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

does the supernatural exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 767 times Debate No: 88384
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance. No rules. Take the first shot or let me.

Let's get it on!


Okay so i guess i am con :)

It is impossible for any kind of supernatural to exist.

We have lived on earth for many years and i doubt that someone would have concealed such an ability for such a long time.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to think my opponent for accepting this debate.

My opponent believe the supernatural things do not exist. Not only that, my opponent believes that it is "impossible " for the supernatural to exist.

Although I do not deny that at first glance, most people would agree. here I would like to point out that it is a fallacy, to think that just because most people believe it, it is true. I would also like to point out, regardless of what most people believe, or don't believe , There is and always will be a truth that exists. Whether or not that truth is defined or explained as being supernatural or not is yet of another topic, that of course I would like to discuss you as well. But first I set up an axiom, that despite the certainty or uncertainty of the individual, there is always certainly a truth. When I say "Truth ", I mean the truth, in other words true reality. This is the reality that actually took place regardless of what anybody else perceived to take place. I would like the audience and con to except this first axiom as a self evident truth. If you exist and you were certain it is true you exist, then you also are certain there is a truth.

So Truth exists.

The question is, do supernatural things exist? As absurd as it may sound , I assert its actually ridiculous to assume that they do not! Of course they exist! If they didn't would not have the word "supernatural." And as ridiculous as THAT sounded , it is also logically and verifiably true.

Here , I'd like the audience to recogniZe that if what I say is true, and if they believed Con was right, their rationale was flawed. And if your rationale is flawed in this example, so will it be in others.

The key problem is I never defined what I mean by "supernatural." But even looking at the term in any dictionary or encyclopedia (except maybe an atheist one), supernatural is defined as;

Mobile-friendly - 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureb : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
-merriam webster online

So, 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. Imaginary is not supernatural supernatural is not imaginary. However unlikely or improbable a supernatural occurrences seems Improbability is not evidence of inexistence . In fact, the word improbability actually implies that it does exist, being one small possibility along the spectrum of possibilities. Here it is also important to note, that improbable is not the same as in possible. Unlikely is not the same as impossible. And though something may seem unlikely, it does not mean that it is impossible.

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


After thoroughly considering my opponents arguments i have decided to agree with him on the following points:
-Imaginary is not supernatural nor vice-versa

I see that, in your argument, you have stated numerous times that "The supernatural is an attribute which is beyond a scientific explanation, and has a lack of scientific evidence." That is what i understood, anyway.

I agree with this.
But i believe that the supernatural is only a small conspiracy GROUP THAT MADE IT UP.
The fact that there is no scientific evidence proves that the super natural does not exist, nothing can prove that it exists. As the foundation of your "facts" is a few people words.

The supernatural can't exist.

It seems like a fairly bad argument at first glance, pretty much by definition the supernatural can't exist. That's the point, it's beyond reality as we see it or feel it.
From various gods to ghosts, the supernatural lies outside our realm of experience and perception; and this is even an aid to believers, who firmly state that their beliefs lie outside reality and are therefore immune to scrutiny by science that is supposedly limited by the physical world. The argument follows that atheists or skeptics or materialists are completely barking up the wrong tree when acting dismissively of gods and goddesses or concepts such as immortal souls to telepathy - how can you disprove something when it lies completely beyond the real and therefore beyond science? While a nice argument for a novice intellectual who wants to appear to be free of the boring old real world, or who wants to open their mind to infinite possibilities, further analysis of this concept (taking it to its logical conclusion) produces an entirely different result.
First, let's examine what "beyond reality" must mean. Disregarding any arguments about things being "real" if we're thinking about them or if they exist in documents or cultural memory (we're talking a tangible, objective existence that is independent of thought) it must mean that something "beyond reality" lives outside the universe, it can never and will never be detected in the phsyical universe or by the physical universe. This means that no stuffy scientist will ever disprove its existence, as experiments can't touch it or taste it or measure it. Not only can it not be detected, but it never has been detected and never will be detected - and "detected" is the key word from now on. Importantly this is in principle and is independent of practicalities; it may be impractical or impossible to fire a probe into the middle of the sun to gather some hydrogen, but that doesn't, a priori, preclude the possibility of it happening - this would presume too much about the future and our future abilities. A few historical examples relate to this principle; people used to think we'd only ever travel less than about 30 miles per hour, but Thrust SSC broke the sound barrier on land in 1997 and its successor should break 1000 mph in a few years time, and besides, orbiting spacecraft go an order of magnitude above this. Wireless communications, atmospheric simulations and cures for diseases all seemed outside the realms of possibility even a few mere decades before their development, so by extension we can't predict what we will be able to do if technological progress goes on unhindered. We presume to much by saying that something beyond science in practice is the same as beynd sience in principle. So, in principle, we can detect anything that is in reality as we know it, it may be in another dimension (if we do discover so-called "parallel dimensions") or back in time (time travel, you never know) but the bottom line is that parts of reality can detect other parts of reality - and the process of reality detecting reality is what we call "science".
Now back to the concept of something being "outside" of reality, yet still existing. There are two ways to proceed with this, the first is fairly simple, but intersting, case of semantics. Take ghosts, for example. All evidence points out that ghosts do not exist, thus believers put them "beyond reality" by calling them supernatural, fair enough. However, what if it was eventually discovered that ghost do exist? Going back to the pricniple described above, observing them makes them quite, quite real and then we can use these observations to get more information. Even merely discovering that they did exist would be enough to change them from "super" natural to just natural; they would be an extension of physics that had previously lain undiscovered. What if we measured them, figured out what they were made of (some extremely exotic form of matter or energy), how the conciousness stayed around to form a spectre? A whole new branch of science would be founded just to look at this new phenomenon and study it, and, based on the principle that reality can detect reality, ghosts would give up their secrets, they might widely differ from reality as we know it now, but that doesn't - in fact it can't - stop us, as the entire point of science is to change to best reflect reality. That's assuming we first demonstrated ghosts to exist, of course. This is a silly, but still quite important point, if something supernatural turns out to exist, it ceases to be supernatural pretty much by definition. But what of things that can't be demonstrated, the things that True Believers say will always be beyond reality, even in principle as well as practice?
This requires, first of all, an assumption to be made - thus forming a crude but fairly sound "proof from contradiction" that is similar, but distinct to the above. Let's assume that something can exist outside the universe and let's also assume it does affect us - a God, a ghost, the Flying Spaghetti Monster if you will. These beliefs are nothing if they can't somehow affect us. If a God, however supernatural "in person", affects the universe as we know it we should be able to detect its presence indirectly. Atoms in DNA being pushed around in strange ways, mountains growing, miraculous healing pretty much anything that is a blatant violation of physics that we know of would be potential evidence. And a blatant violation of physics is what it would have to be, if a God manipulated the world to make it look natural, what would be the point? Such observations haven't been made, so as a result we're looking very much that if some supreme being exists, it certainly doesn't push things around in this universe. People might cite "dark matter", "dark energy" as examples, but this sort of paradigm shift in cosmology merely redefines what we know of the rules physics run by, but, in principle observations that point towards outside influence by a god could be made ("dark flow" might have been a contender for a time, but it is looking less likely by the day). In principle, based on observations of changes that are not explained (notably this is different from "not explained yet") we can make a clear statement "this must be the work of a god". But then, does this god retain the title of "supernatural"? After all, we can detect it, it must be real, as described above with the example of ghosts being discovered as real. We must be able to manipulate these things that we detect, run experiments (however crude) and develop hypotheses, theories and make more discoveries. Even if (and we have to bend over backwards to accomodate this possibility) the god was genuinely outside and beyond reality, its effects on the universe most certainly won't be. If effects can be observed and tested they form part of reality, so at least indriectly, the existence of anything supposedly supernatural can be demonstrated. This certainly isn't a one way street; they must affect the world and therefore can be obsevered. Therefore if something affects the world, it must be real, so we have arrived at our contradiction - something that is supposedly beyond reality, yet it can be detected - it can be detected by its supposedly supernatural properties. If True Believers want to place their belief outside of reality and beyond science, in both practice and pricniple, then what they believe in must not, under any circumstances interact with reality in any way. And this is a pretty big problem for people who want to simultaneously believe that something is real and tangible, yet outside the realms of pitiful and closed minded science - you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak - because if something can't have an effect, it may as well not exist. Indeed, you're assuming more than you need to by saying it exists despite it being not observable . The hypothesized aether, for example, may or may not exist, but its effect on the world was predicted and tested and the test came out negative. To us, the aether doesn't exist because it produces no tangible effects on us, just as the unicorn standing in front of you right now doesn't exist because it doesn't produce observable results on you.
This isn't a disproof against the existence of gods, ghosts and phsyic powers, just a demonstration that they must be observable and testable by science (and perhaps that so far evidence points very much against their existence); if anything just an outright disproof of the NOMA principle. In the end, nothing will shake True Believers, indeed, they'll continue to use the idea of something beind "beyond science" as a defence pretty much forever. But rarely do any of them appreciate what such a statement really means, if they put it "outside reality" or "outside science" then they also very much put it outside existence and firmly inside their own imagination.
Debate Round No. 2


