How Certain Are You?

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Do you agree with my definition of the supernatural? Now don't obfuscate or deflect please.

[OrdinaryClay]

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.

Hmmm ... maybe that's a bald claim. Who knows.

[RankStranger]

How certain are you?

 

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

 

I find it hard to put this into a percentage. But I'm quite sure that Christianity in any denomination is not 100% true. I'm as sure of that as I'm sure that 1+2 does not equal 4. But is there SOME truth to christian beliefs? Sure... absolutely. Same goes for most religions. But I've seen no reason to think that Christianity is any MORE true than the next religion. They're all mental viruses as far as I'm concerned- they take over a host, spread, mutate, and evolve- just like a virus.

 

Of course, one could argue that a given culture does much the same thing. None of us are immune to memes (and if we were, we'd probably be either dead or institutionalized). I just think that some folks are more gullible than others.

 

Even with an explanation right in front of me, I find it really hard to grasp what somebody could mean by 'supernatural'. Because in my experience, if something exists, then it's natural. I.e. was caused by something and follows certain physical, chemical, electrical, or biological rules- however poorly understood. I just can't wrap my little mind around how something could EXIST in any other manner. If you're being affected in any way by any phenomena, then it is BY DEFINITION interacting with you in a physical/chemical/electrical/biological sense. In other words, physics applies to the situation.

[mwc]

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 disagreed when you said: "The supernatural, is by definition, outside physics (Physics defines the natural world)."

 

Physics is being used loosely in your definition. If I went to another dimension and the rules of physics were different this would not make it any less natural. The rules could be so different that I could be destroyed in some horrific fashion but that doesn't change anything.

 

What you appear to propose is a realm that simply has no physics whatsoever. Not just alien physics as I describe.

 

Where did you hear this? Trust me there is no empirical evidence this is the case.

Lisa Randall. No. There's no empirical evidence. They (she and her partner) seem to want to use LHC for this.

 

To assume anything that interacts with our universe is natural is begging the question. You are assuming what you want to demonstrate.

What else could it be otherwise? It would have to be without any laws of physics (aphysical?) which would mean that no laws of physics in any dimension or realm could act upon it. If it can be acted upon it must be natural. Random, or unpredictable, is not good enough here.

 

mwc

[Snakefoot]

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.

Do you agree with my definition of the supernatural? Now don't obfuscate or deflect please.

"There you go again, Sam." --Ronald Reagan

 

Please provide an example of supernatural.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

This is my whole issue with the supernatural. If it is something that can interact with our universe and is utterly unaffected by the laws that hold our universe together, that makes those laws no longer constants. That means even within experimentations there is always the possibility that the supernatural is affecting the outcome, or maybe not. This creates instability and in my opinion, chaos. That is why it is actually quite a terrifying thought. Its why belief in the supernatural has been at odds with the development of science and reason.

[Ouroboros]

Your definition is question begging and unfruitful. A more useful definition is something outside physics.

So you're asking for opinion and then tell people are wrong? Is that useful?

 

Do you want an opinion, or do you want to tell people they are wrong because you disagree? And do so by throwing "fallacies" left and right? If you're gonna use them, then use them correctly.

 

Consider the following:

 

From the dictionary:

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

• unnaturally or extraordinarily great : a woman of supernatural beauty.

"Beyond scientific understanding" can be read, "beyond scientific understanding as of now" since science improves all the time.

 

Do you see that the word is more about outside our understanding of nature, rather than nature itself.

 

But then, the definition, outside the laws of nature, is all about what we define as nature, not what we define as physics.

 

So I believe my understanding of the word is much closer to what the dictionary uses. Suit yourself.

 

 

I answered the multiverse one too. See my answer to mwc.

Since the multiverse is beyond and outside our world, it would mean it's supernatural according to your definition.

 

 

Explainable means predictable. As I stated above. Some thing could be detectable and not predictable.

As per definition of the word, it's about what we understand of nature and how we define nature, rather than what is detectable and predicable.

 

My definition is much closer to the dictionary than yours, so you're committing a fallacy of definition.

 

In other words, it is your definition that is question begging and unfruitful, but my definition is not.

 

---edit---

 

But for the sake of the argument, let's use your definition then.

 

So do I believe there could be a multiverse, other dimensions, things "outside" our universe? Sure, that I do believe. Do I believe it interacts with our world? Probably not, at least not directly. I don't believe those beings or things are more, greater, or more supreme in any sense than us; they are creatures of "supernature" just as we are creatures of nature.

 

Is that better for you?

