The term “supernatural” comes up on this and other boards and in similar discussion forums from time to time and I have come to the conclusion that there can be no such thing. Or, at the very least, if there really is something that could be accurately labeled as supernatural, such would have to be completely beyond understanding by anything (like we humans) that is not supernatural.
As an example, I’ve been studying quantum entanglement a bit. Pretty weird phenomenon from the perspective of those of us in a non-quantum, macro dimension. Very difficult to conceptualize how certain particle states could possibly be correlated, but correlated they are. So is this correlation “supernatural”? I certainly would not define it that way and I know of no physicists who would either.
The point is, even if one really believes that something like entanglement – a repeatably verifiable and investigatible phenomenon – has a supernatural basis, what could possibly be understood about that supernatural component? How could it be verified at all and what could investigating it add to any kind of understanding about…oh…anything?
So for those of you who do believe there is something that can be classified as supernatural, I’m just curious as to what supernatural means to you and what type of event or phenomenon would indicate to you that something is supernatural.
Obviously, you can define “supernatural” and “natural” any way you want, but if a theist wants God to be “over nature” or something like that, he or she will chafe at the claim that because this “deity” has causal effects in the universe (maybe even created the whole magilla out of nothing at all!!), it must be just another natural item.
I’d again suggest that something like McKinnon’s definitions be used, but, as J-Mac suggests, quantum effects seem inherently unpredictable and it’s strange to dub them “supernatural” just because of that.
The moral is that key terms are hard to define without begging questions in some direction or other. I don’t think anybody ought to make to much out of what seems to be following from some haphazard definition they’ve concocted.
O’RLY?
Why should I be careful? As if you imaginary speculations are of any value…
You don’t know how the protein arose either and just because you really want to believe something it doesn’t make it true… Provide one piece of experimental evidence that your speculation should be even taken seriously…Until then…
Well, until you provide some evidence for the things you disagree with because of your delusions, your objections remain in the realm of your dislikes…
J-mac, you should consider just making this “nyah nyah” post into a signature or constructing a micro so you can post it with one keystroke. It’s basically all you write in 75% of your comments. Everyone has (quite sensibly) stopped reading them, so it seems like you shouldn’t have to waste so much effort on reproducing them.
BTW, I was sorry to see you’ve backslid and are reading Newton’s posts again. Tsk tsk.
Incidently, by “evidence” J-mac means propositions that agree with his beliefs.
Now off with you and DO IT!
Reading my comments is not mandatory, is it? So, what’s your point?
I question beliefs presented as science… You don’t like it…Why should I care?
It’s up to others to present scientific evidence that contradicts my beliefs…
I guess I will continue to question science based of beliefs based on personal and group delusions…
You can try to stop me… Until that happens…
Where did you post the link to the McKinnon paper? I hadn’t found time to read it, but I’ll try my best to get to it.
I fear that the exact distance of the ‘Gap’ for God is rapidly converging on 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.
You can read other people’s minds???
Let me guess: via quantum entanglement… lol
Correction: The effect before cause has been consistently detected by numerous experiments.
It follows that QM doesn’t fit into the chain of cause and effect generally observed in the universe…
So, the whole premise of the chain of cause and effect is false, if QM is included…
J-Mac,
You could also conclude that certain QM does not exist in the time domain. There appears to be a cause and an effect it however, as you said, does not happen in the order expected.
If you followed my comments on this thread, you’d noticed that not only time may not apply to QM, but also distance, location-this is not new however…
Well, maybe you shouldn’t be careful. It depends. If you prefer not to make a fool out of yourself, then you should be careful. I cannot decide that for you.
You’re mistaking me for yourself. It’s you who holds to fantasies about gods and magical intelligent designers.
Agreed on both accounts. This is why I did not present a probability. That was you, remember?
What speculation? It’s you who presumes to have knowledge you don’t really have. It’s you who thinks that fantasies are explanations. So it’s you who needs experimental evidence that your fantasies should be even taken seriously. I’m not holding my breath.
Me provide evidence for the things I disagree with? Are you nuts? I’m sorry, but I have no need to provide evidence for magical beings in the sky. That’s your problem, not mine.
Nope. My objections remain in the realm of logic. Accepting post facto, poorly informed, if not heavily misinformed, probabilities just because you like the idea doesn’t make it acceptable. I think it’s you who wrote: just because you really want to believe something it doesn’t make it true. Why did you write that if you’re not willing to live by it yourself?
That’s not a probability for life arising, it’s a probability for a protein appearing.
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Here’s another place where a macro would be soooo sweet! Typing this kind of shite is a waste of your precious time!
His paper is :
Alastair McKinnon, “Miracle” and “Paradox”
American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 308-314
My OP on the subject is here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/mckinnons-paper-on-miracles/
J-Mac,
What is the J-Mac approved source of trustworthy scientific truth?
Where can I go to learn what you know?
How did you learn the truth?
But everything is “natural”. I just KNOW it. 🙂
Evidence against the supernatural. That’s what we’re looking for!
What does it look like?
A disciple of Descartes.
Awesome. Thanks. I’m bummed to see that the OP didn’t illicit more comments. It seems a rather relevant topic for the crowd we have here at TSZ.
What you think of as “the normal order of things” are miraculous. So that won’t work.
Is the existence of a necessary being ‘natural’ or ‘miraculous’?
Got me. I only know that’s it’s logical. Unless you believe that absolute nothingness can spontaneously become something. Now that would be miraculous.
That is a fairly pedantic distinction (unnatural vs. not natural). If everything in the Universe is unnatural, then there would not seem to be much that could be natural other than God.
Really, you don’t have an opinion on the matter?
Mung,
When we test for ESP we find it doesnt exist
It depends on the subject…
If you are interested in the trustworthy source of experimental truth that entanglement is faster than speed of light, you should Google quantum physics for dummies/spooky action at a distance faster than light.
If you need the trustworthy source of the truth about yourself by a professional, I can hook you up with a shrink I met while vacationing in Curacao… He is a really nice guy…
Ixnay on the eadray.
I sure that is a comfort to a parent with a sick child. Praise the Lord for the miracle.
There is some debate about that fact.
Why would the fact be debated? Some don’t like the implications of the fact?
Its called blind faith
I’m just too lazy to hold a grudge 😉
Yep, you just google and accept in blind faith if J-Mac likes it, reject it if J-Mac doesn’t like it.
Well, if you don’t want to make a fool out of yourself, then you should be careful. Otherwise, go ahead and make a fool out of yourself.
My speculations? It’s you who holds to fantasies about gods and magical intelligent designers. Not me.
I agree, which is why I did not present any probabilities. That was you, remember?
What speculation? It’s you who thinks that imaginary magical beings are explanations, not me. It’s therefore you who needs evidence that your speculations should be even taken seriously.
Me provide evidence for the things I disagree with? Are you nuts? I’m sorry, but I have no need to provide evidence for magical beings in the sky. That’s your problem, not mine.
My objections remain in the realm of logic. Accepting post facto, poorly informed, if not heavily misinformed, probabilities just because you like the idea doesn’t make it acceptable. I think it’s you who wrote: “just because you really want to believe something it doesn’t make it true.” Why did you write that if you’re not willing to live by it yourself?
Why is that up to others? You could seek it out yourself.
And I can see why the theist would find that criterion of categorization problematic. What I would like to see is he/she propose an alternative that is more than just a set of vague, shifting statements of negation.
While I agree that “supernatural” and “natural” can be defined in any way, would you not grant that some methods of delineating them are more rationally coherent than others?
I don’t see how McKinnon’s definition alleviates the dilemma (caveat: the problem is likely with my understanding). His definition of a Type 1 Miracle (which sounds a bit like an STD in that form:-) rules out the possibility of it ever occurring. Meanwhile, a Type 2 Miracle doesn’t actually represent a Supernatural intervention if I understand it correctly. It simply represents a low-probability event or a blind-spot in our scientific understanding. I don’t see how that resolves the issue that you raise for the theist.
Whether retrocausality occurs at the quantum level and whether if the knowledge we have about it rises to the level of a scientific fact.
I think your characterization of his miracle types is correct. But I don’t know what issue for the theist I raised that his definitions might resolve. He makes miracles either impossible or not very sexy. If the theist doesn’t like those alternatives, another definition must be concocted. But….it ain’t easy.
I see what you are saying…
All the retrocausality experiments I know of have been done either on quantum level – the double slit experiments
or
the psychological experiments involving MRI/EEG brain scans/tests where the brain responses could only be explained by retrocasualty, as far as I can tell…
There is however one interesting thought/experiment called The Pigeon Hole, which I think can only be explained by time “flying backwards”…or just like I have said it before, there is no time concept on quantum level…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pe8Q6yYWqY
What do you think?
No, no, no!
It’s either real or imaginary. I may have made this point before!
So, are you saying you have proof for your faith? I’m no expert but if you did, wouldn’t be all over the world and text books?
This tells me you don’t anything and I don’t take bluffs from materialists, period.
I just knew the square root of minus 1 was going to be involved.
It’s the same bias, just in case you care…
It’s a conundrum of complexity!
What is?
FWIW
I think that supernatural is pretty much synonymous with mental.
There are those things that can be reduced to matter in motion and everything else is supernatural (ie above nature)
peace
What faith? I haven’t said anything about believing in gods or intelligent designers. That’s you, remember?
Why should I care about what you take or not from materialists? Either way, it remains true that you accept what you like, reject what you don’t, regardless of the evidence. You said so yourself.
I will repeat it for the last time. Listen up, because I really mean it:
You seem to believe that your claims are either scientific or logical.
So, when you make scientific claims, make sure you back them up with scientific facts and not speculations of your preferred views.
The view of your logic, or as you see it, I couldn’t careless about…
So, we’re back to evidence, experimental… Another of your stupid, unfounded comments, I will not even read… I don’t read most of your comments anyways… You, dazz, OMgun and Glickdarkenson, are commets of no value to this blog or anybody here…
ETA: when you say to me ‘you are mistaken’ and there is no justification after this statement, that’s when I stop reading your comment, as I should. Why should I waste my time on religious fanatics? I had to deal with tons of them when I was Catholic…I don’t need Darwinian loonies to try to convince me why their faith seems better to them than another unfounded faith…