The Supernatural

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

vesper said:
I read your response and laughed for I have seen evidence of the supernatural!

What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

William Rea · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

I quite like the line that if evidence for something is found then it is no longer supernatural, it comes into the natural realm, in which case, it always was natural and it is only our classification of it that has changed. I would say that we would need to define what supernatural actually is and I would start by saying that supernatural is, 'stuff that is real but, that has not yet been brought into the realm of human knowledge'. As a caveat to that I would say that this does not give us license to pull any old crap out of our asses and assert that it is possible because we don't know everything about reality, that is illogical and irrational.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

Might just be that what you have just posted is, depending on how you interpret/define evidence, the impossible question.

The question itself would seem to be a contradiction in terms. As it is supernatural it is necessarily beyond the bounds of science and therefore beyond evidence of proof.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...rome..69i57.8515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

su·per·nat·u·ral

1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Merriam Webster 1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent

Dictionary.com 1.
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

Wikipedia The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD)[1][2] includes all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other supernatural beings, or to things beyond nature.

Oxford English Dictionary 1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Evidence = a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Now if you are just looking for an indication or outward sign... to me Life itself is a sign of the supernatural, that combined with variety [ it being the spice of Life]. There would be no scientific necessity for Life, no necessity for variety. Both provide endless fascination by man, an intelligent animal [created ?] that can appreciate it,

Why Does the Universe Exist? Science May Have the Answer

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make to make stars, galaxies and us.

"And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.
So what is the deal? Why are there things, instead of nothing? It may hinge on a kind of particle called a "b-meson," which constantly moves back and forth between its matter state and its antimatter state—but which moves more easily from antimatter to matter than the other way around. If this is true, says Fermilab theorist Joe Lykken, it will be like seeing "the toe of God," which doesn't sound that awesome but is still pretty cool, if you think about it.

"This result may provide an important input for explaining the matter dominance in our universe," Guennadi Borissov, a co-leader of the study from Lancaster University, in England, said in a talk Friday at Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill. Over the weekend, word spread quickly among physicists. Maria Spiropulu of CERN and the California Institute of Technology called the results "very impressive and inexplicable."

So, perhaps we may have that indication, yet not proof.

Why Do We Exist? Experiments Hold the Answer | The Huffington Post

"This isn’t, you understand, an illusion. Spinoza’s genius sensed this back in the 17th century. To be conscious of space and time, he explained, is to transcend space and time. The mind transcends space and time in the sense that they are for it and it’s not in them. This is why, in real experiments with entangled particles, it appears that things are instantaneously connected behind the physical world as if there’s no space or time between them. This is also why, in yet other experiments, particles seem to spring into existence only when they’re observed."

Merry Christmas

William Rea · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
...Now if you are just looking for an indication or outward sign... to me Life itself is a sign of the supernatural, that combined with variety [ it being the spice of Life]. There would be no scientific necessity for Life, no necessity for variety...

There is no scientific necessity for anything since science models what we observe.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

William Rea said:
There is no scientific necessity for anything since science models what we observe.

What is termed science incorporates more than just what we observe, it also makes predictions about what will happen, what is happening and what has happened before using necessity and sufficiency [logic].

joG · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

Clarck's third law might be interpreted that you couldn't distinguish the natural from the supernatural, while the second law states you would have to expand the envelope of what is possible till you could.

joG · Dec 25, 2016

William Rea said:
I quite like the line that if evidence for something is found then it is no longer supernatural, it comes into the natural realm, in which case, it always was natural and it is only our classification of it that has changed. I would say that we would need to define what supernatural actually is and I would start by saying that supernatural is, 'stuff that is real but, that has not yet been brought into the realm of human knowledge'. As a caveat to that I would say that this does not give us license to pull any old crap out of our asses and assert that it is possible because we don't know everything about reality, that is illogical and irrational.

For human purposes it would probably be enough to show that a phenomenon cannot be explained by our science to be supernatural. The rub is in that that we must assume that our science is a mere subspace in a much larger body of knowledge required to fully explain natural reality. How would we want to differentiate between a reality formed by natural law and one that was a game between two bundled forces playing out a set of rules they had negotiated?

