The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The supernatural does not exist

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 89122
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




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 :

(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
manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

First round is acceptance. Accepting any irrational challengers.


I accept the debate. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


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.

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


Thank you for the opening arguments. I begin with another definition of supernatural.

Supernatural - unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc. [1]

Here are the rules of scientific method:
"Ask a Question
"Do Background Research
"Construct a Hypothesis
"Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
"Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
"Communicate Your Results [2]

Notice this: "Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment."

If the supernatural can't be explained by science or laws of nature, then how can we conduct experiments on its existence? Reasonably, we can't. Observation is one of the core principles for scientific method, but how do we observe something that is non existent?

Observation -
1) a statement about something you have noticed : a comment or remark
2) the act of careful watching and listening : the activity of paying close attention to someone or something in order to get information
3) something you notice by watching and listening [3]

For something to be visible, it must actually be there. It's impossible to witness magic, because it doesn't exist. You can't witness something that doesn't exist. So, in turn, observing, say, a ghost, isn't possible because ghosts. Contradictions from different sources and science has proved this. [4]

So, in conclusion, we can't reasonably prove the existence of supernatural beings or forces. If a being defies all science, like my definition suggests, then how can we observe it? This means we have no substantial proof, as observation serves as the evidence for all science. If we have no way of recording it with science, we can't say it's there.

Thank you and peace.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Pro. But I find your explanation lacking in any justification for asserting that the Bermuda triangle does not exist, or that any other supernatural thing for that matter. I suppose since we don't have scientific evidence to PrOVE john F kennedy was assasinated by more than one shooter, we should also credit his multiple bullet wounds to a magic bullet from a lone shooter. I suppose we must in the same way assume that since we have no scientific explanation for the Placebo effect, the placebo effect also doesnt exist and people arent really cured. They actually die but we imagine them still being alive. Love, money, wealth, greed, consciousness, all these things must not exist, since according to Pro's logic "if we have no way of recording it with science, we can't say its there."

Well Pro must speak for herself. I can say love is there. Here. Everywhere. And I dont need anything but my own experience to make the judgement. I can also say that im pretty sure Pro exists, although i dont have conclusive scientific evidence to support this notion. The reason I believe Pro exists is because my past experiences on the web, and knowledge of how the web works. And this leads to a LOGICAL and RATIONAL conclusion that Pro exists And is probably not a computer program. No scientific investigation is necessary to make this obviously true claim. One would be ignorant or delusional to deny that Pro is not a person that exists outside of this forum. Why ? Because we understand how the web works. Though its feasible pro is a computer program, so i need science to prove Pro is not a stringg of code?

The argument i am setting forth with the rhetorics above should be very clear. To anyone with a critical mind. First! Absence of evidnce is not Evidence of absence. Rather it is the absence of evidnce, can more correctly be described as "ignorance." Or an absence of knowledge altogether. It certainly does not mean that that which you dont understand does not exist.

Secondly, we can come to rational conclusions about reality and about what exists and does not exist, without relying on science. Well, most of us can. However, to do so, one must be able to view reality without subjectice bias distorting their view of the world. In other words, one must learn to be Free from preconceptions or relying on concensus and popular thought. Instead one must rely one rationality, critical thinking , -in other words- independent thougtht.

Now Apply independent thought to the notion of supernatural. Though it seems unlikely or impossible,
It is something that has been defined as "appearing to " be as such. It may be that there is a supernatural apparition of st. Mary appearing before a crowd of thousands. Later science may discover that it was nothing but a simple optical illusion caused by the night sky. Even so, did the optical illusion not exist? Before you deemed it to be an optical illusion, did it not accomplish its purpose already? Did it not still "appear to defy the laws of nature". ? Even if we can no longer call it supernatural, do we also say the event itself never happened? Or that it has vanished from existence?

Can we not say "it is there." ?

Certainly not only CAN we say based on the evidence that the supernatural does exist, we can also say that it is a rational and justified belief to have. As mentioned before, since somethig supernatural must "appear to" do something , although it is unexplained, SOMETHING must be there to be causing the "appearance" of supernatural phenomena.

So this clearly means there IS visible evidence of the supernatural. For example, UFO sightings are visible and often documented, photographed, video taped etc. the sightings are increasing and being displayed all over the news. One could be considered wuite oblivious to declare "UFOs do not exist." Even Hilory Clinton vows to get to the bottommof the UFO phenomena.

The supernatural DOES exist. Only science has no rational explanation FOR it to be considered natural. As also mentioned before supernatural is not imaginary or fictious. Nor does it make sense to equate the two concepts. Further , supernatural is not necessariy somethjng that defys natural laws. It only must appear to defy natural law. So by definition , even magic tricks are supernatural. once the secret of the trick is revealed, it becomes a trick. But until then, to the oblivious masses it is considered magic , ie. Supernatural.


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


All supernatural things may not actually defy physics but they all do exist.

Even if we determine an explanation for supernatural things, it doesnt mean they simply stop being there.

Believe in God. He is righteousness.


missbailey8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
@noob. Some quotes for you.

Real knowledge is to know
the extent of one"s ignorance.
(551-479 BC, Chinese teacher and philosopher)

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.
(c. 480-406 BC, tragedian of classical Athens)

I am not ashamed to confess
I am ignorant of what I do not know.
(106-43 BC, Roman philosopher and statesman)

Not engaging in ignorance is wisdom.
(c. 5th/6th century, Buddhist monk)

Where ignorance is our master,
there is no possibility of real peace.
Dalai Lama
(1357-1419, high lama of Tibetan Buddhism)
Posted by random_noob 2 years ago
If anyone of you guys can prove supernatural activity, you 're rich!

Go and claim all this unclaimed money!!
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
Ever seen The TV show stan Lee's superhumans?
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 2 years ago
I must side with Con on this matter as I have witnessed supernatural occurances, and know people who have expierenced and even videotaped them as they occurred.

One can suppose that EVERY ghost video, demon video, paranormal video is fake ... but proving THAT? well it just is beyond the ability of the average person.

This is a news story that shows how difficult it would be to fake something in the presence of News people:

Or look up Hanover PA Ghost tape.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 2 years ago
He shows how that anything that does not have a scientific explanation is indeed Supernatural, because as far as we know, and can figure out, we do not know how it could be natural. If we did, there would be a science behind it. So basically he is showing that anything we don't know, is infact Supernatural, like when he said anything beyond the observable universe.
Posted by adrian222 2 years ago
Con admits that all of the things he's mentioned aren't understood. If that is true, then how can he make a positive, definite claim that they *are* supernatural? The definition he uses says that those things he mentions are "attributed" to the supernatural; you can only make that attribution if you have exhausted all possible theoretical scientific tools to understand the phenomenon, now and in the future, thus implying that it is supernatural by logical necessity. But as long as there is a chance that science can understand it one day, you can't say with certainty that it should be attributed to the supernatural.

As far as probabilistic arguments go you would need some good evidence that something is supernatural; but by definition supernatural things defy evidence and measurement, otherwise they would be within the realm of science, so you can't go that route. You have to show it either through pure logic or exhausting all means of scientific inquiry on your subject matter of interest. Which con of course can't do.
Posted by Jjjohn 2 years ago
this should be an interesting debate. I think I already see several flaws in con's argument.
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
Just an aside but since i said it...might as well be part of the contention. Go ahead. Argue me.
Posted by Overhead 2 years ago
Is the second sentence "I am convinced that most believe that the supernatural cannot or does not exists, but in such belief are they found ignorant" part of the contention or just an aside?
Posted by Emmarie 2 years ago
oh - I wanted to take this on the con side - I hope you find an opponent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.