Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Does Supernatural Exist?

Viper-King
Posts: 4,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 12:16:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does the Supernatural exist? Many people have claimed to have supernatural experiences even saying they have felt a physical touch. Do you believe in the supernatural or not? Why? Also, what link does the supernatural have with the religions?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:23:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:16:29 AM, Viper-King wrote:
Does the Supernatural exist? Many people have claimed to have supernatural experiences even saying they have felt a physical touch. Do you believe in the supernatural or not? Why? Also, what link does the supernatural have with the religions?

As far as I'm concerned, if it exists it's not supernatural.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:30:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: My honest opinion which I think I could defend well. Firstly its a 'word' but the what its used to communicate, is someform of beyondness. I would argue its just there to counter Natural. Thus to set up conditions which Can't be falsified. Because Natural originally just come from nature, which comes from the essential properties of something. That is the necessary properities for something to be. Like a Red Cube. If I take a way a the Red, or the geometric shape. It not longer a Red Cube. A better example woud be a bachleor. IF I take away, male and or add married. This person is not longer and Bachlear. Because Being a Male, who has is not married are the essential properties of what a Bachlear is. Now Nature has not been consitent over time. It can refer to physcal sense preception. Or just everything, really. So super is just to set up a higher then natural. But its a totally disposible concept. So its used to Refer to mystism that which is higher then us and beyond natural comperhension. Which techacally is problamatic because we can't know about that which is beyond nature, when we are of nature. So Technacally its self defeating. Its a way to explain something without actually explaining anything at all. E.g. How do zombies get shot and still live? Answer its supernatural. aka I don't know
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:52:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I saw this thread in my news feed and thought it was about the show. I'm a bit disappointed.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:38:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 12:16:29 AM, Viper-King wrote:
Does the Supernatural exist? Many people have claimed to have supernatural experiences even saying they have felt a physical touch. Do you believe in the supernatural or not? Why? Also, what link does the supernatural have with the religions?

That's completely a matter of definition, first I think the word sipernatural is really an adjective, so it probably isn't grammatically correct to ask "Does supernatural exist?" You probably need to define some experience or event as supernatural and then ask if it really occurred or happened. When it's used as a noun it's sort of circular or self referential, it just refers to an experience or event of supernatural origin.

It is typically used to reference an extraordinary experience or event, something that isn't altogether logical or rational and is associated with forces we don't understand and cannot be explained by science as it is traditionally understood. But then consciousness is supernatural, Einstein is a supernatural being, and quantum physics tells us that matter, energy, time and space are supernatural, which doesn't leave anything in the category of natural, and so you don't really need the word supernatural.

It tends to be one of those utilitarian words that people use to make a circular argument when they don't really have a point. The problem is that most of the people who do throw the word around define it as not existing, and you can't really prove other wise because once you do they will then just say that whatever you were talking about isn't supernatural, it's natural. Circles don't have a point and so people from the land of pointless just love circular arguments.

I think you just need to rephrase the question so that it is more explicit.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:14:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Its an irrational word. No Eistien is not supernatual. If the only term we had was world. It would be super-world just to be able to make claims that are above others. Its also to hide things so they can't be cheched,,,, Its Fit. .... .for the PIT!!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:43:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, let's see...

Supernatural is defined as:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

If one were to take this interpretation, then anything unexplained by current science or natural law is "supernatural." That, of course, would include a new science that we're yet to discover. In other words, if one of us were to go back in time and whip out a laptop in the 1800's, then it would be considered supernatural, no matter how hard you tried to explain it to everyone.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

This, obviously, is contingent on your belief in God, rather than the supernatural in and of itself.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

This, I think, is the most common usage of the term, and is quite applicable to reality, obviously. I think it brings to light more of what the previous definitions are alluding to -- I mean, anything that humans can't understand or explain scientifically, but which exists, can easily be considered superlative, as can God.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

Here is what I believe everyone was referring to. I can't really say one way or another. I think, what this is suggestive of is the existence of something that doesn't fit the current rubric we've recognized in nature.

This is something I've touched on before. Nature seems to have a personality and a given morphology -- everything abides by a given structure and appearance. Insects and crustaceans seem to walk the fine line leading elsewhere. However, all other animals on earth seem to abide by this given structure quite neatly. You'll never find an animal with an odd number of legs, for example. Another example is that all fauna forms in halves. Flora forms invariably in spirals -- which is the same way that water is inclined to move when directed toward a single point much smaller than its whole.

So, if things were to deviate from this naturual arrangement, although conceivable, it could still be considered supernatural. Water flowing uphill, for example, or a dog born with three legs, the third growing out of the center of its chest.

In this regard, do I "believe" in the supernatural? Of course -- it very obviously exists. We're enamored by evidence of it on youtube all the time. Of course, the supernatural, with enough experience with it, eventually becomes natural. But, that doesn't mean it doens't have its time in the supernatural spotlight. This includes 9 foot tall men and 1 food tall men; animals born with multiple heads; and creating life from scratch.

