The Instigator
chipmonk
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kyle_the_Heretic
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Supernatural exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 89402
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

chipmonk

Pro

chipmonk
Con
My resolution is that the supernatural exists. I am convinced that most believe that the supernatural cannot or does not exists, but in such belief are they found ignorant.

I contend that by means of logic and rational, critical thinking about REALITY, one can surmise that supernatural things do exist.

Supernatrual is defined as such :

su"per"nat"u"ral
G6;soV2;opərG2;naCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"
synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More
noun
1.
manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

First round is acceptance. Accepting any irrational challengers.
Report this Argument As Flawless.
Kyle_the_Heretic

Con

I accept, though not under the premise that I am "found ignorant" for doubt and disbelief in the supernatural as defined by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
chipmonk

Pro

If i prove that supernatural things, as defined in R1, do exist, then my opponent is found hopelessly "ignorant."

My opponent may say that he "doubts supernatural things truly defy nature." But he cannot say supernatural things do not exist. If he did, he would be ignoring the mountains of unexplained evidence that do suggest some paranormal phenomena.

most people assume supernatural = ghost or worse =imaginary being. They equate the two. however, looking closely at the definition we find that equation to be nothing more than a common slippery slope fallacy. Whatever is supernatural exists BEYOND the VISIBLE and OBSERVEABLE universe. Here, observable does not mean visible, but is referring observations in scientific tests and experiments. This means that which is supernatural lacks a scientific explanation. It is beyond a scientific understanding of the universe. It does not mean it is beyond your imagination.

Another key word to point out is "so as to APPEAR" to transcend physical or natural laws. this implies, and recognizes the lack of scientific explanation for the phenomena taking place , but also does not ASSUME to know, what the actual explanation is. Whether it abides by laws of nature or not. It only says that in the lack of an explanation, it "appears to" or it " seems" or "it looks like" it transcends the laws of nature. But in actuality,,, Science has not discovered all of the laws of nature , So we do not understand if there is a higher law that would allow such supernatural phenomenon to exist and occur.

An easy example to demonstrate my point would be the Bermuda triangle. We seem to have no scientific explanation to understand why planes disappear in that region. However we do know that planes to disappear. Therefore we know the Bermuda triangle exists. We do not know what The Bermuda triangle is or what it consists of. However it would be quite a stretch to say that the Bermuda triangle was not supernatural or classified under supernatural phenomena. So I have clearly demonstrated that supernatural things do exist.

My opponent may wish to expand the definition to include other things for which we do not know whether they exist or not. However since we do not know whether they exist or not , it would not help my opponent. My opponent may further extrapolate the definition of this word, "supernatural " my opponent may further extrapolate the definition of this word, "supernatural quote to also include things like Goblins, tooth fairies, flying teapots in the sky and the like. I would like to say in that respect, when is unable to differentiate between the words "supernatural" and "imaginary ".

Although supernatural things may seem imaginary when heard about secondhand, I would like to point out that imaginary things cannot be supernatural because imaginary things simply do not exist. And if they do not exist, at all, then they can not "appear to" be or do anything!

Imaginary is not supernatural supernatural is not imaginary. However unlikely or improbable a supernatural occurrence seems, Improbability is not evidence of inexistence . In fact, the word improbability actually implies that that improbable event does exist or occur, being one small, tiny, single possibility along an infinitely expanding spectrum of possibilities. Here it is also important to note, that improbable is not the same as impossible. Unlikely is not the same as impossible. And though something may seem unlikely, it does not mean that it is impossible. And again, if something is impossible, it cannot be detected nor can it "appear to" transcend any laws, natural or fiction.

And although there are many things that are impossible , We do not yet know everything about what is possible and not possible. Do not yet know everything about nature. Therefore it is highly likely and probable to say the supernatural things do in fact exist. We simply have no explanation for what they truly consist of or how they have come to exist.

Here are some more readily available supernatural phenomena, that does exist, yet for which have yet acquired a scientific understanding of:

1. UFOs
2. The Placebo Effect
3. Miracle Healings
4. Apparitions
5. The Pyramids
6. Near Death Experiences
7. Prophecies
8. The Bermuda Triangle
9. John F Kennedy and the magic bullet
10. Jesus Christ
Kyle_the_Heretic

Con

Since my opponent did not establish specific rules for this debate, I will use R2 to challenge his arguments.

(Paragraph 1) My opponent hopelessly failed to prove that "supernatural things" exist.

(Paragraph 2) I would never say that anything truly defies nature. We have consistently found natural explanations or hypotheses for what were once "mysteries". The Sailing Stones of Death Valley are one example. [1] While it is true that I cannot say that "supernatural things" do not exist, I can nevertheless categorically state that there is no irrefutable proof for the existence of "supernatural things". My opponent on the other hand, states with absolute certainty that "the supernatural exists", as can be seen in the title of the debate, despite a complete lack of evidence to support such a claim.

(Paragraph 3) My opponent is not debating "most people" in this debate. He (or she though I will continue to use "he") is only debating me. So I am not subject to the "slippery slope fallacy" he applies to an assumption for which he has provided no statistical sources. Claiming something "exists beyond the visible and observable" does not make it immune to scientific scrutiny. Which begs the question: If the supernatural is not visible or observable, then how were all the alleged witnesses able to note and observe it?

At the end of this paragraph, my opponent basically states that all that is necessary to establish the existence of the supernatural is imagination, though later in his argument, he contradicts this claim.

(Paragraph 4) Here, my opponent basically says that if science cannot see the duck, or hear the duck, but many people insist that the duck is there, then science must be dismissed in favor of a higher law. My opponent makes this statement despite the fact that science has proven itself time and time again, while the "higher law" has never been proved to be more than completely unsupported "say so."

(Paragraph 5) To say that the Bermuda Triangle has no scientific explanation is untrue. There are a number of scientific, viable explanations for disappearing ships and planes in that area. [2] Ships, planes, cars, people, etc, disappear consistently all over the earth. Out of millions of flights, sailing excursions, car trips, mountain hikes, etc, there are bound to be a great many disappearances. In fact, very few unexplained disappearances would be much stranger than many disappearances.

At the end of the paragraph, my opponent claims that he "clearly demonstrated that supernatural things do exist." This is clearly not true.

(Paragraph 6) Here, my opponent is guarding the debate against any demeaning comparisons I might make. By so doing, he contradicts that which he stated in paragraph 3. While, in paragraph 3, he basically states that all that is necessary to establish the existence of the supernatural is imagination, in this paragraph, he differentiates the supernatural from the imaginary, despite the fact that the "imaginary" is borne of the imagination. The contradiction is clear.

(Paragraph 7) Here, my opponent continues to contradict himself. He insists that the supernatural is not imaginary, and yet has failed to provide proof to the contrary.

(Paragraph 8) Further continuance of the contradiction. Also, my opponent states that, "Improbability is not evidence of inexistence." Not sure how improbability can be classified as evidence, but it is very true that a lack of existence is not established by improbability. However, improbability nevertheless denotes the improbable.

(Paragraph 9) My opponent excuses his lack of support for all the claims he has made in this debate in reference to the supernatural by stating that we can never know all the answers. So, if he does not know, why does he categorically claim the supernatural is real?

(The List) My opponent claims that everything in his list exists, so the burden of proof lies upon him to substantially support it. However, I will briefly address each item.

(1) Just because someone is unable to idently a flying object, does not mean it is of extraterrestrial origin, and even if it is, it is most likely a meteor. There is zero irrefutable proof of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting this planet. Even if there were proof of extraterrestrial visitors, they would not be supernatural, just more advanced.

(2) Placebos are psychological, not supernatural.

(3) The microphone in Peter Popoff's ear that enabled his wife to help him lie to hundreds of people was no miracle. There is zero evidence that faith healers ever actually healed anyone, and a great deal of evidence that they did not. In relative terms, many things medical science can do today would have been called a miracle a hundred years ago. In reference to the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient being: That is a higher knowledge, which is not necessarily defined as "supernatural", anymore than what is done today could be called supernatural a hundred years ago.

