Does 'supernatural' mean 'imaginary'?

[DavidFirth]

And, as usual, with no reasoned reply.

God bless you, sir.

 

[blü 2]

God bless you, sir.

And as the old street-cries song has it, God almighty bless thy wits!

 

[Grandliseur]

In the Garden story it makes no sense for Yahweh to say, 'You'll die at some time in the next 7000 years.'

Very true. If, however, you notice that Adam lived 930 years, and that God wanted them to fill the earth with their offspring, it makes little sense for God to kill Adam right off. That would make it awful difficult for the two to have children.
As I said, the walking dead. From the moment they sinned, they were already dead in the eyes of God. There was no way for them to avoid growing old now and dying. That this then corresponds nicely with the Psalms 1000 year to a day for diving time measuring, is not at all wrong scripturally speaking.

In the NT there is a much misunderstood scripture, it speaks of us preaching to the dead. With the Biblical understanding of the dead as in not being, this then has a clear interpretation - namely, that we preach to those who are dead in the eyes of God, i.e. if they don't accept the ransom of Christ.
------------
The only reason this is being explained - is to give you are reason that is actually simple for why fallen angels try to make us believe that there are dead humans, ghosts, spirits - who at times interact with people.

If you don't accept the explanation is up to you; however, the evidence of ghost like events, and whatnot, is abundant.
Even I myself can state that I have encountered irrefutable evidence for myself, having had about 3 experiences with such phenomena, one time was actually witnessed by about more than 10 people when it happened. Of course, atheists do not in general accept such testimony.

 

[Grandliseur]

Honestly, I've seen better and more convincing, things that looked less staged and less possibly something else (like the second one, which could have easily been on a cruise ship that a large enough wave slammed into).

That is interesting that you have to give it such an explanation. I wonder what other strange explanations come for the other events in that video. I am sure that other more interesting videos are around. I do not seem them out; in my belief system, it would be an invitation to the demons, fallen angels, that kind of would say, I want to know you, be friends, and that I do not want. I only try to show that there are things out there that exceed the atheist paradigm.

 

[blü 2]

Very true. If, however, you notice that Adam lived 930 years, and that God wanted them to fill the earth with their offspring, it makes little sense for God to kill Adam right off. That would make it awful difficult for the two to have children.

That's not a consideration mentioned anywhere in the story.

As I said, the walking dead. From the moment they sinned, they were already dead in the eyes of God.

There was no sin in the Garden. There was no disobedience. There was no fall of man, no death entering the world, no original sin. Nothing of the kind is mentioned anywhere in the text. The text is discussed >here<.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I only try to show that there are things out there that exceed the atheist paradigm.

The reason such things fail, and should be considered to automatically fail, is the numerous short comings of both analog and digital recording devices. Such as in the video you posted, its first clip I would assume shows a ghosted image, which can happen to pretty much any sort of video device if a particular image is present long enough to burn it into the screen, tape, or whatever. Such as, we an safely assume the hotel room has maids in it probably daily, something that will be on that spot on the camera time and time again, day after day after day. With older and especially projection TVs, this is called "ghosting." With analog recording devices (this should be apparent to those who remember VHS tapes), there is also a chance that things previously recorded will show up over recently recorded content, especially the more times new footage is recorded over older footage.
And, do remember, even many "hardened" theists are extremely skeptical of such things as evidence of paranormal/supernatural activity because with anyone given method there are at least a few reasons what you see/hear is actually faulty equipment or background/environment interference.

 

[Sunstone]

I pointed out that reality, nature, the place external to our sense of self, the place where things have objective existence, the realm of the physical sciences, provides us with the definition of 'real'.

And that if a thing isn't real, it's imaginary (or non-existent).

Hence the idea that something is outside of nature, outside of reality, whether above, below or to the right, is the idea that something is imaginary.

Thank you for such an interesting response!

I think your argument can be laid out much more explicitly as:

1) There is an objective reality external to ourselves.
2) That reality is knowable through the sciences.
3) It is the only reality that is knowable through the sciences.
4) Hence it is the only reality that is (i.e. that exists).
5) The supernatural cannot be known through the sciences
6) Hence, the supernatural cannot be real.
7) Anything that is not real is imaginary
Conclusion: Therefore the supernatural is imaginary.​

Assuming that's a fair spelling out of your argument, do you think you have adequately supported all of your premises?

Not interested in debate, just curious.

 

[blü 2]

I think your argument can be laid out much more explicitly as:

1) There is an objective reality external to ourselves.
2) That reality is knowable through the sciences.
3) It is the only reality that is knowable through the sciences.
4) Hence it is the only reality that is (i.e. that exists).
5) The supernatural cannot be known through the sciences
6) Hence, the supernatural cannot be real.
7) Anything that is not real is imaginary
Conclusion: Therefore the supernatural is imaginary.​

Thanks for this. Let me see what I can do with it.

1. A world exists external to the self, which is objective reality ('reality').
2. All things with objective existence exist in reality (are 'real').
   
3. Our senses are capable of informing us of reality.
4. All of our information about reality is based on the information we receive through our senses.
   
5. Reason is a valid tool.
6. Far the most reasoned, accurate and objective form of enquiry into reality that we know of is scientific method.
7. The physical sciences ('science') explore, describe and set out to explain reality using scientific method.
   
8. The conclusions of science are derived by empiricism and induction and are always tentative, hence are not absolute statements
9. They are nonetheless the most fully reasoned, accurate and objective statements about reality that we have at any given time.
10. Whether any particular thing is real is a question for science.
    
11. A purported thing that is not real may exist in the imagination of an individual (ie may exist in a brain as a concept of something with no counterpart in reality.)
12. The concept of the supernatural is the concept of things 'outside' of reality ie not in reality, hence is the concept of imaginary things.

That may not pass the parsimony test, but it's the general idea.

 

[Grandliseur]

The reason such things fail, and should be considered to automatically fail, is the numerous short comings of both analog and digital recording devices. Such as in the video you posted, its first clip I would assume shows a ghosted image, which can happen to pretty much any sort of video device if a particular image is present long enough to burn it into the screen, tape, or whatever. Such as, we an safely assume the hotel room has maids in it probably daily, something that will be on that spot on the camera time and time again, day after day after day. With older and especially projection TVs, this is called "ghosting." With analog recording devices (this should be apparent to those who remember VHS tapes), there is also a chance that things previously recorded will show up over recently recorded content, especially the more times new footage is recorded over older footage.
And, do remember, even many "hardened" theists are extremely skeptical of such things as evidence of paranormal/supernatural activity because with anyone given method there are at least a few reasons what you see/hear is actually faulty equipment or background/environment interference.

Atheism is a religiously closed mindset wherein all things not agreeing with the accepted paradigm is automatically brushed aside. That is all there is to it. In that video, the store manager who saw her / his (I forget) own recording of the object that floated in the air for a moment, didn't believe her own device because of her belief system.

That is how things work, be it atheist or believer. Flat-earth believers are good examples of this blinding to facts, reality that takes place. As I said, perhaps to you, I have personally witnessed one event that was co-witnessed by a large group of people. Naturally, my claim is easily dismissed as is done without delay; however, some of the cams have material that cannot be so easily dismissed, yet it is being dismissed.

Not my problem. If people want to delude themselves, fine with me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Atheism is a religiously closed mindset wherein all things not agreeing with the accepted paradigm is automatically brushed aside.

I'm not an atheist, yet you keep bringing it up.

Naturally, my claim is easily dismissed as is done without delay; however, some of the cams have material that cannot be so easily dismissed, yet it is being dismissed.

That link you provided is easily dismissed. The only one I'd have a problem explaining would be the second one, but I've seen a few videos of cruise ships being hit by large waves, and when that happens stuff gets thrown around exactly like it does in the second video. Ultimately, I could build a room, a room that runs on nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and have people fully convinced the room is haunted and demonically controlled. That doesn't mean it actually is, and if I add the convenience of photography (video or still) then I could exponentially up the ante on the accounts and videos that show this "haunting."
And it really has nothing to do with atheism. Even when I was a neo-Pagan and did believe in such things, I was still then extremely-highly critical of such things, and debunked a number of "hauntings." My favorite was a room where human hairs allegedly appeared in the walls, but when I investigated I determined those were not human hairs (way too coarse), but rather horse hairs from the brush that did the spackle texturing on the wall.
Or I suppose my favorite is the a certain spot at a nearby state park, where I didn't set out to debunk but to play along with, and had a group of late teen/early 20s boys and a guy in his late 30s terrified of absolutely nothing but their own imaginations.
Actual hauntings? I've never seen evidence of such a thing.

