Evidence and the Supernatural. (evolution, hell, faith, God, verse)

[fantôme profane]

This thread was inspired a conversation with FeverentGodSeeker in the Evidence for Evolution thread.

Merriam-Webster’s Online defines supernatural as:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

So it seems to me that the very concept of the supernatural defies evidence. By definition there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural. Of course I don’t want to be limited to this definitions, but I still feel that in order to discuss this we need a clear definition of what we are talking about. So now let me ask a bunch of questions

What does the term supernatural mean?

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

And the big question I think is this:

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What does the term supernatural mean?

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

And the big question I think is this:

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

I don't believe in the "supernatural". I think the word 'super' in this case means above, put with nature = above nature. Assuming that nature is all-encompassing, then nothing can be above it. And therefore, all evidence of the supernatural would just prove that it exists and a part of nature, not above it.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

This thread was inspired a conversation with FeverentGodSeeker in the Evidence for Evolution thread.

Merriam-Webster’s Online defines supernatural as:


So it seems to me that the very concept of the supernatural defies evidence. By definition there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural. Of course I don’t want to be limited to this definitions, but I still feel that in order to discuss this we need a clear definition of what we are talking about. So now let me ask a bunch of questions

What does the term supernatural mean?

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

And the big question I think is this:

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

This supernatural dilemma is about meaning IMO. Anything belonging to the supernatural category lacks by definition substantive correlates that could be defined as evidence. In order for something to be understood, "have meaning" it requires evidence. On the other hand, the mere fact of not being understood does not imply something is supernatural. Natural, not understood explanations might exist for it. Unless these can be ruled out, the idea of the supernatural is fundamentally flawed.

Oz

[cardero]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What does the term supernatural mean?

I do not believe the term should exist. I believe something is either Natural or UnNatural. Something that is described as supernatural is merely a magic trick that no one knows how it's performed or how it works. Once a magic trick is learned, it no longer becomes magic.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What does the term supernatural mean?

To me, the "supernatural" refers to an alleged "dimension" of existence, similar to Plato's ideal but where living being ("me") has an ideal counterpart in god.

Edit: by "being" I refer to what doppleganger calls the linguistic construct created by consciousness. That is "me."

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

The supernatural can affect no change on the natural (physical) world, so there can be no physical evidence; but it can affect change on us, in terms of our understanding of it and its meaningfulness for us, and we can in turn act on that to change the world. There is, however, deductive evidence for it in things about ourselves that must, necessarily, remain forver unknown, and which, by extension, may be present in other life-forms (more below).

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

Need? No. The supernatural is accepted on faith (being belief in things that cannot be known).

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

Not scientific, though certainly empirical. It is philosophical evidence. The "subjective experiential" world is created by constant repetitive testing by a conscious mind. Every moment of conscious existence keeps it alive and functioning (and it does function). But science must necessarily look at the world objectively to come to its conclusions, so this evidence is not something that is in the purview of science.

The reason that the supernatural is equated with the unknown is that that is represented in ourselves. When we consider a subjective perpsective --the view looking out from a conscious mind on the world around it, both inside and outside the head --then there is a centre point to that perspective that is unknown and unknowable to us, the subject, and from which springs all aspects of our personality.

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

And the big question I think is this:

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

It wouldn't; a lack of natural explanation is just that.

[michel]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

This thread was inspired a conversation with FeverentGodSeeker in the Evidence for Evolution thread.

Merriam-Webster’s Online defines supernatural as:


So it seems to me that the very concept of the supernatural defies evidence. By definition there can be no empirical evidence of the supernatural. Of course I don’t want to be limited to this definitions, but I still feel that in order to discuss this we need a clear definition of what we are talking about. So now let me ask a bunch of questions

What does the term supernatural mean?

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

And the big question I think is this:

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

An interesting topic, and questions.

You defined the supernatural (MW) as:- of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe .

Taken literally, that could be interpreted to mean outside our ability to sense - i.e a visible wavelength or frequency that we have no way (as of now) of tuning into..the same can go for the other senses - hearing, touch and smell.

I far prefer to think of the Supernatural as being a paradox.

To me, there is natural, and there cannot be any "above natural" - the only criterium for 'invisible' natural elements being that we have not yet managed to evince whatever it is.
As for your questions:-

Can there be evidence for the supernatural?

I believe I have evidence of the "Natural" (heard, and seen)

Does there need to be evidence for the supernatural?

I don't believe there does; the only need for evidence would be in an attempt to prove its existence to a non-believer. Why bother ?

And what kind of evidence are we talking about? Are we talking about empirical or scientific evidence? Or can we talk about subjective experiential evidence?

It is not unthinkable that science will, one day, find a way of constructing tuners which would be "tuning into" what are now totally unknown visible and audible spectrums......if that were achievable, then it would be scientifically provable.

Would the lack of a naturalistic explanation be considered valid evidence of the supernatural?

I don't believe that it has any bearing on it whatsoever.

[meogi]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

So it seems to me that the very concept of the supernatural defies evidence.

Or everything... as an old member said in a similar thread:

Originally Posted by Deut / Jay

... given the existence of the supernatural, there is absolutely no statement one can make with any degree of assurance.

And I agree.

[Kay]

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

Based on that definition, and only that definition, I'd say yes, the "supernatural" does exist. However, the word supernatural seems to carry too much baggage to serve as a useful term anymore.

When I hear the term supernatural, I'm thinking precisely of what the Webster's definition says - an order of existence beyond ours. However, I would describe it (this "supernatural order") as emmanating the visible universe. Or perhaps as the ground of being for the visible universe. So, in that sense, it's not "super" (above) the natural. It's part and parcel of this universe.

To put it in a nutshell, I'm thinking along the lines of the implicate/explicate order (ala David Bohm) or a holographic universe or perhaps a sort-of process ontology.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

This supernatural dilemma is about meaning IMO. Anything belonging to the supernatural category lacks by definition substantive correlates that could be defined as evidence. In order for something to be understood, "have meaning" it requires evidence. On the other hand, the mere fact of not being understood does not imply something is supernatural. Natural, not understood explanations might exist for it. Unless these can be ruled out, the idea of the supernatural is fundamentally flawed.

Oz

I agree with ozzy, and would like to add another twist. Is it necessary that our concept of "God" be based on the idea that God is "supernatural"? And if so, then haven't we rendered God unverifiable by insisting on defining God as "supernatural"?

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Neosnoia

Based on that definition, and only that definition, I'd say yes, the "supernatural" does exist. However, the word supernatural seems to carry too much baggage to serve as a useful term anymore.

When I hear the term supernatural, I'm thinking precisely of what the Webster's definition says - an order of existence beyond ours. However, I would describe it (this "supernatural order") as emmanating the visible universe. Or perhaps as the ground of being for the visible universe. So, in that sense, it's not "super" (above) the natural. It's part and parcel of this universe.

To put it in a nutshell, I'm thinking along the lines of the implicate/explicate order (ala David Bohm) or a holographic universe or perhaps a sort-of process ontology.

But then it wouldn't be "beyond" this natural universe, it would just be beyond our understanding of it. Aren't you contradicting your own definition? AND there should be evidence of it in this natural universe, as we are now assuming them to be interconnected. Yet we have none, or it's ALL evidence, and either way it's useless "evidence".

I don't know. I'm not sure we can have it both ways. Or perhaps we just can't grasp it both ways.