(4) Ghosts make no logical sense. Biblically speaking, ghosts are extremely rare, and do not haunt; hauntings do not exist in the Bible. Scientifically speaking, there is zero irrefutable evidence of hauntings. Moreover, it would be illogical for ghosts to wear clothing; the clothing does not possess a spirit, and yet nearly every alleged ghost is said to be clothed for their time in history. Then there is Marilyn Monroe who died in the nude. Whatever unsupported excuse folks make for ghosts being clothed cannot be applied to her, and yet she is clothed according to all who claim to have seen her ghost. One self-proclaimed medium saw Marilyn's ghost in a sexy pink outfit. [3]

(5) Pyramids are architectural, not supernatural. All supernatural qualities attributed to them are nonsense. [4]

(6) The narratives vary too greatly to be accepted as truth. As for death itself, there is nothing supernatural about it.

(7) Religiously speaking, prophecies are highly controversial. As they apply to Nostradamus and the like, they are pure nonsense. [5]

(8) See response to paragraph 5.

(9) Oswald did not cast magic spells on his bullets. [6]

(10) Controversial.

I will allow the readers and voters to decide who is "hopelessly ignorant."

[1] http://www.sci-news.com...
[2] http://www.livescience.com...
[3] http://www.express.co.uk...
[4] http://www.amazon.com...
[5] http://skepdic.com...
[6] http://www.slate.com...
Debate Round No. 2
chipmonk

Pro

Thanks for the rebuttal, Con.

However, I must say, the refutation was merely a confusion of the topic, and the words involved. Through Con's rebuttal, we can determine that Con has a fairly distinguishable lack of knowledge in the realm of science, as well.

When it is said a supernatural thing is beyond the "observable" universe, this means observable by scientific means. In science, when something is observable, it means that it can be tested under the scientific method and other advanced methods of experimentation, under "controlled" tests. This means that whatever is "observable" is also Repeatable, testable , and verifiable by experimentation. To put it simply for Con,to scientifically observe ANYTHING, we must be able to REPRODUCE the occurance or a related occurance in a lab (under stringent control where outside variables can be eliminated ENTIRELY.) Even more simply put, it means...whatever we call "supernatural",,,,,by definition,,,, it is beyond SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING. (NOT beyond your imagination.)

This means Con cannot demand scientific proof, or even evidence, for things that are beyond our capacity to collect data. For example, Can Con generate scientific proof that the Holocaust happened? There is an overwhelming amount of individuals here and there, that argue the Holocaust never happened. SInce Con thinks, whatever cannot be scientifically proven, also cannot exist...then he must also assume the Holocaust never happened as well

But lets cut to the meat of it all. my List. (as most of con's refutation is a strawman argument. As I clearly did not say or mean to say supernatural = your imagination. infact i intended to say the exact opposite. )

(1) Just because someone is unable to idently a flying object, does not mean it is of extraterrestrial origin, and even if it is, it is most likely a meteor. There is zero irrefutable proof of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting this planet. Even if there were proof of extraterrestrial visitors, they would not be supernatural, just more advanced.

---> All i said was UFO. Why do you , yourself jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth? UFOs are by definition supernatural. They don't need to be aliens. They can be angels. they can even be meteors, yet until you can conclude them to be so by SCIENCE, if they don't LOOK LIKE or APPEAR TO be a meteor,, we usually don't call it one. We call it a UFO.

(2) Placebos are psychological, not supernatural.

---> Placebos are unexplained by science. You cannot demonstrate that it is purely psychological. This your assumption. Since its unexplained by science...how do you assume to say anything about it yourself? not even knowing how to conduct the crudest of experiments? Even if it IS merely psychological, until it is explained by science, it is defined as "supernatural." since is APPEARS TO DEFY (not actually defying) the LAWS OF NATURE. There is a subtle yet crucial difference between.. appearing to do something...and actually doing it. But neither of it denies the fact that it does happen. And no one can explain it. Placebo's exist. Placebos are supernatural, unless you can explain it scientifically. The supernatural exists.