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

William Rea said:
I quite like the line that if evidence for something is found then it is no longer supernatural, it comes into the natural realm, in which case, it always was natural and it is only our classification of it that has changed. I would say that we would need to define what supernatural actually is and I would start by saying that supernatural is, 'stuff that is real but, that has not yet been brought into the realm of human knowledge'. As a caveat to that I would say that this does not give us license to pull any old crap out of our asses and assert that it is possible because we don't know everything about reality, that is illogical and irrational.

In that case, you would say that the statement from Vesper about having evidence for the supernatural is probably confirmation bias.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
Might just be that what you have just posted is, depending on how you interpret/define evidence, the impossible question.

The question itself would seem to be a contradiction in terms. As it is supernatural it is necessarily beyond the bounds of science and therefore beyond evidence of proof.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...rome..69i57.8515j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

su·per·nat·u·ral

1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Merriam Webster 1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent

Dictionary.com 1.
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

Wikipedia The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD)[1][2] includes all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other supernatural beings, or to things beyond nature.

Oxford English Dictionary 1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Evidence = a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Now if you are just looking for an indication or outward sign... to me Life itself is a sign of the supernatural, that combined with variety [ it being the spice of Life]. There would be no scientific necessity for Life, no necessity for variety. Both provide endless fascination by man, an intelligent animal [created ?] that can appreciate it,

Why Does the Universe Exist? Science May Have the Answer

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make to make stars, galaxies and us.

"And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.
So what is the deal? Why are there things, instead of nothing? It may hinge on a kind of particle called a "b-meson," which constantly moves back and forth between its matter state and its antimatter state—but which moves more easily from antimatter to matter than the other way around. If this is true, says Fermilab theorist Joe Lykken, it will be like seeing "the toe of God," which doesn't sound that awesome but is still pretty cool, if you think about it.

"This result may provide an important input for explaining the matter dominance in our universe," Guennadi Borissov, a co-leader of the study from Lancaster University, in England, said in a talk Friday at Fermilab, in Batavia, Ill. Over the weekend, word spread quickly among physicists. Maria Spiropulu of CERN and the California Institute of Technology called the results "very impressive and inexplicable."

So, perhaps we may have that indication, yet not proof.

Why Do We Exist? Experiments Hold the Answer | The Huffington Post

"This isn’t, you understand, an illusion. Spinoza’s genius sensed this back in the 17th century. To be conscious of space and time, he explained, is to transcend space and time. The mind transcends space and time in the sense that they are for it and it’s not in them. This is why, in real experiments with entangled particles, it appears that things are instantaneously connected behind the physical world as if there’s no space or time between them. This is also why, in yet other experiments, particles seem to spring into existence only when they’re observed."

Merry Christmas

You say for you that life itself is.. How do you Know ?? Why is that not the logical fallacy of 'confirmation bias', and also the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'???

Thoreau72 · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

To a person born blind, how can one present evidence for the color green or red?

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
You say for you that life itself is.. How do you Know ?? Why is that not the logical fallacy of 'confirmation bias', and also the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'???

How do we know anything? By studying it for ourselves and making our own best judgements.

Any direction you personally step in can, even if it were right, be subject to confirmation bias, or simply my side bias... AND, as we can neither confirm nor deny as there simply is no measuring cup by which to assess, no microscope that, by its very definition as delineated in my previous posts supplying definitions, can ever capture the supernatural... one must look for indications that give meaning to what you arrive at as your own belief as to the reality.

I was brought up being forced, or at least a long and strident attempt made to get me to believe in a specific religion. I knew from 5th grade, when this effort was started, that I did not myself believe in that religion being taught. Too many holes, too many questions without answers by which my mind, heart and conscience could abide. By listening to the teachings I agreed with some parts, certain fairly universal morals, other things above and beyond those along with the common sense understanding that man made religions do not fit my style. This particular religion, like many others, was exclusive, if you did not believe you were lost and all of the others were deemed wrong paths.

Well, I came to believe that all others, including the one being pushed, were wrong for me.

In rebellion I stopped believing, rejected all known to me...but always still considered myself a seeker. Hell, I wanted to know. What I found after years of contemplation and argumentation/debate was that I actually did believe in something. A creator, I just had no affection for others in mankind telling me who and how that came about.

So now its me and god. And when I discuss it with others, I find many others that feel/think in a similar manner. Religion is not proof of god, but the wonders of a working functioning universe are. Laws in place, laws in space to which we can only begin to speculate, govern this even through chaos...how, why?

While I cannot position myself as being a Pascalian wagerer, as that seems a valid course to me only at the fringes, I find that science does not provide anywhere near the proper answers I seek and therefore am left to my own devices. And as I said, life is confirmation along with what would seem to me the illogic of variety. For example the coupling of the ability of taste matched with all the wonderful flavors afforded us in this incredibly complex and so wonderfully interdependent world. A world just far enough from the sun with a moon giving us tides and, well, one could just keep going on and on at all the synchronicity of "coincidences" that to me are the signature of god who has blessed us with such a gift of life and so much beauty and bounty on this miracle planet.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
To a person born blind, how can one present evidence for the color green or red?

You build a device that can make a sound depending on the frequency of the light, and green and red are defined as specific wavelengths of light. The variation of the sound as the colors get detected will provide evidence that light wavelengths are present. There is something physical there that , while it must be translated, can be detected manually. The colors 'green' and 'red' are defined by their wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
How do we know anything? By studying it for ourselves and making our own best judgements.

Any direction you personally step in can, even if it were right, be subject to confirmation bias, or simply my side bias... AND, as we can neither confirm nor deny as there simply is no measuring cup by which to assess, no microscope that, by its very definition as delineated in my previous posts supplying definitions, can ever capture the supernatural... one must look for indications that give meaning to what you arrive at as your own belief as to the reality.

I was brought up being forced, or at least a long and strident attempt made to get me to believe in a specific religion. I knew from 5th grade, when this effort was started, that I did not myself believe in that religion being taught. Too many holes, too many questions without answers by which my mind, heart and conscience could abide. By listening to the teachings I agreed with some parts, certain fairly universal morals, other things above and beyond those along with the common sense understanding that man made religions do not fit my style. This particular religion, like many others, was exclusive, if you did not believe you were lost and all of the others were deemed wrong paths.

Well, I came to believe that all others, including the one being pushed, were wrong for me.

In rebellion I stopped believing, rejected all known to me...but always still considered myself a seeker. Hell, I wanted to know. What I found after years of contemplation and argumentation/debate was that I actually did believe in something. A creator, I just had no affection for others in mankind telling me who and how that came about.

So now its me and god. And when I discuss it with others, I find many others that feel/think in a similar manner. Religion is not proof of god, but the wonders of a working functioning universe are. Laws in place, laws in space to which we can only begin to speculate, govern this even through chaos...how, why?

While I cannot position myself as being a Pascalian wagerer, as that seems a valid course to me only at the fringes, I find that science does not provide anywhere near the proper answers I seek and therefore am left to my own devices. And as I said, life is confirmation along with what would seem to me the illogic of variety. For example the coupling of the ability of taste matched with all the wonderful flavors afforded us in this incredibly complex and so wonderfully interdependent world. A world just far enough from the sun with a moon giving us tides and, well, one could just keep going on and on at all the synchronicity of "coincidences" that to me are the signature of god who has blessed us with such a gift of life and so much beauty and bounty on this miracle planet.

We know things by 1) examining the phenomena, and seeing if the phenomena is repeatable, objective (i.e.... do different people share the same phenomena. We then come up with a hypothesis about 'what is the cause of this event' ... i.e. a model of WHY it happens, and then we can test to see if that model can predict behavior... i.e. is it possible to use that model to make predictions, and are those predictions accurate.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
We know things by 1) examining the phenomena, and seeing if the phenomena is repeatable, objective (i.e.... do different people share the same phenomena. We then come up with a hypothesis about 'what is the cause of this event' ... i.e. a model of WHY it happens, and then we can test to see if that model can predict behavior... i.e. is it possible to use that model to make predictions, and are those predictions accurate.

