OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hmm I don't generally quantify my views this way but I'll give it a shot. I will answer number two first because it explains my answer for one. I am 100% sure that whatever supernatural could hypothetically exist cannot interact with the natural and therefore remains utterly inaccessible to us and for all intents and purposes does not exist. To be fair it is a recurring nightmare I have that the laws of physics no longer exist, no reference point, no predictability, no sense or reason. Thus the idea of the supernatural is terrifying for me because to live in such a world would be terrifying. Fortunately, I do not believe such things are remotely possible. This precludes the ability for Christianity to be correct since it depends on the supernatural. So I am 100% certain it is also wrong. You honestly have nightmares about there being no physics. Hmmm ... Well if you don't believe in the supernatural then no physics means you would not exists to experience any of your fears. If the supernatural exists then you your real fear is of the supernatural. No? Convincing me the supernatural existed would not do much to convince me that Christianity was correct, but it would shift my certainty. You mean shift it towards less doubt about Christianity? Nothing could be certain in a universe with the supernatural. Not exactly. As I described one instantiation of the supernatural it may be that we could detect the supernatural, allowing us to draw conclusions about the character of the supernatural, but we may not be able to predict it. This would allows us to build additional "certainty", i.e. increase out level of understanding and actually make claims about its character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 They can be distinguished. The unknowable natural is predicted by physics. We can not detect it through experimentation. The supernatural may be detectable but not predictable. Sorry, I meant the unknown natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world). More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable. I disagree. If I could somehow travel into another dimension it might be bound by rules of physics that our different from our own. This would make it no less natural than our own dimension ruled by our own rules of physics. Having different rules of physics would not make it supernatural, or myself supernatural from their point of view. If these other dimensions could somehow interact with our own, and vice-versa, this would be no indication of anything supernatural but simply the natural. I've heard the theory that gravity comes from another dimension but I would not define gravity as a supernatural force if this turns out to be true. If it lies within or interacts with our natural universe it is natural. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. You mean like gawd and xtianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 They can be distinguished. The unknowable natural is predicted by physics. We can not detect it through experimentation. The supernatural may be detectable but not predictable. Sorry, I meant the unknown natural. Oh. What is the unknown natural? I assume you mean not detected or predicted. In this case it is still distinguishable from the supernatural because the supernatural may be detectable and not predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Oh. What is the unknown natural? I assume you mean not detected or predicted. In this case it is still distinguishable from the supernatural because the supernatural may be detectable and not predictable. You assume correctly. Do you have an example of a supernatural event? Without one it seems rather difficult to establish what is predictable or not by current scientific models. Even then what is to say that our current understanding of physics simply cannot account for it yet? Newtonian physics isn't nearly as evenly applied when you start getting off Earth. The term supernatural just seems rather vague and meaningless to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world). More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable. I disagree. If I could somehow travel into another dimension it might be bound by rules of physics that our different from our own. This would make it no less natural than our own dimension ruled by our own rules of physics. Having different rules of physics would not make it supernatural, or myself supernatural from their point of view. If these other dimensions could somehow interact with our own, and vice-versa, this would be no indication of anything supernatural but simply the natural. I agree other dimensions, as defined by some physics, would not be supernatural. If we were able to interact with these dimensions then this would have to be done through physics. This would make it a natural process and not supernatural. So I don't see where you are disagreeing with me. I've heard the theory that gravity comes from another dimension but I would not define gravity as a supernatural force if this turns out to be true. Where did you hear this? Trust me there is no empirical evidence this is the case. If it lies within or interacts with our natural universe it is natural. Lies within means part of, which is tautologically true, agreed. To assume anything that interacts with our universe is natural is begging the question. You are assuming what you want to demonstrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 They can be distinguished. The unknowable natural is predicted by physics. We can not detect it through experimentation. The supernatural may be detectable but not predictable. Sorry, I meant the unknown natural. Oh. What is the unknown natural? I assume you mean not detected or predicted. In this case it is still distinguishable from the supernatural because the supernatural may be detectable and not predictable. How do you know if it's not predictable if it is unknown to science which makes predictions on what is natural? Science takes into account what could be causing things, such as dark energy and dark matter, but they do this within the laws of "known" physics. Are you saying science can detect it but not predict it? Can science predict every move we make? What scale are you speaking of? Something that stops the sun or a ghost walking through a wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. You mean like gawd and xtianity? So you are agreeing Sagan's is a bald claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Oh. What is the unknown natural? I assume you mean not detected or predicted. In this case it is still distinguishable from the supernatural because the supernatural may be detectable and not predictable. You assume correctly. Do you have an example of a supernatural event? Without one it seems rather difficult to establish what is predictable or not by current scientific models. Even then what is to say that our current understanding of physics simply cannot account for it yet? Newtonian physics isn't nearly as evenly applied when you start getting off Earth. The term supernatural just seems rather vague and meaningless to me. Likewise for sub-atomic. Newtonian physics fall apart. Hence, quantum mechanics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 1) That Christianity is wrong. 