Ghosts travelling through walls are implausible but now we know things including radio waves can pass through walls and communicate information. — Andrew4Handel
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. — Andrew4Handel
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. — Andrew4Handel
-Well science keeps pointing to a Regular and Rational nature of reality. There are mysterious aspects of reality but every mystery we solve tends to verify the above rational and regular nature of our world.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. — Andrew4Handel
We have never verified the supernatural so we don't need to "escape it" but to demonstrate it.We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. We have made the implausible/impossible the normal. — Andrew4Handel
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? — Tom Storm
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? — Tom Storm
Some Marian apparitions have only one purported seer, such as that of Our Lady of Lourdes. Other apparitions have multiple seers; in the case of Our Lady of Fatima, there were only three seers of the apparition itself, but miraculous phenomena were reported by a crowd of approximately 70,000 people, and even by others located miles away.[3] In other cases, the entirety of a large group of people claims to see Mary, as in the case of Our Lady of La Vang. Some modern mass apparitions, witnessed by hundreds of thousands, have also been photographed, such as Our Lady of Zeitoun.[4] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition#Examples
But, short of a physically spiritual occurrence - whatever this might be - what could possibly amount to good evidence for spirituality’s existence for the materialist or atheist – this, again, when the spiritual, or supernatural, is deemed distinct from the physical? — javra
Are occurrences such as Marian apparitions good evidence for spiritual realm(s)? — javra
Andrew4Handel By "supernatural" I understand imaginary and impossible; e.g. Woo-of-the-gaps ... — 180 Proof
I'd say we have to look at an individual claim and assess the evidence for it rather than posit an abstract and overarching, 'what evidence is there for the supernatural'. We need a for instance to investigate. — Tom Storm
Joseph of Copertino (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino; 17 June 1603 – 18 September 1663) was an Italian Conventual Franciscan friar who is honored as a Christian mystic and saint. He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation....He applied to the Conventual Franciscan friars, but was rejected due to his lack of education. He then pleaded with them to serve in their stables. After several years of working there, he had so impressed the friars with the devotion and simplicity of his life that he was admitted to their Order, destined to become a Catholic priest...
He was ordained a priest on 28 March 1628. He was then sent to the convent of Santa Maria della Grotella, just outside Cupertino, where he spent the next 15 years.
After this point, the occasions of ecstasy in Joseph's life began to multiply. It was claimed that he began to levitate while participating at the Mass or joining the community for the Divine Office, thereby gaining a widespread reputation of holiness among the people of the region and beyond. He was deemed disruptive by his religious superiors and church authorities, however, and eventually was confined to a small cell, forbidden from joining in any public gathering of the community.
As the phenomenon of flying or levitation was widely believed to be connected with witchcraft, Joseph was denounced to the Inquisition. — Wikipedia
Anscombe and Geach relate a story according to which Aquinas once came upon “a holy nun who used to be levitated in ecstasy.” His reaction was to comment on how very large her feet were. “This made her come out of her ecstasy in indignation at his rudeness, whereupon he gently advised her to seek greater humility.” — Edward Feser: Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)
In hoping not to be talking past each other, my question concerns the epistemic. I can’t conceive of any type of evidence that can convince an adamant materialist or atheist of the occurrence of anything supernatural - and so I’m asking for examples of what this might be given sufficient investigation. — javra
And what would those "grounds" be? — 180 Proof
By "supernatural" I understand imaginary and impossible; e.g. Woo-of-the-gaps ... — 180 Proof
Any "X" which completely lacks evident, or (directly / indirectly) observable, properties is indistinguishable from "X" which is not real in any discernible or intelligible sense, ergo impossible. — 180 Proof
At any rate, my only - maybe so far implicit - affirmation in this thread is that the supernatural would be impossible to satisfactorily evidence in any empirical manner if it indeed in any way occurs — javra
[When a miracle is claimed] I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened.... If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion
Don't think I agree. If we stop talking about generalities and deal with specific claims, then we can look at evidence and assess it. — Tom Storm
Mind reading, spiritual healing, levitation, raising the dead, fortune telling - are all examples of supernatural claims that directly impact upon the physical world and therefore can be tested. — Tom Storm
It is also interesting that while god seems to allow people to 'walk again' for a minute or two, where are the examples of an amputated leg or arm which has regrown? — Tom Storm
Sure, I can't prove anyone else – or myself – is conscious (or that the Sun's core is not a great dragon), but I also don't have any non-trivial grounds (yet) to doubt our manifest 'theory of mind'. I suspect, whether or not we humans are 'conscious', deluding ourselves that we are 'conscious' (i.e. not zombies) has had evolutionary adaptive advantages. Nothing "supernatural" about that — 180 Proof
You lost me with this question. Assuming the reality of inexplicable walking for a few moments necessitates that lost appendages be regrown as well? — javra
The supernatural would be some aspect of reality that is apart from the rational/regular nature of the natural world, not merely an unsolved mystery of the natural world. Consider that we don't know what dark matter is, but no knowledgeable person would label it as supernatural.Well science keeps pointing to a Regular and Rational nature of reality. There are mysterious aspects of reality but every mystery we solve tends to verify the above rational and regular nature of our world.
So I don't see any difference between the term supernatural and a label we use as an "answer" to a mystery. — Nickolasgaspar
I’m not hung up on science, just good evidence. If something can’t be explained I am not afraid of 'don’t know', which seems better than ‘because magic or god/s.’
Yep - your 'clairvoyance' story has too many missing pieces to investigate. It’s an anecdote. — Tom Storm
What is hard to explain is the growing back of a limb. It is interesting to note that no miracle healers ever seem to be able to do this one. And it would be fairly easy to demonstrate, right? — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.