Studying the supernatural

I see, I did read you wrong (it looked like a second premise for some reason that I can't find upon rereading ).So now what?

Well, I don't have any strong objections to your stated viewpoints and I don't think they are significantly different from my own. As such I think what happens next is that we don't debate any further. There are possibly some minor differences, I suppose we could dig into finding those and argue minutiae - but I'm not sure I'm interested in that.

If you assume that the supernatural exists and then view scientific evidence as evidence of supernatural activity you will inevitably conclude that the supernatural exists. It's just quite obviously circular.Surely science has to start by assuming nothing and following wherever it is the evidence leads? Surely science takes the following sort of approach: Well with direct reference to the topic here - What things currently being studied at CERN, with telescopes etc. would constitute scientific evidence of the supernatural if found?What do you think evidence of the supernatural would look like?
And if we don't find it is that indicative of the absence of supernatural involvement at all in your view?

I agree it is a circular argument. However, it would depend on the nature of the evidence and one's personal understanding of the supernatural, whether it should have any credibility at all. A circular argument isn't necessarily wrong as the original assumption may actually be correct. It seems to me that science takes unproven subjective theories and tries to prove them. (For example string theory or the multi-verse.) The difference is of course that theories like string theory are likely falsifiable. It is easy enough to make myself look like an idiot around here without trying to give any suggestion that I have a clue as to what the bright lights at CERN are doing. That is really the big question. My own view of the supernatural is of a universe or of dimensions around us that we are unable to perceive, directly or indirectly with our 5 senses, and that in some way interact with the world as we know it. In addition within that there would be an active intelligence that also in some way interacts with our world.Therefore, I see any evidence that there is more to our existence than the 4 dimensional world of our experience would be an indication that there is at least more going on than just our perceived material world.I think the idea, as I understand it, from QM that in order from us to perceive or measure a particle in the present that the past has to be created in order to bring about the outcome in the present. I think this is a possible indication that there is more than one dimension of time. I know I'm out of my depth here so I'm quite open to correction.In the SA article when it talks about a hidden universe interwoven with our own I see that as a possible, and I emphasize possible, indication of what we might call a supernatural world. If we were to be able to detect and possibly learn about such a universe I suppose it would make the supernatural natural. No. I believe that we are the result of an original intelligence and that it is an open question as to whether or not we are able, using the scientific method, to detect that intelligence or a location, (I can't think of a better word), for that intelligence.The bottom line is, if we are going to have a discussion on studying the supernatural we have to have a picture of what we understand as being supernatural. I have done my best to give my understanding of it and I’d like to hear what your understanding would be.

I feel the same way.I think anyone who thinks the supernatural is perceivable should give us examples, or at least one example.The burning bush that God set afire but that wasn't consumed, was that supernatural? If so then it was definitely perceivable and should be amenable to scientific study. What should a scientist find were he and his laboratory transported back to Mt. Sinai in the time of Moses. Moses and God have just left, the bush is still burning. Will the scientist find a perfectly natural explanation, as have all phenomena explained by science so far? Will he find a supernatural explanation, the first in the history of science? Or will he just be unable to explain it, like all other not-yet-explained phenomena? If if it's this last possibility, how do we tell the difference between the supernatural on the one hand, and the natural that we haven't explained yet on the other?--Percy

In my opinion, its when what we do find contradicts what we know that raises the big red flag. The bush is burning, but its not being consumed; and that's fucked up. Something wacky is definately going on...But we still haven't established that its something supernatural, and I don't see how we could ever do that.

That's a pretty broad and vague suggestion, Percy. "The supernatural" is hardly a consistently defined set. I still think it's a poor label to use - the way the term is treated, one would think that verification of one phenomenon labelled as "supernatural" would similarly verify or at least give support to other, unrelated phenomenon whose sole point of commonality is that they are also labelled "supernatural." If "ghosts" are proven to exist, does that mean all variations on the broad class of phenomenon are also valid? Are ET or Bigfoot or God or fairies or elves more likely if just ghosts are shown to actually exist? What would a "supernatural explanation" look like?See, personally, I think a "supernatural explanation" looks an awful lot like a "natural explanation." An explanation brings a phenomenon out of the set of {not understood} and puts it in the set {at least somewhat understood}. Lightning was once considered a supernatural phenomenon - nobody had any idea how it worked, and myriad hypotheses involving spirits and elements and gods and so forth were invented in various cultures as potential explanations. The real explanation involves electromagnetism and differing charges between the atmosphere and the ground.Isn't that a "supernatural explanation?" It's a testable, working explanation for a phenomenon once considered "supernatural." So too have we explained volcanoes and tornadoes and earthquakes and the motion of the Sun and Moon and stars. Are those not all explanations of "supernatural" phenomenon? We didn't, after all, prove that these things don't exist, akin to proving "ghosts" don't exist. Instead, we tested the phenomenon through repeated observation (in many cases of phenomenon that, like "ghosts" and other "supernatural" phenomenon, occur seemingly at random and without cause to those not already privy to the real explanations).It seems curious to me that in every case where we actually explain a phenomenon (meaning describe the underlying mechanism in a way that can make testable, accurate predictions regarding the phenomenon), we stop labeling that phenomenon as supernatural.Why is that, I wonder?

I guess in some ways I view all of existence as being supernatural and that it only becomes natural when we gain an understanding of the processes that are being utilized. As far as coming to a conclusion about what is natural and what is supernatural is concerned I don't think that we can ever be sure unless we are able to discover a supernatural world influencing us and not declare it natural. I believe in a theistic, not a deistic god. If that is correct then this non-specific god, is a god that is on an ongoing basis involved with our natural world. In order for this to be true there has to some point of connection between the world of this god and the world that we are able to perceive.Science has been able to discern the effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces etc. They are examples of things that could have been seen as supernatural in the past. In the world of QM with particles dropping in and out of existence we have discovered a world that we consider natural now but still has supernatural overtones. Where do those particles go and where did they come from? (Once again if I have this stuff wrong I'm open to correction as I am the ultimate lay person on these issues.)As I said, if my theistic views are correct then there is a point of connection between god's world and our own. It seems to me quite probable that we might find strong evidence of a universe(s) or dimension(s) outside of our own that have a physical impact on our own. Through that we could possibly see that there is an intelligent pattern to the influences that we are able to discern. We might even find that all of this leads us to an understanding that the reality that we experience is actually the emergent property of a much greater reality.It seems to me that the most likely way this is going to happen is through the further study of QM but who knows. Even if your scientists had been able to examine the burning bush presumably all they would have been able to examine would be a burnt out bush. We know that it burned out eventually so presumably it only kept burning long enough for Moses to get the message and then it is just another burnt up bush. Actual supernatural events seem to be transitory and so again I suggest that what science would have to discover is the point of connection that makes a supernatural event possible.

I know that this is the 2nd reply to this post but I had just now sat down to start reading Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality", (a signed copy by the way as I heard him lecture at the local university ), and I came across the before I got two pages into Chap 1.

quote:

---

In the end labelling one realm or another parallel universe is merely a question of language. What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

​

A striking fact is that many of the major developments in fundamental theoretical physics - relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, computational physics - have led us to consider one or another variety of parallel universe. Indeed, the chapters that follow trace a narrative arc through nine variations on the narrative theme. Each envisions our universe as part of an unexpectedly larger whole, but the complexion of that whole and the nature of the member universes differ sharply among them. In some, the parallel universes are separated from us by enormous stretches of space and time, in others, they're hovering millimetres away; in others still, the very notion of their location proves parochial, devoid of meaning. A similar range of possibility is manifest in the laws governing the parallel universes. In some, the laws are the same as in ours; in others, they appear different but have a shared heritage; in others still, the laws are of a form and structure unlike anything we've ever encountered. It's at once humbling and stirring to imagine just how expansive reality may be.

---

It seems to me that a parallel universe, if it in some way interacts with our own, would qualify as being supernatural. Presumably it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that there could exist intelligent life in some form in that universe which would take the supernatural aspect of it to another level.I think that this is a possible answer to your question Percy.

Wouldn't parallel universes have to be considered conceivable, rather than perceivable?And if they should exist, so that our universe and some other are part of a larger multiverse, wouldn't it all still be natural?It seems to me our common notion of the supernatural involves some power or entity impacting our world by some means other than material causality. Even if parallel universes operate under different natural laws, surely they would be consistent with the matter and energy states of that universe.While we might find those laws bizarre, we will probably never find them at all other than through the inferences of physics or mathematics. If they cannot impinge on our universe, they don't satisfy our most basic concept of the supernatural.

I don't think we can know the answer. If parallel universes exist then we might find ways of perceiving them that we wouldn't know about now. My understanding of a particle is that it is essentially dimensionless but still with particle accelerators we are able to study them. Who knows what the future might bring. That's the question I brought up earlier. It depends on our definition of supernatural. If it is something that we are unable to perceive with our 5 senses no matter how enhanced then I think it would be considered supernatural. I'll repeat a part of the quote from Greene's book.

quote:

---

What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

---

I agree that this could very well be consistent with what your statement. Just the same though, if we are a part of a much greater reality it certainly leaves room in that for a supernatural intelligence. If that intelligence does exist we might be able to investigate how it interacts with our 4 dimensional world at the point in which our universes interact.Who knows. When we talk about studying the supernatural it is obviously going to require speculation.I agree with the math and physics part but who is to say whether or not that through math and physics we may very well determine that they do impinge on our universe and conceivably we might even find that there is external intelligence involved.

Rahvin, do you think there is anything SN that can be the cause of things explained? Or once explained (if it can be explained) it puts the SN to rest? That's kind of what i've been arguing. Are you are wondering why there can't still be a SN cause to it even after it is explained?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

My apologies for my Message 110 as Percy. I assume I failed to notice I was in this thread. I won't be able to reply to the several responses.I would like to frame the debate a bit. Science is the study of the natural world, and so for science the supernatural does not exist, but how does one structure discussions with those who claim we should study the supernatural? I think that's what this thread is trying to address.But it does seem to me that how creationists define the supernatural is what's most important.

Content hidden because of similarity to discussions in other threads. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

RAZD, sorry, but I'm not going to allow anything that even hints at the type of discussion going on over at Scientific Knowledge.