My apologies for the late response. I have been extremely busy. I will do my best to make this round short. Because I have not much time and many many errands.

Bottom line, my opponent has done exactly what I said he would. Extrapolated the definition of supernatural beyond its original scope.

Supernatual is that which APPEaRs to defy nature. This implies that whatever is claimed to be supernatural already has been detected. I suppose Con wants to argue that it has not been "tested", however that would conclude scientific knowledge. That doesnt mean what was supernatural no longer exists. Only that the word supernatual Does not properly explain it or define it anymore. Just because you change in your understanding, it doesnt make reality change as well. Though this is a common misconception of the atheist mind.

A good way to demonstrate my point would be to resurface the example my opponent ignored.

The bermuda triangle. Is it supernatural? Yes. Once we discover why it does what it does, will the bermuda triangle cease to exist? Certainly not!

Thus we can analogically conclude, that which has been claimed to be supernatural does exist, though we don not yet know what it is.


Through your arguments, i believe that you are trying to explain to me that the supernatural is a word that can be attributed to anything that is inexplicable.

The inexplicable, something that has not been explained, cannot be explained but yet can be described.

The Bermuda triangle is inexplicable, no-one has ever been in and out of their to say what happens there. People just make a belief that there is something magical about that place, instead of assuming that maybe it could just be a place with big waves.

When something is defined as supernatural it usually means that they are trying to explain something inexplicable.
Trying to Explain the Inexplicable with their own beliefs.
Beliefs with no proof no evidence, just beliefs that they use to explain the inexplicable.

The supernatural was made to help knowledge-thirsty human beings to satisfy themselves with "beliefs" that make up for the things they are not able to explain, understand or at least comprehend.

Atheists have no reason to believe in anything that has no explanation.
Atheists depend on science.
Science has been tested, conducted for many many years and has never proven any flaws, only a small lack of advancement.
Atheists use this, flawless, science (which has visual evidence of being correct to all of its other areas) to explain what believers of the supernatural think of being "supernatural".
The supernatural (or most of it) has no physical or visual evidence of its existence.
People make assumptions.
People make things supernatural.
They make things supernatural because they want there to be something else instead of relying on, trustworthy, science (which has visual and physical evidence).

`50;`50;`50;End Argument`50;`50;`50;

I also am in a busy period of my life, so i may lack the time to post such large arguments.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Con for your rebuttal.

