye of the beholder. So you're not going to convince someone who is born again and says that they've had a Christ experience that it didn't happen. The fact hat you've not had such an experience does not mean that you are incapable. You just haven't set yourself to it.
Click to expand...

But then surely there is a difference between a scientist who identifies a new star in the sky, and millions of children claiming they had an experience of boogie men under their bed at night. If perception is reality, then surely the reality of boogie men would have to be taken far more seriously- certainly more seriously than the lone scientist's claims of a new star. What, if anything, is the difference between the credibility of those experiences?

And what about the hallucinations of schizophrenics? We can take their experiences as real, but if perception is reality, are we to take the objects of their perceptions as real too?
 
Last edited:
"So you're not going to convince someone who is born again and says that they've had a Christ experience that it didn't happen."

That's true of the experiences of schizophrenics too. Should we be setting ourselves to have those experiences as well?
 
ataraxia said:
But then surely there is a difference between a scientist who identifies a new star in the sky, and millions of children claiming they had an experience of boogie men under their bed at night. If perception is reality, then surely the reality of boogie men would have to be taken far more seriously- certainly more seriously than the lone scientist's claims of a new star. What, if anything, is the difference between the credibility of those experiences?

And what about the hallucinations of schizophrenics? We can take their experiences as real, but if perception is reality, are we to take the objects of their perceptions as real too?
Click to expand...

Right, but that kid has to be coxed, sometimes for years, that there's no boogie man: but fear dictates that there is. As for other experiences as we've been discussing, there's no competent explanation that says that said experiences aren't true.
 
ataraxia said:
"So you're not going to convince someone who is born again and says that they've had a Christ experience that it didn't happen."

That's true of the experiences of schizophrenics too. Should we be setting ourselves to have those experiences as well?
Click to expand...

Why do you post these run and hide comments? Afraid of what the response is going to be?
 
jet57 said:
Why do you post these run and hide comments? Afraid of what the response is going to be?
Click to expand...

What in the world is a run and hide comment? I am here. I have been tracking this discussion and look forward to commenting again! Tell me what's on your mind.
 
jet57 said:
Right, but that kid has to be coxed, sometimes for years, that there's no boogie man: but fear dictates that there is. As for other experiences as we've been discussing, there's no competent explanation that says that said experiences aren't true.
Click to expand...

So I am not clear what point you're trying to make here when you say that perception dictates reality. Obviously the perception of a boogie man is different at the perception of a new star in the night sky by an astronomer.
 
Nothing exits only what the brain creates.............................is what you are
 
jet57 said:
Right, but that kid has to be coxed, sometimes for years, that there's no boogie man: but fear dictates that there is. As for other experiences as we've been discussing, there's no competent explanation that says that said experiences aren't true.
Click to expand...

The emotions people feel are real.The source of the emotions may come from something imaginary. Being scared by a book or movie is real. The source of the fear is fictional. Emotions are not the same as observations. Emotions are not the same as our senses. We see rainbows with our eyes. Blind people do not sense rainbows with their emotions. But blind people and sighted people can be frightened by things that are imaginary, like a scary story.
 
maquiscat said:
Except that gravity may not be a fundamental force.
https://www.google.com/search?q=gra...j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

Well, the force carrying particle named the graviton has not been discovered and as I understand it, it is unlikely we can produce it in our particle accelerators. The energies required to do so are far above what is possible. I once read that we would need to build an accelerator the size of Neptune's orbit to be able to create the energies necessary to unite the other 3 forces with gravity.

However, even if gravity is not fundamental, everything feels it's presence. It explains the motions of objects and waves through spacetime. It explains the clumping of matter on large scales. Everything feel the "force".


Could you explain more how it is that they would not or could not exist under the governance of the 3 or 4 fundamental forces.
Click to expand...

Starting with gravity, are spirits and ghosts confined to the Earth's surface by gravity? Do they travel with the Earth through space and time? If made of matter they could, but if made of pure energy then how do they remain intact as a structural unit given that energy always tends to dissipate from high to low density? What holds it together? The electromagnetic force holds material object together, but a ghost or spirit is not made of atoms (protons, neutrons and electrons) so there is nothing for that force to act on. If not made of atoms and their constituent particles then they will not emit photons which our eyes or detectors can observe.

The strong and weak nuclear forces only operate within the confines of the atomic nucleus, holding the nucleus together and being responsible for radioactive decay respectively. Their force carrying particles don't extend into the world at our level of existence.

So, if these supposed entities are to exist they must abide by some other laws of physics which we are not aware of, yet still be compatible somehow with the laws we are aware of.

We have just recently discovered evidence for dark matter. It does not interact with electromagnetism (or if it does only very weakly). So it does not absorb or emit photons. It does interact with the universe through gravity though. That's how we detect it's presence. it even bends light passing by mass which is not visible, acting like a lens.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
You are operating under the premise that such things that are labeled "supernatural" are not real, yet there is no real evidence as such, other than the argument that even if ghosts exists (example use only) then they are natural. If we don't know enough to artificially create the conditions to see a ghost, then how can we show anything one way or the other. At one point in our collective history, it was unknown on how to artificially created the conditions for making a rainbow. I will agree with you that one cannot creat the conditions to experience things that are not real, but it does not automatically follow that because you cannot currently create the conditions to experience something that it must not be real.
Click to expand...

If we follow your reasoning then anything is possible unless we can prove otherwise. Is there an invisible elephant in the room with me? Could be I suppose, but do I really have to prove their isn't? The laws of physics preclude the possibility of there being an elephant in my room. If we suspend the rules, then anything goes. We suspend the rules when allowing for ghosts, spirits and souls.
 
Russell797 said:
Well, the force carrying particle named the graviton has not been discovered and as I understand it, it is unlikely we can produce it in our particle accelerators. The energies required to do so are far above what is possible. I once read that we would need to build an accelerator the size of Neptune's orbit to be able to create the energies necessary to unite the other 3 forces with gravity.

However, even if gravity is not fundamental, everything feels it's presence. It explains the motions of objects and waves through spacetime. It explains the clumping of matter on large scales. Everything feel the "force".




Starting with gravity, are spirits and ghosts confined to the Earth's surface by gravity? Do they travel with the Earth through space and time? If made of matter they could, but if made of pure energy then how do they remain intact as a structural unit given that energy always tends to dissipate from high to low density? What holds it together? The electromagnetic force holds material object together, but a ghost or spirit is not made of atoms (protons, neutrons and electrons) so there is nothing for that force to act on. If not made of atoms and their constituent particles then they will not emit photons which our eyes or detectors can observe.

The strong and weak nuclear forces only operate within the confines of the atomic nucleus, holding the nucleus together and being responsible for radioactive decay respectively. Their force carrying particles don't extend into the world at our level of existence.

So, if these supposed entities are to exist they must abide by some other laws of physics which we are not aware of, yet still be compatible somehow with the laws we are aware of.

We have just recently discovered evidence for dark matter. It does not interact with electromagnetism (or if it does only very weakly). So it does not absorb or emit photons. It does interact with the universe through gravity though. That's how we detect it's presence. it even bends light passing by mass which is not visible, acting like a lens.
Click to expand...

I think the "evidence" for both Dark Matter and Dark Energy is circumstantial and not based on any direct observations. Deviations in the behavior of gravity and of the brightness of distant light sourcs from what theory predicts are not direct observations. I think both these phenomena are still in the category of Unknowns, much like the Ether in the 19th century. We will have to wait for a new Einstein to explain it to us.
 
JohnPaul said:
I think the "evidence" for both Dark Matter and Dark Energy is circumstantial and not based on any direct observations. Deviations in the behavior of gravity and of the brightness of distant light sourcs from what theory predicts are not direct observations. I think both these phenomena are still in the category of Unknowns, much like the Ether in the 19th century. We will have to wait for a new Einstein to explain it to us.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but in the case of dark matter the evidence is based on direct observation. Something exists which we can not account for in baryonic matter. This something even bends spacetime as if it were the matter which we can detect through electromagnetism. Gravitational lensing.