And what then, when we cannot use that model to make valid predictions about such things as the why of existence? And when your models are created based on assumptions as non-provable and just as far-fetched as a god? Where does that leave your side? There is no model that explains any original existence. Or that explains why.

But go ahead, I am all ears, as Ricky Ricardo fictionally used to roll his eyes and say, "'Splain it to me, Lucy." That phrase is a false assumption as well... but still, you do have some explaining to do.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
And what then, when we cannot use that model to make valid predictions about such things as the why of existence? And when your models are created based on assumptions as non-provable and just as far-fetched as a god? Where does that leave your side? There is no model that explains any original existence. Or that explains why.

But go ahead, I am all ears, as Ricky Ricardo fictionally used to roll his eyes and say, "'Splain it to me, Lucy." That phrase is a false assumption as well... but still, you do have some explaining to do.

Asking 'WHY' is metaphysical.. and conceptual. That does not mean it is 'supernatural'.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
Asking 'WHY' is metaphysical.. and conceptual. That does not mean it is 'supernatural'.

Doesn't mean its not supernatural either.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
Doesn't mean its not supernatural either.

by definition, it has nothing to do with the natural or supernatural, it is metaphysical and conceptual.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
by definition, it has nothing to do with the natural or supernatural, it is metaphysical and conceptual.

And yet we exist here in the physical. Somehow that came about. Avoidance is not the answer.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
And yet we exist here in the physical. Somehow that came about. Avoidance is not the answer.

Yes.. but the question 'why' is conceptual and metaphysical, and has not meaning other than what people think about it. HOW is a different question.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
Yes.. but the question 'why' is conceptual and metaphysical, and has not meaning other than what people think about it. HOW is a different question.

If you are willing to accept "why" as being metaphysical and unanswerable, "why" am I, and most others, not given the same lattitude to accept the supernatural?

Winchester · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

Wait till I die and I'll get back to you on this.

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
If you are willing to accept "why" as being metaphysical and unanswerable, "why" am I, and most others, not given the same lattitude to accept the supernatural?

Did I say it was unanswerable?? No, I didn't. I said it was conceptual and metaphysical. Do you understand the difference? It means, there could be an answer, but the answer is subjective and personal.

Gaugingcatenate · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
Did I say it was unanswerable?? No, I didn't. I said it was conceptual and metaphysical. Do you understand the difference? It means, there could be an answer, but the answer is subjective and personal.

Merriam Webster online metaphysical = 1. : of or relating to metaphysics 2. : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural 3. : highly abstract or abstruse

We are now going around in circles and what you are saying about the "why" of existence to you is subjective and personal and to those who believe in a god it is the same equation. I think we have come to the end of the line here and I stand by what I said from the very first.

_Sal · Dec 25, 2016

RAMOSS said:
What would be evidence for the supernatural?

How would you know it is evidence for the supernatural? What process would you use to distinguish between evidence from the supernatural and confirmation bias?

for this, an internal knowing is all I need...it must however "prove" itself over time

I am old and it has

I am good with that and need no further confirmation as I have lived my life by it and will die by it

all others must find their own way and the best of luck

RAMOSS · Dec 25, 2016

Gaugingcatenate said:
Merriam Webster online metaphysical = 1. : of or relating to metaphysics 2. : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : supernatural 3. : highly abstract or abstruse

We are now going around in circles and what you are saying about the "why" of existence to you is subjective and personal and to those who believe in a god it is the same equation. I think we have come to the end of the line here and I stand by what I said from the very first.

There seems to be other definitions than what you say for what metaphysics means. The one the references the supernatural I think gets to be circular, since you can't show the supernatural actually exists.

The defintion I saw was

a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology (2) : ontology 2 b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

And I think 2b fits closest ..