However, Con's lack of an answer to my example of the Bermuda Triangle clearly demonstrates that Con is without answer and has no idea how to respond to the dumbfounding truth revealed in such plain sight. And if my opponent would take the course of "delusional denial" and insist that the Bermuda Triangle infact does not exist, I would recommend that he take a plane and fly over it to demonstrate his point.

No one is talking about Atheism or atheists. The discussion was about supernatural elements in general.

To finish my argument, i will ignore the atheistic mantras set forth of by my opponent such as "atheism relies on flawless science." (LoL) and instead continue to clarify my position.

Supernatural is defined as that which APPEARS to transcend natural laws. It does not mean that that which appears to transcend "KNOWN" natural laws..actually transcend natural laws. First one must know all natural laws, and exactly how the phenomenon took place to make any determination.

So, do we call "magic tricks" supernatual? Would have been the best argument my opponent could have set forth. This is a game of definitions. Why yes. In fact we do. If it is unknown how the trick is performed, then it is by definition categorized as a supernatural occurances. At least until the magic trick is known to be a trick.
When the magician reveals how he did it, yes yes , it no longer becomes supernatural. This far , the opponent has made an argument thus.

And I responded :
Does that mean the magic trick never happened?

I am in high hopes that the audience will have the logic to follow.

Certainly, just because we decide something is no longer defined by the WORD" supernatural" it doesnt make that something just....disappear. Does it?

Con also seems to think that if there is no "scientific" evidence for something, it most likely does not exist. This type of atheistic thinking is probably the most fallacious form of logic that anyone can commit. Con does not have scientific evidence George washington existed m, but believes that. He does not have scientific evidence Money exists, but worships that.

But as far as people making things "supernatural" through their perception...and therefore the supernatural doesnt exist or the supernatural is a man made concept is entirely a fallacy of equivocation.

When we say SOMETHING is supernatural, then discover that SOMETHING is not supernatural, that still there. Only, no longer defined as supernatural.

So in sum, even if we no longer needed fo define SOMETHINGS as super natural, certainly there are still many OTHER THINGs in the world, unifentified, that can be continuously thouhht of as supernatural. Such as the Bermuda Triangle.

The supernatural DOES exist, only people become confused with the term, and equate it with the term "imagination." can justifiably say that the supernatural and everything thought of to be supernatural...does not exist.


I see that Pro has somehow agreed with me on the point that "The supernatural is the incomprehensible".
I DID take a say on the Bermuda triangle in my previous argument.
Atheism IS of importance in this argument as God is seen as a supernatural being.

The supernatural is only what a person believes. If you do not believe in the supernatural, i will not exist for you. The supernatural will not have any impact on your life if you do not believe it is there. These happenings that people see as "supernatural" will cease to exist as they will find scientific evidence to help them understand these things.

"Con does not have scientific evidence George washington existed m, but believes that."

I, personally, do not believe that or care to believe that (JSYK)
People believe what they want to believe.
Skeptical people believe in things that have proof.
Credulous people believe in things that people say.

I do not need to believe in the far past, as it is most likely to not have an impact on my near future,
If I were to believe in this "George Washington" It would be of my own will and my own gullibility.

"He does not have scientific evidence Money exists, but worships that."

**You assumed i was a boy (i am a boy).**

Okay now to the rebuttal, i do not need "scientific evidence" to believe something exists.
If someone believes in something, it"s because they think it gives away enough proof for it o be believed in.
I think money has enough proof in its existence for me to believe in it.
You think the supernatural has enough proof and explanation to be believed in.
Belief is all about proof.
You believe in something that you think proves to be real, or real enough for you at least.

To finalize, i would like to thank @chipmonk for the privilege of this debate.

It was really fun debating with you and i would like to do it again!

I just checked out some of the other debates you are in and am interested in joining the "Rap battle" one.

Message me later and we will see about that.

****May the best argument win!!****
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BlessedPaim 2 years ago
Get it on camera or tape and i might actually forfeit ._:
Posted by chipmonk 2 years ago
@canis lol...
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Not if you got it on camera or tape..
No votes have been placed for this debate.