 

[Nous]

What are the laws of nature? List them.

Let me see: we observe consistencies of behavior in aspects of the material universe and by observation we express those consistencies as well-founded formulae of general application, called 'laws'. Or something like that. (Though like all conclusions of physics, they're empirical / inductive and hence tentative, so my own preference would be to call them something less emphatic than laws ─ maybe 'rules'.)

As for the particular instances, I leave you to list them for yourself.

In the OP, you said that (paraphrasing your dictionary), "(the) supernatural’ means ‘things that cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature." Accordingly, in order to determine what (if anything) is "supernatural," we need to know what "things . . . cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature." Right?

What law of nature explains the ability of humans to, first, say that they will pay their landlord a certain amount of money by a certain date of each month for the next year, then actually do exact what they said they would do?

And assuming that "the laws of nature" explain "things" that happen, what explains the existence of the laws of nature? For instance, many people have said that the conservation of energy is a fundamental law of nature--e.g., Richard Feynman: The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch. 4: Conservation of Energy There doesn't seem to be a law of nature (if we don't consider Noether's theorem a "law of nature") that explains the existence of the law of conservation of energy. Thus, according to your definition of "supernatural," the existence of the law of conservation of energy is supernatural.

 

[blü 2]

In the OP, you said that (paraphrasing your dictionary), "(the) supernatural’ means ‘things that cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature." Accordingly, in order to determine what (if anything) is "supernatural," we need to know what "things . . . cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature." Right?

Yup.

What law of nature explains the ability of humans to, first, say that they will pay their landlord a certain amount of money by a certain date of each month for the next year, then actually do exact what they said they would do?

Are you saying that physics doesn't explain all things about the natural world, and thus that definition of 'supernatural' unintentionally includes some natural things?

Or are you saying that transactions between humans are not deterministic (nor deterministic with quantum randomness)? Since my answer to your question simpliciter would be that they are just that.

And assuming that "the laws of nature" explain "things" that happen, what explains the existence of the laws of nature?
[...]Thus, according to your definition of "supernatural," the existence of the law of conservation of energy is supernatural.

First, we don't know the origin of the laws of nature.

Second, a non-supernatural hypothesis to account for that origin might be to say that our universe is formed from energy (I'm reminded of Anaximander's apeiron) and that the laws of nature are properties of energy in the circumstances of our universe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who says it 'transcends natural processes'?

I've never seen that proposition anywhere in the science from modern brain research. Rather, I've seen the descriptions of neuron connection, the mapping of brain functions and their interactions, our understanding of the brain's workings as a totality, getting into finer and finer detail ─ albeit there's a lot more to do.
We could only say that if we presently knew everything that natural laws are capable of. But of course we don't or we would no longer need research.

Semantics aside, when we ask if something is natural or man made, we understand the distinction.

And that distinction comes down to creativity, the ability to create according to an anticipated future result, or purpose a phenomena that can only exist in a creative consciousness, which is what gives it its unparalleled power of explanation.

in other words, arguably, creative intelligence is the ONLY way ANYTHING can ever be truly created, as opposed to being a natural/predetermined consequence of natural cause and effect,.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I address this with my favorite hypothesis: that the existence of Everything is due to the existence of energy; and that spacetime is a property of energy so that spacetime exists because energy does, not vice versa. Hence the laws of nature would be properties of energy in the particular circumstances of our universe.

I can't demonstrate its correctness, of course, but I don't know of anything that rules it out and it solves a lot of problems.

I take your point, though It's essentially yet another static, eternal model is it not?. Everything needed to explain reality 'just is and always was'. No creation = no creator.

But we know there was a lot more than just energy, that energy was organized by a vast array of universal constants, math, algorithms. Like everything it boils down to information, and how genuinely novel information systems can be generated.

There is only one proven method we know of

 

[Grandliseur]

I'm not an atheist, yet you keep bringing it up.

Sorry, guess I need to ask you then.
But, you are right, there is way to much effort going into making false claims, videos, etc.

Personally, I have had 3 encounters, one witnessed by a group of people in excess of 10. In that way I have personal experience with fallen angels, not ghosts, though that is probably what many would label it.

 

[blü 2]

when we ask if something is natural or man made, we understand the distinction. And that distinction comes down to creativity, the ability to create according to an anticipated future result, or purpose a phenomena that can only exist in a creative consciousness, which is what gives it its unparalleled power of explanation.

A creative consciousness that's completely biochemical in its nature. hence deterministic with the possibility of the odd quantum randomness.

Meanwhile you have no other description of how it works, except to say it works by magic. But unless you can explain to us how the operations of magic work, that's no explanation at all.

 

[blü 2]

I take your point, though It's essentially yet another static, eternal model is it not?. Everything needed to explain reality 'just is and always was'. No creation = no creator.

Yes, if the priority of energy were shown to be the case, this would be one of its great strengths.

But we know there was a lot more than just energy, that energy was organized by a vast array of universal constants, math, algorithms.

Your argument for an Intelligent Designer just leads to an infinite regression. If the universe needs an ID to get its properties, then the ID must have needed its own ID2 to get its own properties, and ID2 needed ID3 &c and the source of the properties is infinitely deferred.

So I see no necessity for a designer. The universe is as it is, and we set out to explore, describe and explain it. One of the errors we should avoid is retrofitting emotional and cultural artifacts like gods onto what we observe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A creative consciousness that's completely biochemical in its nature. hence deterministic with the possibility of the odd quantum randomness.

Meanwhile you have no other description of how it works, except to say it works by magic. But unless you can explain to us how the operations of magic work, that's no explanation at all.

We just don't know that, these devices we are typing these posts on are entirely physical in nature, we can examine the hardware and watch the electrical impulses just as in the brain, representing information of different types being communicated within.

Yet they are useless without an external source of creative input, certainly the concept of a shared cloud of intelligence being remotely, invisibly, instantaneously shared by billions... used to be considered magic!

And again that's all entirely beside the point, if you want to describe creative intelligence itself as ultimately natural, the same definition may apply to whatever creative intelligence created our universe. But we still acknowledge the distinction between the natural v creative origin of an object, we recognize the distinctly different capabilities of the two

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, if the priority of energy were shown to be the case, this would be one of its great strengths.

Your argument for an Intelligent Designer just leads to an infinite regression. If the universe needs an ID to get its properties, then the ID must have needed its own ID2 to get its own properties, and ID2 needed ID3 &c and the source of the properties is infinitely deferred.

So I see no necessity for a designer. The universe is as it is, and we set out to explore, describe and explain it. One of the errors we should avoid is retrofitting emotional and cultural artifacts like gods onto what we observe.

The first cause paradox applies to any explanation 'Where did THAT come from?' right? so it's a wash, not only that, it's a moot point:

Because here we are, either way there is obviously a solution.

What's NOT equal is the creative capacity of creative intelligence v naturalistic spontaneous mechanism to create everything we see around us

To exclude the former, is to assert that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by.... those very same laws... This is a paradox unique to atheism/ naturalism- and one which can be solved by merely lifting the restriction on creative forces- the only phenomena we know of which can unambiguously create truly novel information systems, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of pre-determined naturalistic cause and effect.

 

[blü 2]

these devices we are typing these posts on [...] are useless without an external source of creative input

These devices, astonishingly good as they are, are not where AI is being explored.

I assume you're familiar with Watson winning Jeopardy? Short version here, much more informative long version here. And that was 2011. A great deal more has happened in the intervening six years. The time is approaching when you'll visit your doctor and she'll put your hand on the machine and chat about the Marlins while it quietly blinks then tells her all about you, having been able to check the data-bases of the world for the latest in medicine. Then a few years later you'll go to your doctor and she'll have ten machines and there'll be nine fewer doctors in your area. (Or more likely it'll all be done by whatever has then replaced the net, and she'll be managing a center.)

Similar things will happen in the law, in architecture. in engineering.

As for the Arts, I found this while googling. And of course if you google 'artificial intelligence creativity' you'll find much more.

I suspect many nations would happily elect a machine that made its decisions on the data, not the politics, in pursuit of clearly stated aims, not of waffle, was compassionate and just and economically very sharp, consulted widely and accessed all available data effortlessly, In time there'll be such machines.

Homo sap constructus is on the horizon too. It'll be the variety of human who settles the ocean floor, the deepest mines, other planets, the stars, the universe. Roy Batty built large. (I refrain from contemplating weapon potential at this point.)