To claim that the supernatural doesn't exist is almost to claim that we know and understand everything there is to know and understand, that everything will always abide by the rubric we've conceived, and nothing will ever change.

Neg.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:31:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 7:43:35 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, let's see...

Supernatural is defined as:

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

If one were to take this interpretation, then anything unexplained by current science or natural law is "supernatural." That, of course, would include a new science that we're yet to discover. In other words, if one of us were to go back in time and whip out a laptop in the 1800's, then it would be considered supernatural, no matter how hard you tried to explain it to everyone.

The Fool: you used the dictionary.. use your powers of reason. The Intellect. Well if it helps my answer are from the history of the development of the word and ideas. But goins back in time, which would be of supernatural power, would still only appear as super natural. To them only if you didn't explain anything. You would just be technologicaly advanced. That is anything we know how to do would not be supernatural.

2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

This, obviously, is contingent on your belief in God, rather than the supernatural in and of itself.

The Fool: well God would'nt have to special powers, if he wasn't. He would be Natural Breath air. Not very exciting.

3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

This, I think, is the most common usage of the term, and is quite applicable to reality, obviously.

The Fool: This is more of a metaphorical example.

think it brings to light more of what the previous definitions are alluding to -- I mean, anything that humans can't understand or explain scientifically, but which exists, can easily be considered superlative, as can God.

4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

Same. You see that fact that there is these many definition denote that the meaning of the word has been destablized or time. As in the langauge would be more rational to just have one meaning. Which it did but then people use the word incorrecly over time. And we end with it having 4 possible meanings.

Here is what I believe everyone was referring to. I can't really say one way or another. I think, what this is suggestive of is the existence of something that doesn't fit the current rubric we've recognized in nature.

This is something I've touched on before. Nature seems to have a personality and a given morphology -- everything abides by a given structure and appearance. Insects and crustaceans seem to walk the fine line leading elsewhere. However, all other animals on earth seem to abide by this given structure quite neatly. You'll never find an animal with an odd number of legs, for example. Another example is that all fauna forms in halves. Flora forms invariably in spirals -- which is the same way that water is inclined to move when directed toward a single point much smaller than its whole.

The Fool: you are a strange philosopher my friend. Non the less I would like to you your ideas on solving dream skepticism in the philosophy section. we can use your ideas and cooperation. I am really trying to get some positive things going on.

So, if things were to deviate from this naturual arrangement, although conceivable, it could still be considered supernatural. Water flowing uphill, for example, or a dog born with three legs, the third growing out of the center of its chest.

In this regard, do I "believe" in the supernatural? Of course -- it very obviously exists.

The Fool: I think the problem Ren is that superatural is just a name we give things when we can't understand something. I am sure there were many more things in the past that were considered supernatural of course untill we figure them out. To early ancients everything everything they didnt know was supernatural. The sea, the sun, air, magnets, rain, thunder, volcanoes. Expecially things that must on the thier. The word was a more scary place to them, because they never know what is going to happen.

We're enamored by evidence of it on youtube all the time.
The Fool: that is not evidence Ren. Use there critical thinking skill!! They are you FREEDOM. IF something was worth testing the scientist would be all over it trying to figure things out.

Of course, the supernatural, with enough experience with it, eventually becomes natural.

The Fool: you can also translate supernatural into mysticm. or I don't know and It wouldnt really change the meaning..

But, that doesn't mean it doens't have its time in the supernatural spotlight. This includes 9 foot tall men and 1 food tall men; animals born with multiple heads; and creating life from scratch.

The Fool: they are just rarities.

To claim that the supernatural doesn't exist is almost to claim that we know and understand everything there is to know and understand, that everything will always abide by the rubric we've conceived, and nothing will ever change.

The Fool: its not really existing thing out side the Mind. It should get the RAZOR. why?

Because if we don't know why something happens it appears supernatural.
But also if we don't know why something happens it apprears that we don't know that something happens. What I am getting at is that If I don't know cannot be demarcated from I do know with out mythology. They are one and the same. Not Knowledge. Aka supernatural=I don't know. We could know much more then we think. To say something is supernatural is to give up on trying to figure how things really work. Its a philosophic cope out. Its to give up the quest for knowledge. And I have a while before I do that. ANd that is straight from the hill!

Neg.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:39:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 10:31:28 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
To say something is supernatural is to give up on trying to figure how things really work. Its a philosophic cope out. Its to give up the quest for knowledge. And I have a while before I do that. ANd that is straight from the hill!

Hmmmm...

Given historical approaches to what's considered "supernatural," I only somewhat agree with that.

I do still assert that the supernatural is simply a deviation from what we consider "natural," which undoubtedly exists... but, on the other hand, to conclude that something is supernatural (rather than simply describing it as such) is indeed an error in reasoning. I can see how it may invite fallacious conclusions (for example, as support for otherwise groundless arguments, like a belief in "magic"), and in that regard, I can totally see your point, and agree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:43:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not only is there no empirical evidence, but the very concept hits a logical impass!

All things that occur in nature are natural. If an event occurs that our knowledge cannot justify, then our knowledge is incomplete. Nothing is supernatural.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault