Is "supernatural" a useful word?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2016, 01:33 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If God and/or the Supernatural exists and have an influence on our world then we should observe effects which do not have local causes. We have looked and have found that some effects do not have local causes. This suggests that God and/or the Supernatural exists.
I think you assume too much.
Scientists don't know everything about material reality.
You cannot simply point to something and say, well scientists don't know what the cause it, therefore it must be god or supernatural.

Also the idea that everything has a cause is not set in stone. There is no reason to think it is.

For you to propose that god or supernatural can affect reality you need to find a precedent where they have been proven to be able to do this. If there is no precedent then you don't have a leg to stand on. You are special pleading.

You are claiming that natural cannot cause quantum fluctuation but god can.
You do not know that natural cannot cause, you do not know that god can cause, you don't even know if a cause is required. Just because we know a pool ball will not move unless a force (gravitational, electro magnetic, nuclear strong or weak) acts upon it. That does not mean that we can say that the ball can move because something supernatural caused it to. You are riding on the coat tails of what we know and assuming your supernatural things can move the ball, but we have no precedent of a supernatural cause for moving a pool ball. If the ball moves we rightly assume that there was a gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear force in play, we do not even consider a supernatural force because there are only four known forces.
If you want to add supernatural force, you need to put a lot of effort into proving this claim of yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-08-2016, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2016 02:00 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:33 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If God and/or the Supernatural exists and have an influence on our world then we should observe effects which do not have local causes. We have looked and have found that some effects do not have local causes. This suggests that God and/or the Supernatural exists.
I think you assume too much.
Scientists don't know everything about material reality.
You cannot simply point to something and say, well scientists don't know what the cause it, therefore it must be god or supernatural.

I am not pointing to anything and saying, "We don't know what caused this...therefore God". I am claiming that if causality is true(and I believe it to be true) and quantum mechanics is true(and I believe it to be true) and Bells theorem is true(and I believe it to be true), then there exists some effects which do not have local causes. The existence of effects which do not have local causes is exactly what you would expect to see if God and/or the Supernatural exist.

God of the gaps would be claiming a particular effects cause is unknown and therefore it must be God. I don't even know what effects do not have a local causes, I just know that the science concludes the world must contain some effects which do not have local causes. Again, effects without local causes is exactly what one would expect to see if God and/or the supernatural exist and interact with this world.



(19-08-2016 01:33 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Also the idea that everything has a cause is not set in stone. There is no reason to think it is.

I assume that every effect has a cause. I find the notion of an effect without a cause to be ridiculous. I see no good reason to change my position here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 04:05 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am claiming that if causality is true(and I believe it to be true) and quantum mechanics is true(and I believe it to be true) and Bells theorem is true(and I believe it to be true), then there exists some effects which do not have local causes.
But you don't know this.
Just because scientists don't know what causes a quantum fluctuation it doesn't mean that there isn't a local cause.


(19-08-2016 01:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The existence of effects which do not have local causes is exactly what you would expect to see if God and/or the Supernatural exist.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that an intelligent entity would be expected to create millions of seemingly random quantum fluctuations. Why on earth would it do that? Seems pointless don't you think? Seems more like an autonomous phenomenon rather than an intelligent activity.

(19-08-2016 01:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  God of the gaps would be claiming a particular effects cause is unknown and therefore it must be God.
This is exactly what you are doing

(19-08-2016 01:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't even know what effects do not have a local causes, I just know that the science concludes the world must contain some effects which do not have local causes.
Are you able to point to a science reference here. Non local causes "supernatural" causes? What "science" books have you been reading?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
So in addition to a very unconventional definition of the word "supernatural", I'm also expected to swallow the idea that Heywood understands the quantum?

..... I'm out. Have fun, people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
19-08-2016, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2016 11:44 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 04:05 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 01:55 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am claiming that if causality is true(and I believe it to be true) and quantum mechanics is true(and I believe it to be true) and Bells theorem is true(and I believe it to be true), then there exists some effects which do not have local causes.
But you don't know this.
Just because scientists don't know what causes a quantum fluctuation it doesn't mean that there isn't a local cause.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with Bell's Theorem because your criticism here makes no sense.

In its simplest form Bell's Theorem states:

Quote:No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

This means in a quantum mechanical world(which ours seems to be), some effects are not going to have local causes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 11:43 AM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 07:20 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So in addition to a very unconventional definition of the word "supernatural", I'm also expected to swallow the idea that Heywood understands the quantum?

..... I'm out. Have fun, people.

The dictionary definition of Supernatural is "1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:" Which is just another way of saying the cause is non local.

The way I have defined "supernatural", an effect that lacks a local cause, is perfectly reasonable.

You are leaving because you have nothing to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 01:05 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 11:43 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The way I have defined "supernatural", an effect that lacks a local cause, is perfectly reasonable.
No, your definition is not reasonable. You are trying to say a magical god personality without substance affects our reality by the will of its mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2016 11:43 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The way I have defined "supernatural", an effect that lacks a local cause, is perfectly reasonable.
No, your definition is not reasonable. You are trying to say a magical god personality without substance affects our reality by the will of its mind.

You say my definition is unreasonable but then instead of criticizing it, you criticize the conclusion of my argument.

And I do not know how God and/or the Supernatural operate. As I suggested earlier God could be a programmer and we could be living in a simulation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 01:28 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(18-08-2016 08:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If every effect has a cause, there are no random quantum fluctuations. For 1000s of years it has been accepted that every effect has a cause until modern times. But instead of acknowledging the possibility of non local causes(i.e. Supernatural), we simply change the axioms by which we view to world. Every effect has a cause except on the quantum level in which case some effects just happen for no cause at all. I'd sorry but I find the possibility of effects happening with no causes to be ludicrous. In light of that ludicrosity, Supernatural explainations become a lot more palatable.

Now before you claim, "God of the Gaps", this isn't that. It isn't that because Quantum mechanics and Bells theorem tell us that no system of hidden local variables can ever explain all the predictions of quantum mechanics. There must either be non local variables(i.e. supernatural) or the more ludicrous notion that effects can happen without causes.

It isn't EVEN "god of the gaps". It's just a simple non-sequitur, and conclusion you jumped to, for no reason. Science has demonstrated that fundamentally the universe acts non-intuitively. That's NEW INFORMATION. Too bad for your idiotic "for 1000's of years" bullshit. Do try to keep up. You have absolutely not demonstrated that your leap to "supernatural" is founded on anything, other than your stupidity. No one cares what a fool considers to be "ludicrous". Supernatural may be palatable to you, ... but we discount your opinions ... knowing the source. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Is "supernatural" a useful word?
(19-08-2016 01:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  And I do not know how God and/or the Supernatural operate. As I suggested earlier God could be a programmer and we could be living in a simulation.

I think not. You're not a simulation of a stupid man. You ARE a stupid man. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: