Determining supernatural
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 11:05 AM)One Above All Wrote:  The supernatural is not merely unexplained; it's unexplainable. In fact, as you said, it goes against the laws of nature. Decomposing bodies suddenly being restored and the people they used to be brought back to life...

I know how to make a zombi. Angel

A ZOMBI is a "spirit of a dead person"

In Haiti, a zombi is someone who has annoyed his or her family so much that they can no longer stand to live with them (we all have one in the family)

A Bokor, a vodoun/black magic priest, is hired to
turn them into a zombi

The Bokor uses a magic powder which appears to cause the victim to die

The victim is buried & a few days later exhumed

Though still living, they remain under the Bokor's power until the Bokor dies

Recipe:
The main ingredients in the recipe for poudre zombi (Zombi Powder) are: porcupinefish & puffers (Tetrodotoxin)

Tetrodotoxin poisoning symptons are:
Tingling about the lips and tongue
Loss of motor control within 10-45 minutes
Excessive salivation
Extreme weakness
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain
Twitching of the muscles
Paralysis
Difficulty in swallowing & loss of voice
Convulsions &
Death by respiratory paralysis may ensue

We just gave a presentation on puffers and found all this stuff out!

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 12:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Hmm, where do you fit random events? Are there no random events? Are they not really random but following undiscovered natural laws? Or is it our overpowering need to establish patterns that excludes the random?

You're conflating "natural laws" with "deterministic laws". Random events still follow certain laws. The decay of an unstable particle, for example, is a probabilistic event, but still follows the laws of particle decay. You can't get three particles from the decay of one particle, the average life expectancy is constant, and so on and so forth.

(15-03-2015 12:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Again, you would have said quantum mechanics is impossible. A lot of what is possible today would have been thought impossible one time.

Absolutely correct on both points. Our lack of knowledge doesn't make the supernatural possible.

(15-03-2015 12:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm not using any god of the gaps fallacy here. I'm not saying we don't know therefore gawd. What I'm saying is, we as a society have thought things were impossible only to later find out they were possible. So, how do we know the things we haven't explained aren't unexplainable but obviously not impossible and then supernatural?

How do we know the things we have explained are true, rather than a supernatural entity fucking with us? We don't. I fail to see your point, if it's not "god of the gaps" (or "supernatural of the gaps" in this case). This just seems like an irrelevant question.

(15-03-2015 12:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Would there ever be an unexplainable phenomenon that belongs in supernatural

Yes. Impossible things, like the stars aligning to convey a message- You know, I think I've said this before.

(15-03-2015 12:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  and who would make that call in science?

Likely people who already believe in the supernatural. Their claims would be dismissed as biased, and they'd be right anyhow. The scientific method isn't perfect.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 12:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 11:27 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Here's a fun fact about the universe: the universe is natural. Everything that happens within it must follow certain laws.

Hmm, where do you fit random events? Are there no random events? Are they not really random but following undiscovered natural laws? Or is it our overpowering need to establish patterns that excludes the random?

Radioactive decay of a nucleus is random. Quantum events are random.

They are probabilistic and statistically predictable, but the individual events appear to be random. That appears to be natural law.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-03-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
The point is we will never think of anything as supernatural ever because we will always put it in two categories: unexplainable or natural, and that's not exactly correct. The opposite of natural is supernatural, yet we don't have that as a column anymore. According to you, Above, it's unexplainable. So, with that mind-set, would even stars aligning with a message be supernatural or unexplainable?

That little baby girl didn't say "Help me." Yet three people swear they heard it. As logical, rational people we will say they were mistaken, in cahoots, the wind whistled or the baby was crying in a way that sounded like that, etc. But, if we don't ever explain it, duplicate it or debunk it, it will go in the unexplainable column. But when all of those avenues are explored, how do we know it wasn't supernatural? We don't, but we won't ever believe it was because we've never experienced it ourselves or because everything else has had an explanation before.

Just interesting to me that we can't have that supernatural column anymore. And don't always equate impossible with supernatural, and don't always equate god with supernatural.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 12:57 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2015 01:00 PM by One Above All.)
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 12:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  That little baby girl didn't say "Help me." Yet three people swear they heard it. As logical, rational people we will say they were mistaken, in cahoots, the wind whistled or the baby was crying in a way that sounded like that, etc. But, if we don't ever explain it, duplicate it or debunk it, it will go in the unexplainable column. But when all of those avenues are explored, how do we know it wasn't supernatural? We don't, but we won't ever believe it was because we've never experienced it ourselves or because everything else has had an explanation before.

Supernatural of the gaps again. That or irrelevant statements. Or a third option you still haven't explained.

(15-03-2015 12:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  And don't always equate impossible with supernatural

Define "supernatural" in a way that doesn't fit the three types of definition I described earlier then. At the very least, I'll know for certain what I'm arguing against, though I suspect it won't keep someone from arguing for the same definition, then claim it wasn't really the definition they hold to be true when it's proven false and/or irrelevant.

(15-03-2015 12:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  and don't always equate god with supernatural.

Never do. Not sure where you got that from, but I suspect it was from miscommunication due to my use of the phrase "god of the gaps".

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
I'm not claiming anything is supernatural here, what I'm saying is we would refuse to recognize it even if it were truly supernatural, whatever definition you want to give it.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 01:06 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  I'm not claiming anything is supernatural here, what I'm saying is we would refuse to recognize it even if it were truly supernatural, whatever definition you want to give it.

Define "supernatural", and I (and others) will be able to tell you with some degree of certainty whether or not we would recognize it. Until then, your comments on the subject are irrelevant, because you refuse to define what it is you're talking about. I used my definition (the most common definition), and you disagreed with it. Time to put up.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
The only definition you gave for supernatural is "impossible." Some definition. I think I've been pretty clear with my point. I gave my definition in the very first post. I know what it means. I wasn't in support of supernatural occurrences here, quite the contrary.

Again, not saying there's a god or afterlife obviously, just saying why does unexplainable get a pass on being called supernatural? Quantum mechanics would have been called supernatural at one point, now it's natural. You would have called it impossible, now it's possible. If supernatural is "impossible" now, could it be possible and hence natural later? Just like quantum mechanics?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 03:05 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  The only definition you gave for supernatural is "impossible." Some definition. I think I've been pretty clear with my point. I gave my definition in the very first post. I know what it means. I wasn't in support of supernatural occurrences here, quite the contrary.

Again, not saying there's a god or afterlife obviously, just saying why does unexplainable get a pass on being called supernatural? Quantum mechanics would have been called supernatural at one point, now it's natural. You would have called it impossible, now it's possible. If supernatural is "impossible" now, could it be possible and hence natural later? Just like quantum mechanics?

Yabut, we have good explanations for some things, partial explanations for others, and for some we lack any explanation.

Do you mean "unexplainable" to refer to things for which we currently have no explanation or to things that we will never be able to explain?

If the former, it's not the best word choice; if the latter, give an example. And prove it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Determining supernatural
(15-03-2015 03:05 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  The only definition you gave for supernatural is "impossible." Some definition. I think I've been pretty clear with my point. I gave my definition in the very first post.

My definition is the same as yours - something that breaks the laws of physics. I simply made the obvious connection. Incidentally, I answered your question, IMO. The supernatural will never be a possible explanation for anything because the supernatural, by definition, is impossible. If it happens, it's no longer impossible.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: