I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God.

What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God. — Jackson

I had the same thought. Is talking between minds, without talking, supernatural? If it can be done, no.

There is a difference between something that is naturally implausible and something naturally impossible. The supernatural, by definition, is something that defies the natural order of things.

We can most certainly mistaken something highly implausible for something supernatural. The main difference being when this happens the supernatural dissipates and nature remains as nature.

Beyond the laws of nature and beyond the known laws of nature are two different things. Maybe all supernatural ideas are just natural items yet to be unveiled.

The supernatural, by definition, is something that defies the natural order of things. — I like sushi

But that natural order of things is not known, generally.

Ten june... I know, I know...

I’ve extended that indefinitely as I regard you as a troll and/or manic.

You will not be getting any responses from me in the immediate future (months+).

I’ve extended that indefinitely as I regard you as a troll and/or manic. — I like sushi

I consider that as a compliment! :kiss:

But now I think that lots of human technology like the internet and mobile/cell phones is implausible as well as aspects of reality like the basic existence of something, infinity and such like. — Andrew4Handel

In what sense are they supernatural, though? If they're not, then how do they support your point?

I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

Lack of objective evidence - non anecdotal - I would say. But it's pleasant to think of ectoplasm slowly oozing from the aether.

I assume that the reader is familiar with the idea of extrasensory perception, and the meaning of the four items of it, viz., telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. These disturbing phenomena seem to deny all our usual scientific ideas. How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. — Turing, 1950

What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God. — Jackson

Here is a dictionary definition of The Supernatural.

"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

But what I am referring to is things commonly referred to as supernatural such as ghosts, things with magic powers, prophecies etc. Maybe God's actions and gods.

If you get into definitions you can end up in an infinite regress of justifying each definition so I am assuming a common notion of the supernatural.

If as per the definition it is something above or beyond science and sciences laws then in a way that is trivially easy to prove by pointing out things (consciousness for one) that science doesn't understand or have laws for.

Lack of objective evidence - non anecdotal - I would say. But it's pleasant to think of ectoplasm slowly oozing from the aether. — jgill

I am assuming a shared concept of the supernatural here in popular culture. I don't think that as has been said absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

My assertion here (I suppose) is that people simply mean the implausible when they refer to the supernatural now. Apparently the word dates back to at least 1425. As something beyond human understanding (among other things).

In what sense are they supernatural, though? If they're not, then how do they support your point? — Ciceronianus

My argument is that the main objection against The Supernatural has been implausibility but that modern technology and modern scientific discoveries make previously implausible things look as plausible as the new world picture. Things can go through walls which are apparently mainly made up of empty space.

I am not supporting either the supernatural or natural because I think they are rather tautologous and don't refer to anything. They are not properties of anything. But that is a reason I think they stand for Rational explanation/materialism versus implausible/causality independent.

In summary I think there is no grounds to say that reality it self is plausible/coherent/rational etc in the way it used to be characterised/viewed via the the success of science.

I suppose someone could argue that somehow reality is at bottom logical and rational if they could and define logical and rational.

I don't think that as has been said absence of evidence is evidence of absence. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but as you say it makes the supernatural implausible.

I can't see where this discussion is going.

I don't think 'implausibility' of supernatural is quite the right frame. It is more of a case of 'unlikely given the available evidence'. That evidence - for ghosts, demons, gods, etc - has not gotten any better, despite mobile phones or the internet. In fact, it may seem less likely now. The best observation of this theme was writer Arthur C Clarke who said, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' But that is a different slant. What I tend to observe is that the supernatural recedes and a technological dream life asserts itself - Do we live in a simulation? Were we created by an alien race? Will technology help us render death obsolete?

I don't think 'implausibility' of supernatural is quite the right frame. It is more of a case of 'unlikely given the available evidence'. — Tom Storm

Isn't "unlikely given the available evidence" a fitting definition of 'implausible'?

I think it grounds it. For me 'Implausible' hangs in the air without any precision.

My argument is that the main objection against The Supernatural has been implausibility but that modern technology and modern scientific discoveries make previously implausible things look as plausible as the new world picture. Things can go through walls which are apparently mainly made up of empty space. — Andrew4Handel

'“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” ~ Arthur C Clarke.

I suspect that there's an element of genuine magic involved in much of the technology that exploits the mysterious properties of quantum physics, such as non-locality (which is nowadays used for secure communications technologies) and for quantum computers. It's magical insofar as, while the formulae of quantum mechanics can be used to great effect and almost unbelievable levels of precision, nobody really understands what it means. So it seems to me that with the discovery of quantum mechanics the previously well-defined boundary between the two domains became a lot more permeable, as can be evidenced by the search for books on 'quantum consciousness'.

As far as 'plausibility' is concerned, in a more general sense, the issue is more one of having a suitable epistemic framework within which to judge whether an idea is plausible or not. Post-Enlightenment, it is generally simply assumed that this framework is provided by science as distinct from metaphysics or religion, the testimony of which is set aside as a starting point. Then you have the situation where any attempt to argue for a metaphysic has to meet the requirements of peer-reviewed science, or else it is dismissed as anecdotal, hearsay or myth. Essentially the requirement is that beliefs ought to be plausibly supported by what can be categorised as scientific evidence, starting from an historically-conditioned view of the boundaries of science.

I don't see the problem. The supernatural is, to my reckoning, defined as that which is not natural and that which is natural is what we experience on a daily basis (aka the laws of nature, others have referred to them as habits of nature). An account based on these, well, habits (of nature), are plausible, oui? When someone, here nature, goes off-script, goes out of character, seems to have broken a habit, we instinctively go :chin: WTF? That's implausibility for you! Back to the drawing board or...something else.

I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility. — Andrew4Handel

-No the main objection is and always should be "Possibility". If we are unable to demonstrate objectively the possibility of the supernatural then its non sensible to argue about its plausibility.
It's the same logical error Alchemists did by spending money time and effort on something they thought it was plausible (chemical transmutation of metals) when they didn't even knew how possible or impossible it is.
People's belief in the supernatural is irrational not because its existence is implausible, but because we haven't demonstrated its existence to be possible.
So the Belief in the existence of the supernatural is Irrational, not a verified wrong belief.
Possibility is demonstrated objectively while plausibility is demonstrated through statistical probabilities. The first quality gives us the right to argue in favor of the later.

The Supernatural in general is a claim that appeals to the existence of agents or causation by processes and phenomena that are in direct conflict with our current Scientific Paradigm.

Mainly they argue about the existence of properties or agents or entities being non contingent to fundamental natural structures and processes.

The claim that chemical or mental or biological or kinetic etc properties/entities can manifest in the cosmos without being contingent to the workings and functions of verified natural elements, structures or their documented limitations....that is in essence the main idea behind any supernatural claim.

-

Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is
overwhelming. — Turing, 1950

Statistical evidence showed us that we can explain Telepathy "hits" by Random Chance...same rates.

↪Hillary
I’ve extended that indefinitely as I regard you as a troll and/or manic.
You will not be getting any responses from me in the immediate future (months+). — I like sushi

-That is a direct insult for the all the trolls and manics of this world! Mr Hillary is a league on his own.

Maybe all supernatural ideas are just natural items yet to be unveiled. — I like sushi

I will agree with your position. The Supernatural is nothing more than a made up bin where we human toss everything we currently don't understand. Every-time we had to go back and take something out out from that bin..that was because the explanation was always Natural.

I guess the Empirical Regularity of Nature doesn't leave much room for the Supernatural but at least it can still hide in everything that appears to be mysterious to us....like all fallacious arguments of ignorance do.

I would think that a supernatural explanation becomes less plausible the more a natural explanation is provided.

No the main objection is and always should be "Possibility" — Nickolasgaspar

It seems to me that the supernatural is something that humans have always claimed is behind the scenes of nature giving reality attributes like life, consciousness laws and forces. Or the hand of God or fate.

My point I suppose is that reality is at bottom mysterious and illogical and weird, that there is not a concrete machine like reality to be contrasted with the supernatural just the strange inexplicable reality of existence.

We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. We have made the implausible/impossible the normal.

I suspect that there's an element of genuine magic involved in much of the technology that exploits the mysterious properties of quantum physics, such as non-locality (which is nowadays used for secure communications technologies) and for quantum computers. — Wayfarer

That's the point. Modern technology is amazing and has changed how we communicate and what is possible. It is not reductive like a reductive mechanistic philosophy but expansive.

It shows us more possibilities not less.

Weird Thought experiments like the brain in a vat become more plausible not less.

I think these technological innovations should also shape new philosophical directions.

I think it grounds it. For me 'Implausible' hangs in the air without any precision. — Tom Storm

Would you say that anyone finds anything implausible without believing they have reason to think so? And does not believing you have a reason to think that something is likely to be the case amount to believing that you have some evidence to think that, even if the "evidence" is nothing more than a gut feeling? This is why I disagree with the definition of faith as "believe in spite of the evidence", because that definition only speaks to a certain conception of what constitutes evidence; a conception which has its own unevidenced presuppositions underpinning it.

I think these technological innovations should also shape new philosophical directions. — Andrew4Handel

They are. I'm into this book at the moment https://siliconthebook.com/

Mind you, the author of this book doesn't see reality as 'illogical and weird' (although certainly mysterious), but he's dismissive of old-school mechanistic materialism. This conviction arose from two sources, one the attempt to develop AI systems (a byproduct of which is https://www.synaptics.com/) and also from an unexpected spiritual awakening which occurred to him in his fifties.

It's a classic in the rapidly-growing genre of 'Californian metaphysics'. :wink:

This is why I disagree with the definition of faith as "believe in spite of the evidence", because that definition only speaks to a certain conception of what constitutes evidence; a conception which has its own unevidenced presuppositions underpinning it. — Janus

:100: :clap:

Would you say that anyone finds anything implausible without believing they have reason to think so? And does not believing you have a reason to think that something is likely to be the case amount to believing that you have some evidence to think that, even if the "evidence" is nothing more than a gut feeling? This is why I disagree with the definition of faith as "believe in spite of the evidence", because that definition only speaks to a certain conception of what constitutes evidence; a conception which has its own uneividnced presuppositions underpinning it. — Janus

Yes, my presupposition would be that there be robust, testable physical evidence. I don't generally accept anecdote, stories, feelings or claims as proof.

I generally hold to 'good evidence' as opposed to just evidence. There is the 1967 Roger Patterson film footage of Bigfoot which is clearly evidence of Bigfoot. But is it good evidence? Is it ultimately persuasive, or does it look like some person in a monkey suit? Is there anything more than testimony and blurred 8mm film to demonstrate the existence of this creature? The Bible is evidence of god. But it is good evidence, or just one of many contradictory old books which exist for disparate faiths?

For me faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. Sure they can point to an old book that says a thing or to an aunt in Nebraska who saw an angel once. But is this good evidence? Perhaps you'd like to call it implausible?

If you want implausible to be the same thing functionally as not having good evidence, fine. I just find implausible weak. Personal taste? Implausible describes the plot of a James Bond film or the acting of Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys.

But this is all general and not very interesting. I'd be interested to understand just what 'supernatural' claim is more plausible now that we have our technology.

We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. — Andrew4Handel

Are you able to be specific? I am willing to be convinced but I'd appreciate some examples. What supernatural claims seem to be more realistic in the light of our technology? What do you count as supernatural claims?

For me technology just seems to emphasise the physicalist nature of reality and that technology is about understanding and reproducing the science.

People said things like Ghosts travelling through walls are implausible but now we know things including radio waves can pass through walls and communicate information.

Reincarnation has been made more plausible because we can imagine consciousness interacting with the body in a different way like a radio interacts with a signal or things can be stored on memory sticks.

I am not referring to any specific claims however just referring to the type of claims. Anything now seems possible because there are less theoretical restraints.

I think how we view reality is important for our mental health and incorrect models of reality and humans could be harmful. (see Eugenics)