100% 2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist) 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. You mean like gawd and xtianity? So you are agreeing Sagan's is a bald claim? No. I am proffering that Sagan's statement is the closest to truth, and the assertion of "bald claim" is a better fit for notions of a gawd and appurtenances thereto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Oh. What is the unknown natural? I assume you mean not detected or predicted. In this case it is still distinguishable from the supernatural because the supernatural may be detectable and not predictable. You assume correctly. Do you have an example of a supernatural event? Without one it seems rather difficult to establish what is predictable or not by current scientific models. So you agree with my reasoning, you are just looking for an existence proof of the supernatural? Even then what is to say that our current understanding of physics simply cannot account for it yet? If it were detectable as I assumed then it would quickly succumb to the scientific method and we would have our distinction needed. Newtonian physics isn't nearly as evenly applied when you start getting off Earth. Relativistic physics is though, so I don't understand your point. There is no gap in detectability or predictability. We even understand the relationship between the two very well. The term supernatural just seems rather vague and meaningless to me. Can you be more specific. I thought I made a clear distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 If you are thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's quote regarding alien technology he was wrong. Any technology based on the laws of physics is distinguishable from the supernatural. The supernatural is definitionally beyond the laws of physics. He was fantasizing. Does quantum mechanics count in the laws of physics? If not, then QM is supernatural. If it does, it doesn't follow classical physics. So when they prove superstrings or braided space or brane theory, will those things be natural or supernatural? If natural, what is next? Multiverse? Natural or supernatural? Anything we can explain is natural. Anything we can't explain is supernatural, but only until we manage to explain it, then it counts as natural. It all depends on what you include in the word "natural". If God exists, wouldn't God be natural? Or do you just limit the word natural to Nature and Cosmos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world). So anything which is unnatural is supernatural. More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable. Right. But if there are intelligent beings existing in a parallel universe, in some other dimension, wouldn't "parallel universe" and "other dimension" then be part of all the things existing which are natural? Your definition of natural is limited to those things which can only exist within the boundaries of what we currently know and declare to be this universe and nothing else. To me, natural means, it's explainable. If it has an explanation, inside this universe or outside in some parallel dimension, it is still natural. The word "supernatural" only means "unexplainable" to me, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 No. I am proffering that Sagan's statement is the closest to truth, and the assertion of "bald claim" is a better fit for notions of a gawd and appurtenances thereto. Ohhhh...learning opportunity. I'm off to google apppurennteses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 If you are thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's quote regarding alien technology he was wrong. Any technology based on the laws of physics is distinguishable from the supernatural. The supernatural is definitionally beyond the laws of physics. He was fantasizing. Does quantum mechanics count in the laws of physics? If not, then QM is supernatural. If it does, it doesn't follow classical physics. So when they prove superstrings or braided space or brane theory, will those things be natural or supernatural? If natural, what is next? Multiverse? Natural or supernatural? Anything we can explain is natural. Anything we can't explain is supernatural, but only until we manage to explain it, then it counts as natural. It all depends on what you include in the word "natural". If God exists, wouldn't God be natural? Or do you just limit the word natural to Nature and Cosmos? I answered all your questions above. See my first post on the misunderstanding of supernatural and then follow my exchange with Doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. If we had a grading scale for bald claims, I think the claim of imaginary beings who interacts with this world and give some kind of eternal gratification for only handpicked group of people is a much balder claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 So you agree with my reasoning, you are just looking for an existence proof of the supernatural? In so far as we are differentiating the unknown natural from the unknowable. As for the latter it would probably help clear things up if we had an example to discuss. Relativistic physics is though, so I don't understand your point. There is no gap in detectability or predictability. We even understand the relationship between the two very well. Prior to the development of the theory of relativity this wouldn't have been so. Can you be more specific. I thought I made a clear distinction. Vague in application. See Ouroboros's post for elaboration, he is basically on the same page I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. If we had a grading scale for bald claims, I think the claim of imaginary beings who interacts with this world and give some kind of eternal gratification for only handpicked group of people is a much balder claim. Yeah, there's not even peach-fuzz on that head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. If we had a grading scale for bald claims, I think the claim of imaginary beings who interacts with this world and give some kind of eternal gratification for only handpicked group of people is a much balder claim. So do you hold any bald claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 So do you hold any bald claims? I most likely do. But I can't think of any at the moment. But I reduced them by at least 90% when I de-converted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” --Carl Sagan Yes, I heard that one. Of course, it is just a bald claim. If we had a grading scale for bald claims, I think the claim of imaginary beings who interacts with this world and give some kind of eternal gratification for only handpicked group of people is a much balder claim. So do you hold any bald claims? I do wish you would stop deflecting and obfuscating and provide an example of the supernatural as you have been asked a couple of times already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 There seems to be some confusion regarding what the supernatural is. The supernatural is not the unknown or even the unknowable. We may never be able to mathematically predict what occurred before Planck time in the singularity(therefore unknowable), but that does not make it supernatural. The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world). So anything which is unnatural is supernatural. Your definition is question begging and unfruitful. A more useful definition is something outside physics. More over, if the supernatural existed it may still be able to interact with the natural world, but not be subject to the same form of predictability that the natural world is. For example, in order for a phenomenon to be natural it is necessary and sufficient that it be both detectable and predictable via the laws of physics. A supernatural phenomenon may be detectable, but not predictable. Right. But if there are intelligent beings existing in a parallel universe, in some other dimension, wouldn't "parallel universe" and "other dimension" then be part of all the things existing which are natural? Your definition of natural is limited to those things which can only exist within the boundaries of what we currently know and declare to be this universe and nothing else. I answered the multiverse one too. See my answer to mwc. To me, natural means, it's explainable. If it has an explanation, inside this universe or outside in some parallel dimension, it is still natural. The word "supernatural" only means "unexplainable" to me, nothing more. Explainable means predictable. As I stated above. Some thing could be detectable and not predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts