Supernatural?

[mican333]

But that something is only claimed to exist because made the claims they experienced it in the first place. No one ever suggested out of the blue that ghost exist and we should start looking for them.

It also boils down to what a ghost is and it’s usually something that used to be a living human that has died and somehow has been seen or manifested physically. And if it can be seen or heard then we should should be able to record that happening.

I don't think ghosts, by definition, are things that can be seen or heard. I agree that some people claim to have seen/heard ghosts but that does not mean that ghosts are innately detectable or that we have the right tools to detect them if they exist.

And ghosts are just an example anyway so the real specifics of ghosts is not really the point. I'm just saying that there is PLENTY about the universe that we cannot detect. Mankind is much, much, much better defined by what we don't know than what we do know. That certainly does not mean that ghosts really exist and we just don't know it but it does mean that just because we can't currently detect it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

That’s what the show ghost hunters is about. So I dispute that we cannot measure ghosts.

If you are going to argue that we can measure ghosts, then you will need to support that. Of course that requires you to make a convincing case that we know enough about ghosts to determine what it would take to record an actual ghost and then that we have the instruments to do it.

You just have to get a theist to explain what god is and we will get to some kind of supernatural explanation. Then they have to explain what supernatural even means and we will end up here in this thread!

I don't have to ask a theist to define God. I'll just use the dictionary definition.

And I believe I made it clear that I have yet to hear a convincing claim that God exists from a theist so that doesn't effect my agnosticism (if I ever heard a truly convincing theistic argument I probably wouldn't be an agnostic anymore). I expect that neither the theist or the atheist can support that their view is correct.

That's why I argue from the agnostic position here. It doesn't seem like one can support the alternatives.

[Sigfried]

Supernatural to me, means "above nature"

Which is to say it embodies the idea that there is an ordered natural world that abides by set laws of action and consequence or cause and effect.

A supernatural phenomenon would be one that does not have to abide by these same limitations and could supersede or overrule the laws of action and consequence or the normal limits of what is deemed possible.

I don't think that this covers phenomena that are simply not fully understood. For instance, abiogenesis is unproven in science. Science presumes there is a natural methodology from which life could develop from what we would deem non-living materials. But science does not yet know what that would be exactly. So, we have a natural hypothesis, that is beyond sceintific knowledge but presumed to be within the realm of the natural. This is opposed by the supernatural view that God created life from non-life due to God's supernatural powers over nature. AKA nature does as God wills irrespective of the natural laws that seem to otherwise exist and limit what is possible.

Now, there are scientific spiritualists who would say that while spirits can do things that are beyond what we currently know about nature, they are none the less still bound by some kind of order and rule and if we but have the knowledge and ability, we could apply the normal processes of sceince to discover their nature. However, if they are truly supernatural, sceince would be effectively powerless to make observations and predict results using natural methodology.

So phenomena could be described as follows
Natural (following well understood natural mechanisms we observe and discover)
Supernatural (in clear violation of natural mechanisms we observe and discover)
Unexplained (Events which we have not yet decided with certainty are following a natural rule or not)

The tricky part of the Unexplained is that science since it is based in observation, will always assume all observed events are natural and try to discover by what parameters they operate through descriptive language. There is an outstanding dilemma of how science, given its assumptions, could ever truly identify a supernatural phenomena. Indeed it probably can't. Indeed, most scientific inquiry into the supposed supernatural, is merely an effort to observe and isolate the claimed phenomena, and in most cases, they find they cannot. It is then rejected as good knowledge based on their inability to observe it.

[SharmaK]

I don't think ghosts, by definition, are things that can be seen or heard. I agree that some people claim to have seen/heard ghosts but that does not mean that ghosts are innately detectable or that we have the right tools to detect them if they exist.

I don’t think I’ve seen ANY definition of ghost that aren’t seen or heard. The whole point of ghosts is to be seen.

And ghosts are just an example anyway so the real specifics of ghosts is not really the point. I'm just saying that there is PLENTY about the universe that we cannot detect. Mankind is much, much, much better defined by what we don't know than what we do know. That certainly does not mean that ghosts really exist and we just don't know it but it does mean that just because we can't currently detect it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Well, ghosts is a perfect example of a human claim, throughout history, as something supernatural. It’s as good an example as any other supernatural claim. And if they affect the world in the way all the claims have made then it can definitely be detected.

There’s no point inventing a ghost that doesn’t affect the world because that defeats the whole point of them.

If you are going to argue that we can measure ghosts, then you will need to support that. Of course that requires you to make a convincing case that we know enough about ghosts to determine what it would take to record an actual ghost and then that we have the instruments to do it.

If it can be seen or heard, as people claim, then it can be measured. I can only go off existing claims as to what ghosts have done. I don’t think you’re right that there are ghosts that have never been detected or undetectable - you have to support that.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Dionysus]

I don't think ghosts, by definition, are things that can be seen or heard. I agree that some people claim to have seen/heard ghosts but that does not mean that ghosts are innately detectable or that we have the right tools to detect them if they exist.

I've never understood it when you make this kind of statement. I mean, I'm with you on the agnostic view that we shouldn't just blithely exclude certain things from the realm of possibility. But it seems like here you're simply taking a claimed phenomenon, then removing all its claimed characteristics, then insisting that it could actually exist. What could actually exist? Are you saying that ghosts could exist, but they may not have a single characteristic that people claim they have? If a potential thing is completely unlike the thing being submitted for consideration, in what sense is it that thing?

On the other hand, if you're saying that the cause of people having certain shared experiences (such as people claiming to have seen/heard disembodied spirits) could be something that is external to, and not at all understood by humans, I can definitely get behind that. It might very well be the case that people have these shared experiences for causes that reside somewhere in some not-yet-understood dimension of nature, and that this cause actually bears none of the claimed characteristics of ghosts. As a terribly crude comparison, consider that schizophrenia can cause people to see things that aren't actually there. But if a person sees, say, a wolf while suffering the effects of the disease, it's not correct at all to say that the the wolf is in fact a wolf; it's a cognitive byproduct of the interaction of the disease with the person's mind and doesn't have any of the characteristics of a wolf. It's at least a little more precise to say that the wolf itself doesn't exist; it's simply a byproduct of the cause of the person experiencing the wolf i.e. schizophrenia.

So it might be useful to have some sense of what you mean when you say things like this.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

Supernatural (in clear violation of natural mechanisms we observe and discover)

I'm not sure how this fits with the idea of the supernatural. I mean, the accelerating expansion of the universe is so bizarre that scientists have literally invented out of thin air a term to account for the phenomenon: Dark Energy. We don't know a damn thing about it. All we can see are effects; we don't have the first clue about its cause. But when I think of these things, I don't think "supernatural". I think "not understood". I'm not sure what's gained by thinking about it in such terms.

[Sigfried]

I'm not sure how this fits with the idea of the supernatural. I mean, the accelerating expansion of the universe is so bizarre that scientists have literally invented out of thin air a term to account for the phenomenon: Dark Energy. We don't know a damn thing about it. All we can see are effects; we don't have the first clue about its cause. But when I think of these things, I don't think "supernatural". I think "not understood". I'm not sure what's gained by thinking about it in such terms.

I think it is just the context in which the term is used. When someone claims supernatural power they are claiming dominion over the natural world in some respect. It's magic, and I think the understanding of magic is that it defies the normal order of things.

So, DR. Strange has supernatural powers, Hawkeye doesn't. God's are supernatural, humans are not.

I've never heard anyone call the expansion of the universe supernatural. Mysterious, strange, etc... but never supernatural.

[SharmaK]

I've never understood it when you make this kind of statement. I mean, I'm with you on the agnostic view that we shouldn't just blithely exclude certain things from the realm of possibility. But it seems like here you're simply taking a claimed phenomenon, then removing all its claimed characteristics, then insisting that it could actually exist. What could actually exist? Are you saying that ghosts could exist, but they may not have a single characteristic that people claim they have? If a potential thing is completely unlike the thing being submitted for consideration, in what sense is it that thing?

On the other hand, if you're saying that the cause of people having certain shared experiences (such as people claiming to have seen/heard disembodied spirits) could be something that is external to, and not at all understood by humans, I can definitely get behind that. It might very well be the case that people have these shared experiences for causes that reside somewhere in some not-yet-understood dimension of nature, and that this cause actually bears none of the claimed characteristics of ghosts. As a terribly crude comparison, consider that schizophrenia can cause people to see things that aren't actually there. But if a person sees, say, a wolf while suffering the effects of the disease, it's not correct at all to say that the the wolf is in fact a wolf; it's a cognitive byproduct of the interaction of the disease with the person's mind and doesn't have any of the characteristics of a wolf. It's at least a little more precise to say that the wolf itself doesn't exist; it's simply a byproduct of the cause of the person experiencing the wolf i.e. schizophrenia.

.

This would be a good point except that mican has not defined what a ghost is. If it’s nothing any of the things that people have experienced in and called a ghost then what is it that he’s saying exists?

Note, he’s saying he disbelieves those people’s claims (or is agnostic about them); yet, somehow he is still claiming the *could* exist. But since all that we know about ghosts *is* from those experiences, it’s hard to know specifically what he means by “ghost”.

Your second part reminds me of a recent Jordan Peterson debate/discussion he had with Matt Dillahunty where he claimed that smoking cessation caused by a religious experience (or religious-like experience) is proof that there’s a god. The problem with that line of argument, as you point out, is that experiencing something is not the same as that something really existing: in fact, the person doing the experience is just describing what he *thinks* he experience and using the only vocabulary available to him.

It’s more likely in the case of ghosts that it’s a human personification of natural actions that have no basis or connection with a dead person at all. The same argument can be made about all claims that people make on supernatural experiences IMHO: particularly the emotions experienced by the religious - Dillahunty was saying religious epiphanies are much like highs you get from shrooms.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[mican333]

To avoid repeating myself and likewise just getting to the meat of the issue, I'll start my responses here.

If it can be seen or heard, as people claim, then it can be measured.

Theoretically, yes. But "can be" measured is not the same as "has been" measured. And "measured" is not the same as "valid evidence of existence".

I've seen supposed pictures and recordings of ghosts. While it's safe to say that some of them are clear fakes, other recordings are officially inconclusive as in it's not a proven fake but at the same time it's not convincing enough to be proof of a ghost. I mean if I took a REAL picture of a REAL ghost and had an image of a whispy vaguely human shape form (but it really is a ghost) and I sent you the image, I very much doubt that you would be convinced that ghosts are real. So it's not conclusive that ghosts have not been recorded, just that we have no recordings that prove that ghosts exist.

I can only go off existing claims as to what ghosts have done. I don’t think you’re right that there are ghosts that have never been detected or undetectable - you have to support that.

Well, I know there ARE ghost recordings. I just don't know if any of them are genuine (as in it really is a ghost in the recording).

[Dionysus]

I've never heard anyone call the expansion of the universe supernatural. Mysterious, strange, etc... but never supernatural.

Right, but the accelerating expansion of the universe DOES seem to be "in clear violation of natural mechanisms we observe and discover" given that a term had be invented to account for the phenomenon. So what I'm saying is that the definition you proposed doesn't make sense in light of things like that.

---------- Post added at 07:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 AM ----------

This would be a good point except that mican has not defined what a ghost is.

Given that my whole question is centered around asking what a ghost is, I'm not sure I understand your use of "except that".

[SharmaK]

To avoid repeating myself and likewise just getting to the meat of the issue, I'll start my responses here.

Theoretically, yes. But "can be" measured is not the same as "has been" measured. And "measured" is not the same as "valid evidence of existence".

Correct. Just because something has been measured it doesn’t meant that the cause is the one being claimed.

I don’t understand why you’re making a distinction - if an eye can see it and an ear can hear it then we have machines that can measure it. We’re not talking about anything weird. If you’re holding out for some other physical interaction then what is that?

I've seen supposed pictures and recordings of ghosts. While it's safe to say that some of them are clear fakes, other recordings are officially inconclusive as in it's not a proven fake but at the same time it's not convincing enough to be proof of a ghost. I mean if I took a REAL picture of a REAL ghost and had an image of a whispy vaguely human shape form (but it really is a ghost) and I sent you the image, I very much doubt that you would be convinced that ghosts are real. So it's not conclusive that ghosts have not been recorded, just that we have no recordings that prove that ghosts exist.

Sure but what do you even mean by ghost then? What are you actually arguing may or may not exist?

Well, I know there ARE ghost recordings. I just don't know if any of them are genuine (as in it really is a ghost in the recording).

Well, as with any claim you have to examine plausibility. It’s insufficient to assume something can exist when it is so badly described or explained or proven. At some point one has to stop wasting time chasing bad ideas and dump them in the garbage can.

If there are people who insist they exist then they have to define what that is. If they can’t then they can go into the dustbin too!

[mican333]

I don’t understand why you’re making a distinction - if an eye can see it and an ear can hear it then we have machines that can measure it.

But before a machine can measure it, one has to build a machine to measure it and then use that machine.

Sure but what do you even mean by ghost then? What are you actually arguing may or may not exist?

Earlier you said "It also boils down to what a ghost is and it’s usually something that used to be a living human that has died and somehow has been seen or manifested physically". While I wouldn't confuse that for a dictionary definition, it shows that you understand what they are. So we are talking about that. One can also consult a dictionary for further reference.

But I see no reason for there to be a "We don't even know what a ghost is" obstacle in this debate.

Well, as with any claim you have to examine plausibility. It’s insufficient to assume something can exist when it is so badly described or explained or proven. At some point one has to stop wasting time chasing bad ideas and dump them in the garbage can.

If there are people who insist they exist then they have to define what that is. If they can’t then they can go into the dustbin too!

I'm quite sure when someone claims that ghosts exist, they can describe what they think exists (usually something along the lines of a disembodied spirit that makes itself known on some level).

You can certainly ignore their claims for any reason you want, but then you aren't making any kind of case that what they are discussing doesn't exist. You are just refusing to discuss it.

[SharmaK]

But before a machine can measure it, one has to build a machine to measure it and then use that machine.

Sure. A tape record and a video camera or a cell phone! None of this is rocket science.

Earlier you said "It also boils down to what a ghost is and it’s usually something that used to be a living human that has died and somehow has been seen or manifested physically". While I wouldn't confuse that for a dictionary definition, it shows that you understand what they are. So we are talking about that. One can also consult a dictionary for further reference.

But I see no reason for there to be a "We don't even know what a ghost is" obstacle in this debate.

Sure. And we also know that said ghosts interact in a physical way that sometimes reminds loved ones they are present. And all those claims are based on voices or actions or sights. So it’s all measurable using existing technology.

I'm quite sure when someone claims that ghosts exist, they can describe what they think exists (usually something along the lines of a disembodied spirit that makes itself known on some level).

You can certainly ignore their claims for any reason you want, but then you aren't making any kind of case that what they are discussing doesn't exist. You are just refusing to discuss it.

Sure but life is short and working on proving something that only exists in someone’s mind isn’t interesting. They can go on believing in ghosts all they want. I don’t have to believe them and I can actively disbelieve them and I can refuse to discuss it if they don’t have any support.

That’s my modus operandi for ghosts. For gods and belligerent theists who insist on nonbelievers and disbelievers follow their stories, I would spend the time to show them what a sham their beliefs are. But only if they insist on pushing them or saying their beliefs are true.

Ghosts? Who cares?

[mican333]

Sure. A tape record and a video camera or a cell phone! None of this is rocket science.

And I believe that there are such recordings. I just did a quick search and found lots of them.

Of course you can reasonably say that none of them will convince you that it really was a ghost but that's because even if some of them are genuine, it's still not enough to be truly convincing to the non-believer - how do you know if that spooky sound was really a ghost or something else? But if there really are ghosts, you can't say that no one ever managed to record one.

Sure but life is short and working on proving something that only exists in someone’s mind isn’t interesting. They can go on believing in ghosts all they want. I don’t have to believe them and I can actively disbelieve them and I can refuse to discuss it if they don’t have any support.

That’s my modus operandi for ghosts. For gods and belligerent theists who insist on nonbelievers and disbelievers follow their stories, I would spend the time to show them what a sham their beliefs are. But only if they insist on pushing them or saying their beliefs are true.

Ghosts? Who cares?

That sounds a bit contradictory. You can't both just blow off the concept of ghosts and at the same time make an informed argument that one's beliefs in ghost are a sham.

I personally would go the first route. "My house has a ghost in it". "Oh, okay. So anyway, yesterday at work I..."

[Dionysus]

Annnndddd... in comes the different standards of evidence. Some regard anecdote alone as sufficient to authenticate at least the possibility of a claim, while other hold out for additional types of evidence before welcoming the claim into the realm of possibility. Personally, if the content of the claim is unclear or the claim itself doesn’t make logical sense, I withhold my assent to the claim being possible pending something more. But to each their own, I suppose.

[SharmaK]

And I believe that there are such recordings. I just did a quick search and found lots of them.

Of course you can reasonably say that none of them will convince you that it really was a ghost but that's because even if some of them are genuine, it's still not enough to be truly convincing to the non-believer - how do you know if that spooky sound was really a ghost or something else? But if there really are ghosts, you can't say that no one ever managed to record one.

This is trivial to conclude. If there was a reproducible ghost event, or many ghost events, then we can collect together all the information and recordings and make some determinations. We can interview the witnesses and we can explore alternative explanations.
Seems to me ghosts are easy to generate since they're nearly always suffering from an unjust life or an unjust death.

That sounds a bit contradictory. You can't both just blow off the concept of ghosts and at the same time make an informed argument that one's beliefs in ghost are a sham.

I personally would go the first route. "My house has a ghost in it". "Oh, okay. So anyway, yesterday at work I..."

I think it is incumbent upon those that know better to spread their knowledge and not keep things secret. If I think ghosts and gods are a sham, as is anything supernatural, then I am doing the world a favor by reducing one believer of nonsense by one. You're welcome!

[Belthazor]

2) there's some things science could never explain, therefore supernatural (which is effectively the first definition minus the discovery). This has been said a million times over, and it goes nowhere.

I think you may have misunderstood my point.
I'm not sure science will be able to explain how an immaterial being, from a different "universe (plain of existence???)", and is timeless can with only a "thought", create a universe out of absolutely nothing. That is a tall order indeed. How would one measure such an event?

Now if Jesus were to make himself available to be scientifically tested while he walked on water or was dead and came back to life, these things science could measure/test. Science could show a dead body for instance. Science could measure "life signs" when the person came back to life.
But, could science ever explain how such an event happened?? Again, a very tall order, and not where I was going with my comment.

The best definition (in a religious sense) of supernatural I have heard is more like:

The natural order of the universe is suspended in a very particular way, at a very specific place and time, with intent, without affecting the rest of the universe.

I am unconvinced a ghost could qualify even remotely. It is a "dead human" after all. If a soul existed when the persons body was alive, there is nothing odd about it still hangin out after the body dies. Isn't that how Christians define a soul?
I see nothing at all supernatural about a ghost. Definitely odd, since I have never experienced one, and don't know anyone that says they have, but supernatural, no...

[Dionysus]

I think you may have misunderstood my point.
I'm not sure science will be able to explain how an immaterial being, from a different "universe (plain of existence???)", and is timeless can with only a "thought", create a universe out of absolutely nothing. That is a tall order indeed. How would one measure such an event?

Now if Jesus were to make himself available to be scientifically tested while he walked on water or was dead and came back to life, these things science could measure/test. Science could show a dead body for instance. Science could measure "life signs" when the person came back to life.
But, could science ever explain how such an event happened?? Again, a very tall order, and not where I was going with my comment.

The best definition (in a religious sense) of supernatural I have heard is more like:

The natural order of the universe is suspended in a very particular way, at a very specific place and time, with intent, without affecting the rest of the universe.

I am unconvinced a ghost could qualify even remotely. It is a "dead human" after all. If a soul existed when the persons body was alive, there is nothing odd about it still hangin out after the body dies. Isn't that how Christians define a soul?
I see nothing at all supernatural about a ghost. Definitely odd, since I have never experienced one, and don't know anyone that says they have, but supernatural, no...

I don’t think we disagree at all. It seems like every definition of “supernatural” you’ve seen is as opaque and useless as any
I’ve ever seen.

[SharmaK]

The best definition (in a religious sense) of supernatural I have heard is more like:

The natural order of the universe is suspended in a very particular way, at a very specific place and time, with intent, without affecting the rest of the universe.

How can you say that it doesn't affect the rest of the universe when there are religions that crow about their miracles about it all the time? And what about when people pray - that's asking for much more than a "particular way"? And isn't the point of religion in the first place affecting ALL places and ALL time - that's literally the goal of a religion: to promote itself!

To say that a supernatural action only affects a tiny bit of the universe is laughably NOT true!

[Belthazor]

I don’t think we disagree at all. It seems like every definition of “supernatural” you’ve seen is as opaque and useless as any
I’ve ever seen.

Would you then find defining say gravity or time equally "useless"?

Or is it just that which relates to God is "useless", or I don't understand???

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

How can you say that it doesn't affect the rest of the universe when there are religions that crow about their miracles about it all the time? And what about when people pray - that's asking for much more than a "particular way"? And isn't the point of religion in the first place affecting ALL places and ALL time - that's literally the goal of a religion: to promote itself!

To say that a supernatural action only affects a tiny bit of the universe is laughably NOT true!

You ARE kidding me right?

If natural law (IOW that which makes our universe even possible) were suspended in the way Christians claim, and it affected the whole universe instead of a specific time/place we wouldn't be here to discuss it, as the universe as we know it would cease to exist.

[Dionysus]

Would you then find defining say gravity or time equally "useless"?

Or is it just that which relates to God is "useless", or I don't understand???

Well, this is why I said to resist the urge to answer the question simply for the sake of answering, earlier. I’ll ask again: If a person experiences something from INSIDE the natural world, how do they possibly conclude that what they experiened is something OTHER THAN natural?

Here’s another question: When you say that “X” is immaterial, what does it mean for that thing to BE? If it doesn’t exist in ANY material way (even abstracts such as ideas materially exist in SOME way; in brains, on paper, etc) in what sense does the immaterial thing EXIST?

The inability of any proposed definitions of “supernatural” to provide any useful input in answering questions like these is why I say they are useless. It’s got nothing to do with God or theology or religion or spirituality. It has to do exclusively to do with weird-ass claims like “I expericed something not of this world” and “God is immaterial”. I don’t know how to make any sense of such claims.

[Belthazor]

Well, this is why I said to resist the urge to answer the question simply for the sake of answering, earlier.

I appreciate your patience, I'm trying hard to understand and think I may have your point

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

I’ll ask again: If a person experiences something from INSIDE the natural world, how do they possibly conclude that what they experiened is something OTHER THAN natural?

Sorry, I guess I missed it the first time.

Tough question, but worth while. It could be difficult, but since (in this case) God is doing it "specifically for you", I'm guessing "you" would understand (according to the definition I proposed).
It does seem as likely as Sigfried and Roy actually made a tiger disappear in front of me some years ago...

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

Here’s another question: When you say that “X” is immaterial, what does it mean for that thing to BE? If it doesn’t exist in ANY material way (even abstracts such as ideas materially exist in SOME way; in brains, on paper, etc) in what sense does the immaterial thing EXIST?

To be fair here I am just parroting the Christian position on "immaterial". Squatch and I have a multi month conversation about this, and we just don't agree yet

I agree with you, I can't make sense of it either. I still find in these types of conversations though, as Micam pointed out with this thread, to talk about something, one must have a definition of that thing that people agree on, to even be able to talk about it....