(3) The microphone in Peter Popoff's ear that enabled his wife to help him lie to hundreds of people was no miracle. There is zero evidence that faith healers ever actually healed anyone, and a great deal of evidence that they did not. In relative terms, many things medical science can do today would have been called a miracle a hundred years ago. In reference to the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient being: That is a higher knowledge, which is not necessarily defined as "supernatural", anymore than what is done today could be called supernatural a hundred years ago.
--> Just because one man is a charlatan, it doesnt make all men charlatans. Just because MOST if not 99.9999999999% of all the true explanations turn out they are lies,,,doesn't make 100% lies. ITs a slippery slope and a false generalization to say because Peter Popoff is a liar, so is Ghandi, Jesus or Buddha. Each case needs to be taken and scrutinized on a case by case basis. The rarity of each occasion doesn't grant one to paint a broad brush over each and everyone of them and deem all of them "FAKE." without properly looking at the evidence for each out. It's therefore fallacious to claim similar to proclaiming Michael Jackson was allegedly touching kids, we need to stay away from all singers.

(4) Ghosts make no logical sense. Biblically speaking, ghosts are extremely rare, and do not haunt; hauntings do not exist in the Bible. Scientifically speaking, there is zero irrefutable evidence of hauntings. Moreover, it would be illogical for ghosts to wear clothing; the clothing does not possess a spirit, and yet nearly every alleged ghost is said to be clothed for their time in history. Then there is Marilyn Monroe who died in the nude. Whatever unsupported excuse folks make for ghosts being clothed cannot be applied to her, and yet she is clothed according to all who claim to have seen her ghost. One self-proclaimed medium saw Marilyn's ghost in a sexy pink outfit. [3]
--> plenty evidences of ghosts. Same fallacy as above. Giving an off-hand example of one out of the millions of reported sightings and video footage, then saying since that was faulty,, they are all faulty is a fallacy. The only justification that Con can present for not looking at evidence, is that "he's seen it all before." This is an epitomized display of ignorance.

(5) Pyramids are architectural, not supernatural. All supernatural qualities attributed to them are nonsense. [4]
--> Scientifically unexplained. Therefore supernatrual. Exists. therefore supernatural exists. Attributing additional qualities is not necessary, because there existence itself is a known as "world wonder." They are KNOWN to be of mysterious origin, for which science has no valid account, therefore "supernatural." And existing.

(6) The narratives vary too greatly to be accepted as truth. As for death itself, there is nothing supernatural about it.
---> http://listverse.com...
According to the article above. What Con is saying is simply not true. All the narratives are eerily consistent. Which actually touted as the MOST CONVINCING reason for NDEs. The accounts of adults and children under 5 (who have no idea of Jesus or heaven.) all describe similar accoutns. If they didnt... NDEs would not be the hot topic that it is. To say that they "vary." is simple simpleton denial.

Here is also additional evidence to suggest an afterlife exists:
http://www.independent.co.uk...
Since now there is scientific evidence, does my opponent change his position? or is he in denial? or ignorance? Any refutation to follow would certainly demonstrate his inclinations for us.

(7) Religiously speaking, prophecies are highly controversial. As they apply to Nostradamus and the like, they are pure nonsense. [5]
---> Con has agreed prophecies are supernatural by failing to provide a scientific explanation for them. Prophecies exist. Supernatural things exist.

(8) See response to paragraph 5.
----> (Paragraph 5) To say that the Bermuda Triangle has no scientific explanation is untrue. There are a number of scientific, viable explanations for disappearing ships and planes in that area. [2] Ships, planes, cars, people, etc, disappear consistently all over the earth. Out of millions of flights, sailing excursions, car trips, mountain hikes, etc, there are bound to be a great many disappearances. In fact, very few unexplained disappearances would be much stranger than many disappearances.
--------> I have seen paragraph 5, and found that is absent of any content. There is no scientific explanation for why the Bermuda Triangle exists. Though con would assert (without evidence) there is. He admits it exists. If I can prove there is no scientific explanation for it, then it is defined as being supernatural.

Science cannot determine an explanation for the Bermuda Triangle, because it cannot reproduce the events that led to the disappearance of the planes. A scientific explanation is virtually impossible. Science would need to recreate the event, in order to justifiably determine, what happened. Having a number of possible theories, is NOT having a scientific explanation. Just because it is "atheistic." by its explanation, does NOT make it scientific. A scientific explanation is one that includes observations, tests and trials. Elementary my dear Watson. (Though I bet this flies over 90% of yalls heads WOOSH~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

Therefore the supernatural does exists.

(9) Oswald did not cast magic spells on his bullets. [6]
--> Then how did Oswald manage to leave multiple bullet holes coming from different angles ? ARE YOU IMPLYING MULTIPLE SHOOTERS???? DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THIS? IF not, then certainly and justifiably by Con's own standards... multiple shooters cannot exist. Even if they did, we would need scientific evidence to prove this. Until then I guess we must remain IGNORANT?

(10) Controversial.
Indeed.

_ ig"no"rant
G2;iɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms:uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"
synonyms:without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about,
Kyle_the_Heretic

Con

In R2, my opponent offered little more than say so and opinion to support his arguments and claims. Remaining consistent, my opponent has again offered little more than say so and opinion to dismiss my arguments.

Despite providing sources that effectively counter my opponent's arguments and claims, he generally repeated them all without effectively challenging the counter arguments. This redundancy leads me to wonder if he even bothered clicking on the links.

Sadly, I must also be a bit redundant in my R3 response.

My opponent excuses the supernatural from being a scientific construct. Yet it is observable, testable, and going by the multitude of alleged accounts, dependably repeatable. Controlled conditions in a lab are not a requisite for the scientific method. After excusing the supernatural from being a scientific construct, my opponent states: "This means Con cannot demand scientific proof, or even evidence, for things that are beyond our capacity to collect data."

But those "things" are not beyond our capacity to collect data, even if it is only personal data. So yes, I can demand scientific proof.

My opponent goes on to state: "Since Con thinks, whatever cannot be scientifically proven, also cannot exist...then he must also assume the Holocaust never happened as well."

There is scientific evidence for the Holocaust. [1]

I accused my opponent of claiming that imagination should replace science to prove the existence of the supernatural. He says I am wrong: "As I clearly did not say or mean to say supernatural = your imagination. In fact I intended to say the exact opposite."

If my opponent is dismissing science, then imagination is all that is left to credit the supernatural, and he is, indeed, dismissing science.

My opponent states: "UFOs are by definition supernatural." Try as I might, I could find no dictionaries on line or in my library that use the word "supernatural" when defining UFO.

My opponent states: "Placebos are unexplained by science." If placebos were miracle cures, that would be true, but there is no credible record that a placebo worked as a miracle cure. Though there are questions, placebos are indeed explained by science. [2]

In the case of miracle healers, it is true that many liars does not mean that all are liars. Nevertheless, there is zero irrefutable evidence that faith healers have ever miraculously cured anyone.

There is indeed plenty evidence of ghosts. All bad, all worthless.

"World Wonder" does not equal "supernatural." To say that pyramids are scientifically unexplained is absolute nonsense. Pyramids are edifices made of known matter, built by discernible means, all of which science is easily able to explain.

In reference to near death experiences, my opponent states: "All the narratives are eerily consistent." But he fails to offer even two similar alleged experiences. For the record, here are 17 experiences on one site that are not eerily consistent. [3]

My sources in R2 sufficiently cover the Bermuda Triangle and the magic bullets.

My opponent employed an ad hominem tactic: "...Con has a fairly distinguishable lack of knowledge in the realm of science", as well as accusing me of a strawman fallacy without providing any evidence of that accusation. He then ended his argument with yet another ad hominem, which was absolutely dripping with irony.

Let the readers make of this argument what they will.

[1] https://www.quora.com...
[2] http://harvardmagazine.com...
[3] https://iands.org...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TUF// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com......

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter goes to more than sufficient lengths to analyze the arguments made in the debate and come to a decision based on them.
************************************************************************
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
Whoever doesn't believe in the supernatural and lives in the UK go to the ancient ram in the city of Gloucestershire, England whoever sleeps there for 5 days straight I will give "500 to the person that does it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
chipmonkKyle_the_HereticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OYeVZ37Zb7wrepKb8CUL_R2QHXb_VbHQqx5fFSCRQvk/edit?usp=sharing