The Instigator
dhardage
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Domr
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Domr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,106 times Debate No: 65159
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

dhardage

Pro

The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in any real sense. It implies that there are things beyond the natural world that are still able to, in some way, affect the natural world. There exists no solid evidence of any supernatural event and there exists no way to reproduce and test any claim of a supernatural event. I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world.
Domr

Con

I agree, AT THIS POINT, there is no proof of their existing of anything that could be considered "supernatural".

However, the idea of the supernatural is still valid. People throughout history lived through stories of the supernatural.
(Roman and Greek mythology, the Bible, horror monsters such as vampires, werewolves, etc)
The Harry Potter Books, any sci-fi movie that has technology beyond our comprehension at the moment...

Story-telling, movies, and books are a source of entertainment. Entertainment is very much a valid idea in today's world.

The TV show by the same name as the term in question: Supernatural, is a show regarding the hunting of these 'supernatural monsters'. It has been going on for over 10 seasons. its longevity as a show (200+ episodes) validates the term as a great source of entertainment.
The Harry Potter Books, probably one of the most successful book series of all times, adapted into movies. The entire plot based on the supernatural wizarding world.
The Bible, the most popular book of all time. It's supernatural stories (Creation of the World, Jesus Miracles, God(/Creator) spiritually communicating with prophets, Jesus rising from the dead). These stories have formed a religion.

The Christian religion (as well as others) is a supernatural story regarding the creation of the world, sin, and the perfect, immaterial forgiveness of those sins.

Anyone who states religion is not a valid idea in today's society is fooling themselves.

Yes there are people who, individually, do not believe in the Christian religion, but they understand that many people (1 billion +) do believe as this "supernatural story" of Christianity to very much be a valid idea in the real world.

So to recap, Entertainment and Religion are two very valid ideas in today's society in which the supernatural is glorified or believed.
Thus proving the supernatural is a valid idea in the real world as well.


Debate Round No. 1
dhardage

Pro

The idea of the supernatural is based upon ignorance of the way the natural world functioned. Primitives had no clue that lightning was a result of static electricity build up or that earthquakes were the result of tectonic plates pressing together. Because it was how those primitive and unknowing peoples' way of explaining the unexplainable does not justify it now. We, with very few exceptions, are not them. Clinging to those concepts is the act of a child unwilling to let go of his security blanket. We, with very few exceptions, are not them.

As you mentioned, the supernatural is a huge source of entertainment. I cannot disagree but you miss the thrust of my argument. The supernatural has no real meaning in the real world. You have already conceded that there is no proof of any supernatural being or event, thus conceding that my statement is correct.

While I have tried to steer clear of religion, it falls into the same category. Almost without exception, religions have a supernatural basis with no proof of any of the purported events. They depend upon unquestioning faith and claim proof is unnecessary. Once again, you have conceded that there is no proof of the supernatural so they too are irrelevant in the natural world. No amount of prayer will so much as move a pebble, let alone a mountain.

In summary, the supernatural is important to entertainment and religion as a basis for a story but it has no effect in and of itself on the natural world. It is irrelevant in any explanatory way, has no causal effect on any event, and is, in essence, meaningless.
Domr

Con

The supernatural is not all mythology to explain lightning (Zeus). Vampires and Werewolves are made up entities in which to entertain through storytelling via books, shows, and movies.

Therefore, it is not a security blanket in which we grasp because of the unknown universe, its it the horror entertainment genre in which we enjoy ourselves.

" I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world."

This is the argument at hand. "No validity" means nothing about the supernatural is valid. My opponent has conceded that parts of the "Supernatural" are utilized in entertainment, thus proving my point in showing the supernatural is relevant and valid.

"As you mentioned, the supernatural is a huge source of entertainment. I cannot disagree but you miss the thrust of my argument"



However, my opponent uses that statement to move the goalposts of the premise. To basically state the my opponents arguments...



'Nothing of the supernatural makes sense in the real world (or is invalid)'
But what about today's entertainment value based around the supernatural in it's story-telling?
'that doesn't count'




I have conceded there is not physical proof for the supernatural. However, my opponents premise has two points, the proof of the supernatural AND the validity of the idea of things that could be considered 'supernatural'.

My argument is for the latter.

My religion argument is based around the IDEA of people believing in it. Religion has helped shaped numerous cultures around the world, thus making is very much part of the real world, despite any proof. (religion is based on faith, therefore proof is nonsensical).



My opponents last statement: "In summary, the supernatural is important to entertainment and religion as a basis for a story but it has no effect in and of itself on the natural world. It is irrelevant in any explanatory way, has no causal effect on any event, and is, in essence, meaningless."

I would ask you to look back at the premise and notice my opponents use of the term REAL WORLD. He now changes to the 'natural world', so he can claim that nothing is nature is 'super' (supernatural), while the premise states Real world. Meaning anything pertaining to what happens in this world (including human events that involve entertainment and religion... and the storytelling of the two.)

My opponent has dropped both of my arguments regarding entertainment and religion. Story-telling is very much a part of what people do, and have done, in the real world, for sources of entertainment. Religion has been based around numerous cultures. The fact that "Under God" is in the US Pledge of Allegiance, shows that our country was founded upon religious men, and those religious views were used in shaping the laws and mannerisms of our country. Thus showing its impact in society, along with any other forms of the supernatural used in entertainment.

Debate Round No. 2
dhardage

Pro

Am I correct is assuming you believe Harry Potter to be part of the real world? If so, please introduce me to him at the earliest possible convenience. No fictional character is real. The supernatural is no more than a plot point for these stories, as entertaining as they are.

Once again, storytelling is not supernatural. The supernatural creatures in those stories are not real and therefore the idea of the supernatural as applied to the real world, is meaningless outside of a convenient setting for a story or an excuse for something that one cannot explain.

The IDEA of something is not the same as the thing itself. One cannot equate the idea of an alien visitation the same as the alien visitation, for example, even though it has been the subject of lots of debate and, yes, entertainment over the years. Some even argue that alien visitation is the basis for religions, but that's a debate for another time. The belief in the supernatural, even the actions taken because of those beliefs (burning alive women believed to be witches, still happening today) do not make the supernatural any more real in spite of how desperately some with it were so.

Just for the record, the words 'Under God' were not in the original pledge but added in the 1950's when the 'Red Scare' was at its greatest and people wanted to differentiate us fro the 'Godless Communists' and caved in to religion. Same goes for 'In God We Trust' on our money, before you make that argument. This country was founded on secular principles and it was intended that religion play no part in it. The Founders knew the dangers inherent a theocracy, having just left one.

In summary, you have yet to show that the term 'supernatural' has any meaning in the real world beyond a cool idea for a book, a movie, or a religion.
Domr

Con

Quotes by my opponent, in which I will highlight key points

1st Round (Premise):

"I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world."

Previous Round:

"The IDEA of something is not the same as the thing itself."



My opponents premise states even the idea of the supernatural is invalid in the real world. And then later agrees the supernatural is used often in entertainment and religion (parts of the real world).
AND THEN, goes on to completely refute the IDEA of supernatural, as not even being applicable to the arguments at hand.

My opponent is constantly changing the premise to fit his arguments after I have successfully disproved part of his argument (the idea of supernatural being applicable to the real world.)


Debate Round No. 3
dhardage

Pro

My opponent has made great deal about disproving my arguments. I submit that he has not disproved anything but pointed to other subjects such as religion and entertainment to support his assertion. I have also specified that fictional characters such as Harry Potter and Jesus of Nazareth are not real and hence stories regarding them are not valid arguments against my assertion. He has even attempted to assert that the adherence to a religion somehow makes the supernatural meaningful in some way.

The idea of the supernatural is indeed the basis for numerous religions, books, movies, even psychoses. I concede that these are real effects, but they are not effects of the supernatural but of the purely natural acts of human beings. I think my has already conceded that there is no proof of the supernatural so we can dispense with any actual causal or explanatory power of the supernatural. That is the definition of real. Without it, the term is truly meaningless in the real sense, despite what my opponent would have us believe.
Domr

Con

Again, my opponent is trying to make claims that because the supernatural has no proof, he is validated.

This is incorrect as his premise holds a second aspect. The IDEA of the supernatural.

Books, TV, and movies are valid in the real world. People read and watch daily all different shows. Entertainment is valid in the real world. Supernatural plots of these movies do not physically exist in our world. But the idea is very much used to the real entertainment side.

My opponent has agreed of the supernatural's entertainment and religious value, meaning the idea is valid and holds merit in the real world.

Debate Round No. 4
dhardage

Pro

I will concede that the idea has value in the real world, making authors, producers, and TV evangelists a lot of money. Unfortunately for my opponent, value and meaning are not the same. In summary, there is no meaning in a demonstrably false premise and idea even though they are used by people as a story setting or the basis of a religion. I thank my opponent for his vigorous and polite participation in this debate.
Domr

Con

Value and truth in nature are very different. As I initially stated in this debate, there is no proof of the supernatural in the world.

However, value and validity can be considered similar, as people use the idea of teh supernatural for valid forms of entertainment. or a valid belief in their religion. Etc.

Thank you for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
You can change your RFD. Re-type one out in the box you initially typed it in, and then cast the vote again.

Or as YOU said, you shouldn't have voted. Therefore, you can make the votes all a tie, and cast it that way.

Your RFD does not back up what is written in the debate. By "assuming" the intended point is voting poorly.

There is not mutual agreement, as I do not agree with the premise, in it's entirety.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
As not everyone is as eloquent as they could be, I don't splice arguments that finely. I read what they wrote and summarize what they 'intend' to say rather than attack every word they write. It is clear to me that Pro intended to say that supernatural concepts are not manifestated in the natural world and are thus meaningless to discuss as it relates to the natural world. How they chose to write that argument matters little to me. Had he not used the word valid, you probably wouldn't have taken up the debate. I've seen many arguments where the language used is argued about rather than the topic at hand, making the debate utterly pointless. Plus, I couldn't update my RFD even if I wanted too, there's no edit button. The interesting thing to me is that I agreed with both of you, so technically I shouldn't have voted, but because the intended topic was mutually agreed upon, it fell to the topic creator.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
@Atmas -

As Con, I cannot move the goalposts. I am arguing against the premise. The premise stated 'nothing is supernatural AND the idea is invalid'

Both parts of the premise need to be satisfied by BoP by Pro. Your RFD shows Pro only showed one half of the entire premise to be true. And by not arguing for the idea, Pro is moving the goalposts by showing that second half of the premise isn't necessary in the debate anymore.

I would suggest updating your RFD, as it is currently incorrect towards your vote. (their was no mutual agreement of the premise, I agreed with the first half, and argued the second half. both parts of the premise are equal, and both need proof in order for Pro to win any votes)
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
I'm just guessing spex but I don't believe you created the world.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the world is for the whirled, I know my experience of now
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the world is a machine, created by me, so there is no real world, and the world is supernatural

world=whirl
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If you could manage to separate the bible from religion, then you would be pleasantly surprised that the two rarely intersect. Read proverbs and Psalms. It would serve you well to gleam whatever wisdom is in those 2 books in your daily life.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I gave you many . But you are too steeped in strife towards religion to hear. And that strife breeds confusion.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Not much actually, not much. Obey the current paradigms is most prolific message. Which gives us no new knowledge. There is not one single piece of information that has been provided by religion that is accurate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The main supernatural property is words. Words are what defines us apart from all the other animals. If you would keep a close eye on the words people speak and their environment, they would be mirror images.A poor man speaks mainly poverty. Successful people speak prosperity. Sick people speak sickness. Now You would have to be a fly on the wall to hear all that goes on in a persons life. They may talk one way in public, but behind closed doors another altogether.

What most people do not realize is that words set in motion this natural world that we live in. James taught that, and Jesus lived it. He spoke to the wind and calmed it down.

Now in these modern days that sounds foolish. Most people would say that is the dumbest thing they ever heard. Yet walk right out to their car and speak to it." You sorry worthless piece of junk , everytime I get in you you will not start." People speak to things all the time. Even to things that never happened yet." Everytime we plan a vacation one of the kids gets sick". Just listen and learn what the super ( above ) natural has to teach you about life and living.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
dhardageDomrTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: As per request, I'm changing the vote to all tied. While both were correct, Pro never stated the meaningless of supernatural as it pertains to human society (as opposed to the natural world) yet Con somehow gleaned that information to have something to argue about. Pro eventually agreed with Con, presumably to get back on the topic at hand and Con had already agreed to the actual debate topic. So all in all, everyone agreed.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
dhardageDomrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Domr explained that although we currently cannot prove anything supernatural exists, there is no reason to give up and consider it completely meaningless. Domr was more convincing overall that the term "supernatural" (congrats to both for not being lame and talking about the TV show) is not meaningless in the real world.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dhardageDomrTied
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: pro only proves that supernatural is mainly false and assumptions. However, through this falseness portrayed by the media, con shows it has meanings in our "real world".