[Snakefoot]

Giving the benefit of doubt and assuming OrdinaryClay has gone off to retrieve the kids from soccer practice and has not abandoned his post, I certainly hope he will xtian-up and provide an example of the supernatural on his return.

[Ouroboros]

Giving the benefit of doubt and assuming OrdinaryClay has gone off to retrieve the kids from soccer practice and has not abandoned his post, I certainly hope he will xtian-up and provide an example of the supernatural on his return.

I find his definition quite intriguing. "Detectable but not predictable." That's how many quantum events work. You know they happen, but you can't foresee when or where they will happen. You can detect them, but not predict them.

 

So quantum mechanics fits his definition of supernatural.

[Legion]

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

My first reaction when I read this was that it's not the question I would ask. If we agree that Christianity is a set of beliefs then I would ask, "What are the functions of these beliefs?"

 

I do think that someone who says, "Live by the sword; die by the sword" is right on the money though. And I like Proverbs 3:13 -18.

 

I am certain though that some core beliefs of Christianity are mistaken.

 

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

My thoughts on this are something like... Say we have a natural domain (call it N) and we have a supernatural domain (call it S) then there are either relations between them which alter N, or there are not. If N is altered by S and S is only known through N then we have no basis for distinguishing the action of the supernatural from causality. And if N is not altered by S then S becomes irelevant by virtue of being outside of inquiry.

 

That might be close to what I was thinking.

[Snakefoot]

Giving the benefit of doubt and assuming OrdinaryClay has gone off to retrieve the kids from soccer practice and has not abandoned his post, I certainly hope he will xtian-up and provide an example of the supernatural on his return.

I find his definition quite intriguing. "Detectable but not predictable." That's how many quantum events work. You know they happen, but you can't foresee when or where they will happen. You can detect them, but not predict them.

 

So quantum mechanics fits his definition of supernatural.

Neutrinos? Detectable, but hardly predictable.

[Ouroboros]

Neutrinos? Detectable, but hardly predictable.

Right.

Schrodinger's cat.

 

Detectable: open the box.

 

Predictable: not.

 

That's why science has a term: uncertainty to explain this phenomenon.

[OpheliaGinger]

1. 100,000,000% sure that Christianity (and Judaism by defacto) are just made up stories that were copied and pasted from other religions and myths. A general study into archaeology and ancient myths will prove such.

 

2. I never claim that there is no such thing as the supernatural since I myself have had experiences that I can't find an explanation for. I won't dismiss it right off thee bat, but I am skeptical of claims.

[The-Captain]

How about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I suppose electron orbits are supernatural?

[Legion]

Some thing could be detectable and not predictable.

I think guesses about what is, in principle, predictable are notoriously shakey. It's pretty much an article of common belief that various measured events entail other events. But this gives little guide as to what is predictable and what is not.

[Munk]

1) That Christianity is wrong: Completely. There is no one road to anywhere.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist): Nothing we can comprehend, realize, or interact with exists beyond nature. If it somehow does, then it is of no importance or use to us. Just because we do not understand it does not make it supernatural.

[Brakeman]

1) That Christianity is wrong: Completely. There is no one road to anywhere.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist): Nothing we can comprehend, realize, or interact with exists beyond nature. If it somehow does, then it is of no importance or use to us. Just because we do not understand it does not make it supernatural.

 

Yeah, what she said..

 

Hey CC you haven't forgotten the original thread have you?

[Shyone]

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.

Everything that interacts with the natural world does so by some means. What is the means by which the supernatural interacts?

 

You have chased God right out of the known universe and he's there with fairies, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Elvis and Jupiter (the god, not the planet). If it's all "unpredictable" then why do religious people insist on predicting things? Where does that leave prayer? What about the promises that religion makes? All unpredictable?

 

God used to be a cloud on a mountain, one that followed the ark of the covenant, one that lingered over the tabernacle; even a man. Now this invisible, immaterial farce has literally disappeared.

 

But He watches you when you maturbate. Right?

 

[Snakefoot]

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.

Everything that interacts with the natural world does so by some means. What is the means by which the supernatural interacts?

 

You have chased God right out of the known universe and he's there with fairies, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Elvis and Jupiter (the god, not the planet). If it's all "unpredictable" then why do religious people insist on predicting things? Where does that leave prayer? What about the promises that religion makes? All unpredictable?

 

God used to be a cloud on a mountain, one that followed the ark of the covenant, one that lingered over the tabernacle; even a man. Now this invisible, immaterial farce has literally disappeared.

 

But He watches you when you maturbate. Right?