Dark energy on the other hand is an explanation for the unexpected acceleration of the vacuum. The fabric of space would seem to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. Is this a misinterpretation of the data, the consequence of flawed assumptions or erroneous data? Possibly.
 
Last edited:
JohnPaul said:
I think the "evidence" for both Dark Matter and Dark Energy is circumstantial and not based on any direct observations. Deviations in the behavior of gravity and of the brightness of distant light sourcs from what theory predicts are not direct observations. I think both these phenomena are still in the category of Unknowns, much like the Ether in the 19th century. We will have to wait for a new Einstein to explain it to us.
Click to expand...

Sure. But both dark matter and energy are just hypotheses right now based on certain certain scientific observations. Ghosts, demons, bigfoot, UFO abductions, etc.... not so much. And even in the case of dark matter/energy, scientists don't consider them established science (as you say, they are purely "circumstantial"- just hypotheses requiring further observations/theoretical modeling). So it wouldn't make sense to say that just because scientists propose the idea of dark matter/energy, then it's OK to believe in ghosts and bigfoot sightings too.
 
Russell797 said:
Possibly, but in the case of dark matter the evidence is based on direct observation. Something exists which we can not account for in baryonic matter. This something even bends spacetime as if it were the matter which we can detect through electromagnetism. Gravitational lensing.

Dark energy on the other hand is an explanation for the unexpected acceleration of the vacuum. The fabric of space would seem to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. Is this a misinterpretation of the data, the consequence of flawed assumptions or erroneous data? Possibly.
Click to expand...

Yes, "something" exists which we cannot account for. This Dark Matter is claimed to be four times as prevalent around us as ordinary matter, yet we have never detected even a single particle of it? Why is it not crushing us?

As I understand it, the accelerated rate of expansion of space is inferred from measurement of the brightness of light from very distant sources. Why could this not be accounted for by the "curvature" of space? And how is a "rate" even meaningful when time itself is part of the expansion? My very limited calculus can only cope with rates when time is absolute and independent of the changes.
 
JohnPaul said:
Yes, "something" exists which we cannot account for. This Dark Matter is claimed to be four times as prevalent around us as ordinary matter, yet we have never detected even a single particle of it? Why is it not crushing us?

As I understand it, the accelerated rate of expansion of space is inferred from measurement of the brightness of light from very distant sources. Why could this not be accounted for by the "curvature" of space? And how is a "rate" even meaningful when time itself is part of the expansion? My very limited calculus can only cope with rates when time is absolute and independent of the changes.
Click to expand...

On the galactic scale dark matter is crushing us. That's the point. The galaxy would fly apart if not for the presence of the dark matter. It is most likely 'hot" dark matter, which exists far more diffusely than does baryonic matter. It engulfs galaxies and clusters of galaxies. It's strong influence is apparent only on cosmological scales.

I can not answer your more detailed questions regarding dark energy other than to say the idea does fit nicely within the context of eternal inflation. This hints at physics we do not yet have a solid description of. The vacuum is filled with energy, with virtual particles being created and destroyed continuously. As space expands there is more space or false vacuum which translates to more energy. In this context our universe is a single bubble within a very much larger vacuum (likely infinite) which has undergone a phase transition (the Big Bang) which will slowly diffuse back into eternal inflation.

Now, I have no idea whether or not this thinking is correct or not. Time will hopefully tell. However, whatever it is must fit with our contemporary models of physics which we do understand to within the limits of our ability to test. Our understanding will be expanded rather than diminished if and when we get a handle on the extended physics required to explain what is going on.

The concept of ghosts, spirits, souls and god(s) do not fit into any of this. If those entities somehow exist they operate under a separate set of rules which we are not privy to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom