Ghosts travelling through walls are implausible but now we know things including radio waves can pass through walls and communicate information. — Andrew4Handel

But the issue isn't what ghosts can do - it is the existence of ghosts in the first place. If my dead mother appeared that would be much more noteworthy than her walking through a wall.

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

The problem is people use the same examples to undermine such metaphysical claims. People talk about the brain and consciousness as a fancy computer - the brain being a kind of hard drive. I don't accept this reduction, but you can see that this idea goes both ways.

One can demonstrate and reproduce technology - can the same be said for any supernatural claim? Is the world not less magical with technology?

I think if you make a claim like this and stick to generalities the idea can't be fully understood. One needs to drill down and look at examples to make any kind of case.

Perhaps the closest example might be certain interpretations of QM leading to idealism.

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

-Yes this is what some people claim by the term "supernatural". IT appears to be directly linked to our superstitious heuristics and an easy way to ease our existential and epistemic anxieties by using a concept with zero explanatory value.

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

-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.
It sounds more like a hasty shortcut than a meaningful answer.

We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. We have made the implausible/impossible the normal. — Andrew4Handel

We have never verified the supernatural so we don't need to "escape it" but to demonstrate it.
Possibilities need to be Objectively verified, not assumed and probabilities need to be mathematically calculated based on verified cased...that we don't have.
So we can not rationally argue in favor of this concept (supernatural ) without first being able to verify those two values (possibility and probability).

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

I agree with you, for what it's worth, and I think it is a lot easier to establish what is good or real evidence in empirical matters. But when it comes to metaphysical matters it's another story. For example there can be no clear evidence for reincarnation, because any evidence, even if granted as legit, can always be explained in other ways, or if scriptures are taken as evidence, as per your example, then the fact that they appear to contradict one another does not inspire confidence except in those who are already disposed, or predisposed, to believe.

Then the answer will be either that I just happen to believe in the one true religion, or the apparent contradictions are just that, only apparent. or most religions posit one God in some form or other, and we don't always get it right because God is mysterious, but the fact that God is, or gods, are universally posited is itself good evidence. For the latter type of case think of the Baha'i faith, for example.

Of course none of this type of evidence is good evidence in the kinds of ways that empirical evidence can be, but there is good reason to expect that to be the case, the proponents will argue, and I think they do have a point.

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

While I don’t have a bias toward Abrahamic religions, they tend to predominate - and so are better known to most of us. As a fairly well-known aspect of Catholicism, there are Marian apparitions. A fair share of Marian apparitions where reportedly witnesses by a plurality of people, in at least one case reportedly by hundreds of thousands. (see below)

The materialist and/or atheist will always be unimpressed, either finding materialist/atheist-accordant justifications for these occurrences - which tmk are most often quite forced - or else affirming that such must exist even though not now available. Personally, I don’t take Marian apparitions to be proof for or against any religion. What interests me is that despite not being replicable, this for maybe obvious reasons, many were nevertheless reportedly witnesses by multiple observers. And to me collective hallucinations wherein the same supposed hallucination is being witnessed by a plurality of individuals defeats the entire purpose of calling such “hallucinations”. (This being different from mass hysteria in that the latter concerns delusions, i.e. false beliefs of what is, rather than hallucinations, i.e. false perceptions of what is.)

Are occurrences such as Marian apparitions good evidence for spiritual realm(s)? Not if one is a materialist/atheist seeking to confirm one’s own worldview; they certainly don’t concern the material world and so cannot be scientifically tested by default. 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?

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

By "supernatural" I understand imaginary and impossible; e.g. Woo-of-the-gaps ...

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

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.

Are occurrences such as Marian apparitions good evidence for spiritual realm(s)? — javra

I am quite happy to accept that hundreds of people saw a thing. The fact that they put it down to a specific religious vision is a separate part of the claim and probably all about their socialization. If the event happened in a non-Christian setting it would have been explained as a Muslim vision, or a Hindu one, depending on geography. It's also been said that the visions were alien in origin. The point for me is we are not in a position to make any conclusion about such events.

Second post, apologies if it bothers anyone.

Implausibility is a function of an existing, current/latest framework of knowledge at our disposal. If an event X is inexplicable i.e. contradicts the system of knowledge we've vetted and given our nod to, it is labelled implausible.

It appears that the OP is, all said and done, a query about science and its much-extolled method. Any observation that is inconsistent with what we know about reality, instantly renders even our cherished hypotheses/theories null and void. It's back to the drawing board then - replace/mod our theories/hypotheses.

Wait, there's more...

An argument from implausibility for the supernatural is essentially the god of the gaps argument. This particular line of reasoning for theism is a lost cause because it's based off of ignorance and not knowledge.

There's more still...

In my humble opinion, people who use implausibility in defense of the supernatural conflate a wrong hypothesis/theory with science, in its entirety, being erroneous.

Andrew4Handel By "supernatural" I understand imaginary and impossible; e.g. Woo-of-the-gaps ... — 180 Proof

Models of the atom were wrong and imaginary. Science uses the imaginary and posits the implausible.

Theories require the imaginary and symbolic before they start to be used to manipulate reality. Useful fictions. Likewise morality and social norms/psychology/culture. Useful fictions.

Some beliefs aim to fill in gaps but some are more of a general attitude towards reality or general model/belief such idealism vs naturalism, uncertainty versus mechanical materialism.

Hm ... wondering ...

In what cases can "supernatural magic" not be replaced with "unknown" without incurring informative loss?
In what cases have "supernatural magic" as an explanation done away with ignorance/errors?
What does "supernatural magic" derive that's differentiable?
For that matter, is there anything that "supernatural magic" couldn't be raised to explain?

Such cases seem few and far between (if there are any).

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

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.

Even if one for example happens to see a ghost with one’s own eyes, one can always be humble and uphold that one has had a hallucination - hence resulting in no evidence to speak of.

Or to illustrate via a different example: If there is a person’s claim of having had a dream that gives the person a clear depiction of what will happen, or else of what has happened on another part of the world, of which the person has no way of directly knowing about and this event indeed unfolds as envisioned in the dream - not an unheard-of claim - what evidence is required to not deem this overall occurrence a mere coincidence, an instance of deception, or related to a momentary psychosis? (To make this example more concrete: One of my grandmas, who lived in Romania at the time, claimed that a dream informed her that a friend, who lived in the USA, who was otherwise healthy just passed away; when she called to inquire about the friend after explaining the dream to us, we acknowledged that this person just passed away. She had, or at least appears to have had, such premonition-laden dreams throughout her lifetime.)

Again, what evidence is required to rule out such claims being either coincidence, deception, or momentary psychosis? I can’t myself think of any.

(That said, if it were neither mere coincidence, nor deception, nor psychosis (nor aliens’ technological voodoo, to address even this), this same claim of having had a direct insight into an otherwise unknown present or future state of affairs would then imply an instance of clairvoyance, which at the very least in today’s world is deemed supernatural.)

I will emphasize that this isn’t about convincing anyone about there being or not being anything supernatural. It’s simply a philosophical question regarding the epistemology of possible evidence for the supernatural among those who have a predisposed disbelief in the matter.

Notice: I refer to impossible, not "implausible"; also, I do not trivialize imaginary, except where what is imagined (e.g. "the supernatural") is also impossible (rather than merely "implausible"). Besides ridiculous, another synonym for "the supernatural" is magic. :sparkle:

I do not trivialize imaginary, except where what is imagined (e.g. "the supernatural") is also impossible (rather than merely "implausible"). — 180 Proof

And how can the supernatural be justified as impossible other than via the metaphysical worldview of materialism?

"Justified"? Who said anything about "justifying" anything? No I. Care to show how your question is not a non sequitur?

Care to show how your question is not a non sequitur? — 180 Proof

Sure, it aims at producing grounds for the otherwise unsupported claim that the supernatural is impossible.

And what would those "grounds" be?

The legend of Joseph of Cupertino.

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

It seems secular authorities aren't the only ones dismissive of 'the supernatural' (although in the end Joseph was beatified.)

Another anecdote about levitation.

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

I'm a methodological naturalist (my metaphysical claims are modest), but yes, as I have already said, I require some physical evidence or something testable. But I do not argue that the supernatural is impossible.

And what would those "grounds" be? — 180 Proof

Hm. Personally, I have no idea! But then again, I’m not the one affirming this:

By "supernatural" I understand imaginary and impossible; e.g. Woo-of-the-gaps ... — 180 Proof

BTW, my own views on the matter are in many a way unconventional, and I remain in many a way agnostic about the matter. I however take it that if there is the super-natural it by default would neither be that which is observable by all nor that which affects all in principle, if not also in practice - which I take all things physical, “natural” in this sense, to be … fully including natural laws. But then, if there is the so called “super-natural”, I, personally, can’t conceive of it as that which is beyond the naturally occurring cosmic order of things. The supernatural is “not natural” as in “not commonplace/ordinary/normal”, sure, but not as something that resides beyond the natural process of the cosmos. At any rate, not quite common place as a perspective, I would think. But, then again, I’m not here to investigate hypotheticals regarding the nature(s) in which the supernatural could manifest - much less justify them.

As to why I hold these largely agnostic perspectives? Precisely because I can’t find any philosophically substantiated reason why the supernatural would be impossible. As to shunning the very possibility by ridiculing it as “magic”, hell, the very reality of the universe’s being is magic regardless of how one views it: it just is (it’s an uncaused given), it was caused by a psyche, it was caused by nothingness, and so forth. None of these are non-magical occurrences. And if the universe's very occurrence is magic, I fail to comprehend why anything "magical" within it would be necessarily impossible. Again, agnosticism is my preferred position.

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 - and this precisely because it is the supernatural, hence by default neither being observable to all in replicable manners nor affecting all at all times (such as natural laws do). Because the supernatural does not hold these properties, any accounts of it, be they personal or secondhand, could always be delegated to coincidence, deception, or psychosis. Such, I’m arguing, is the inherent nature of the supernatural if it is.

You seem to make the case for me, javra. Any "X" which completely lacks (directly / indirectly) observable properties is indistinguishable from "X" which is not – cannot be – real in any factual sense, ergo impossible.

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

Groovy. On what grounds do you then discern which human does and does not have consciousness? For consciousness "completely lacks evident or (directly / indirectly) observable, properties".

I forget if you deny the reality of consciousness, so I'm asking.

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

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. There is often evidence of some kind, or people would not be making claims in the first place. The questions are : what is the quality of the evidence AND the claim itself?

In many cases supernatural claims are about matters which impact in some way upon the physical world. 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.

In relation to spiritual healing, for instance, the whole point of it is physical evidence of healing. And while people often rise out of wheelchairs for a few minutes and walk, permanently restored people seem rare. It is also interesting that while god or spirits seem to allow people to 'walk again' for a minute or two, where are the examples of an amputated leg or arm which has regrown?

I actually think the main objection to anything supernatural occurring is actually a statistical argument. There's an implicit assumption that whatever happens must be repeatable or happen often enough to be believable. Hume's argument against miracles comes to mind

[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

However, to what extent should we be skeptical if someone tells us they've had a supernatural experience, seen a ghost, etc? What if multiple people claim they have seen ghosts across time; this should factor in as well?

I observe other people's behaviors which are mostly consistent with the predictions derived from early childhood developed 'theory of mind'. In other words, indirect observation of 'consciousness' (like The Sun, we only indirectly observe its nucleonic, thermodynamic, electromagnetic, and relativistic effects). 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. A "ghost" (disembodied consciouness), however, would be a specimen of "the supernatural". :eyes:

We all have a culturally conditioned sense of what is natural, normal, and so on. WIthin our cultural setting, the 'supernatural' is by definition a kind of forbidden zone - 'naturalism' is the intellectually respectable attitude.

But, philosophically speaking, I think the issue is this. From the perspective of classical philosophical traditions, the accepted view of what is natural or normal is distorted or corrupt. From their perspective, while we think we know what is natural, in reality we do not know. We only have opinions. They might say that what you think of is the real world, is not your real home. You're a stranger in a strange land, who has forgotten where you came from.

(We are talking about the space between us all, and the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion. They don't know, they can't see. Are you one of them?)

Maybe fascination with the idea of the supernatural is part of this. Or maybe, as Augustine said, what we see as miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature. But then by the time the scientific revolution came along, western culture was already radically estranged from its philosophical roots. So having abandoned that religious and philosophical framework, what was left is a skeletal outline based on only what can be known and measured by scientific instruments. That delimits and also radically alters the bounds of what we regard as plausible. We're willing to contemplate parallel universes and wormholes but not OBE's.

Anyway, the upshot is, I'm open to the supernatural. Remember it's the Latin equivalent of the Greek 'metaphysics'. If you're not open to it, you reduce yourself to a smart monkey.

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

I have addressed a specific claim of clairvoyance. No reply as to what evidence could possibly validate its reality.

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

Scientific tests require that they be replicable by anyone anywhere. Otherwise they are not considered to produce valid conclusions, and this for good reason.

To observe an instance or two of any of the above is not in and of itself a valid scientific test. One could be momentary psychotic in what one thinks one witnesses, after all. Others could deem that you are lying in what you claim. And if neither of these, one can always fall back on explanations such as that of coincidence. The guy did this, and by coincidence that happened. And any of this could happen toward one individual's claim, the claim of ten, or that of a hundred. This goes back to Marian apparitions.

How do you propose to validly test for the reality of any of the examples you mention such that the results are conclusive to all - rather than cable of being relegated to complex instances of psychosis, deception, or coincidence from the point of view of others?

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

You lost me with this question. Assuming the reality of inexplicable walking for a few moments necessitates that lost appendages be regrown as well?

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

Fair enough. Curious to know your reply to this. I might even agree with it.

If consciousness is not a delusion - such that the hard problem does occur - on what grounds would consciousness itself not pertain to the supernatural, this when the supernatural is contrasted with observable evidence?

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.

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 point is that many people in wheelchairs are able to walk for a minute or two. My grandmother was a case in point. Getting someone psyched up to stand and walk and psychologically override pain is not hard to explain. 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?

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

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.

Wrong question. Nature is the given, "supernatural" is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. If we are 'conscious', it's a given that 'consciousness' is natural because we are natural creatures; those who claim otherwise bear the burden of proving it is / we are not – more than – natural (ergo e.g. cartesian dualism).

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

You say, "good evidence can verify supernatural occurrences."

I ask, "what would 'good evidence' be?"

You answer, "tests."

I ask, "can you provide a viable test for anything supernatural?"

You reply with the just quoted. Which does not philosophically address any of the points.

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

Not if I were to adopt a stance of skepticism toward the evidence you'd have for it - and yes, eyes can deceive. Unless, of course, the evidence could be replicated by anyone anywhere. But then it wouldn't be evidence of the supernatural but of an ordinary/normal/commonplace process that has heretofore been undiscovered.