 

 

And when you take a shit, don't forget about that. (Ever seen the relevant episode of Family Guy? Hilarious! "I'm going to hell and gawd's a pervert.")

[Brother Jeff]

How certain are you?

 

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

 

1) 100% -- ZERO doubt on this issue.

2) 50% -- A guess on the percentage here. No direct scientific evidence that a supernatural reality exists, but personal experience strongly suggests that it does. I do KNOW, however, that if a god/spiritual reality does exist that the bible is 100% WRONG in defining/describing them.

[OpheliaGinger]

But He watches you when you maturbate. Right?

 

 

And when you take a shit, don't forget about that. (Ever seen the relevant episode of Family Guy? Hilarious! "I'm going to hell and gawd's a pervert.")

 

He masturbates whenever he watches you take a shit.

[Guest I Love Dog]

How certain are you?

 

How certain are you (percentage wise, have some guts and take a guess) ...

1) That Christianity is wrong.

2) That there is no supernatural (if you're a materialist)

 

I'm 100% sure that Christianity is wrong.

 

I'm 99.999% certain that there is no supernatural.

[Franko47]

A brilliant quest by Clay (the OP) to attempt to convert the concept of the "supernatural" as something existing outside of the ability for science or the rational mind to interpret and integrate into our understanding of the natural world.

 

In other words, "supernatural" really means "magic".

 

The implication that "God" uses a technology, or an alternate form that is composed of some kind of "operating system" that is independent of the laws of physics, etc. such as healing a crippled person, turning water into wine, or causing events to happen through a conceptual telekinesis from a "super mind".

 

It's a nice try.

 

But in the end, as much as one attempts to define what the "supernatural" is, and connect it as "God's private and personal technology", it's still just.....magic.

 

The OP has also avoided describing or giving an example of a "supernatural" event or phenomenon, but has just tried to describe it using a narrow sense of definition that exploits the principles of common reality. In one post he attempts to claim that "knowledge" can be derived by studying "supernatural" events. Meaning of course, religion, and all the Bible legends, which would be his end game.

 

Again, a nice try, but there are problems with attempting to convert magical thinking processes and believing in divine systems that exist outside of our usual perceptions as evidence for an entire system extrapolated into angels, gods, demons and a celestial order with all sorts of "rules".

 

If I saw five miracles (supernatural/magic) events in a row, it would be interesting, that's for sure.

 

But still doesn't prove Biblical or religious dogma. Not even close.

 

The supernatural is irrelevant. We can't feature it, study it, or gain knowledge from it. Partly because it isn't there, and partly because it doesn't prove anything.

 

I'm more tempted, far more tempted to agree or believe with religious principles that can be philosophically understood and rationalized, and applied to the real world, rather than believing in things because I saw a

burning bush, or a cripple get up and walk, or a sea parted.

 

It's ironic that in the end, what works for humanity is the tangible, the explainable, the observable, and the predictable. Not magic tricks, altered states, delusional hallucinations, or wish fulfillment.

 

Oh, and by the way. "Feelings" and internal perceptions are not evidence of anything "supernatural". They are what the individual chooses to believe about it. No, a supernatural event must be something external and observable by one or more persons, and fulfilling the definition of magic or something that is counter-intuitive to our sense of reality.

[mwc]

A brilliant quest by Clay (the OP) to attempt to convert the concept of the "supernatural" as something existing outside of the ability for science or the rational mind to interpret and integrate into our understanding of the natural world.

 

In other words, "supernatural" really means "magic".

I largely agree except with the last sentence. Supernatural means "god of gaps."

 

Sadly the "poll" shows that quite a few people are willing leaving to leave just a little "gap" open for a whole lot of stupid to come pouring through.

 

mwc

[OrdinaryClay]

Giving the benefit of doubt and assuming OrdinaryClay has gone off to retrieve the kids from soccer practice and has not abandoned his post, I certainly hope he will xtian-up and provide an example of the supernatural on his return.

I find his definition quite intriguing. "Detectable but not predictable." That's how many quantum events work. You know they happen, but you can't foresee when or where they will happen. You can detect them, but not predict them.

 

So quantum mechanics fits his definition of supernatural.

No, If you were to tell a physicist that Quantum Mechanics was not predictive they would laugh at you. It is actually one of the most precisely verified(through prior predictions, i.e. attempts at falsification) theories of nature we have. Just because something has a stochastic element to it does not make it unpredictable. On the contrary, the very definition of a probability distribution is that I can make predictions based on this distribution. This is after all the nature of Statistical Inference.