What does "super-natural" mean.

[Autodidact]

When we say that an explanation, event or deity is super-natural, what do we mean? How do we identify when something is supernatural?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Without further nitpicking on scientific specifics which neither of us can claim expertise on, simple fact is that the onus is on you to support your assertions not on others to disprove them - and this particular one appears to involve denying or at best radically redefining the fundamental interaction which scientists consider gravitation to be.

This is without even beginning to raise the question of the dark matter which apparently (since we cannot directly observe it) constitutes over four-fifths of the matter in the universe and is not reducible to quarks or other fermions.

Spoken like a true believer! I have to prove that there are NO instances of events with cause other than attraction/repulsion, rather than you provide even a single instance of one yourself. Now where have I heard THAT bit of reverse rationalization before? I also notice that you headed straight for the grey areas. What about the Higgs-boson! Well, what about it? It hasn't even been discovered yet, so how can I discuss it specifically? What of dark matter! Same problem. Evidence that it exists is substantial, but exactly what it is, that is still a very open question at this point. The same is true for dark energy. Some have speculated that what we call dark matter is actually evidence of gravitational influence on our universe by external universes. The multiverse! Is this true? I have no idea, because it is all a grey area in our knowledge at this point. Begin to turn over in your mind the idea that attraction/repulsion is actually the root cause behind everything that occurs, and you might begin to see just how much sense it actually makes. As I said, it is an idea that I first derived from Richard Feynman, and I have had years to become accustom to it. I had to think it over for awhile myself when I was first faced with it.

[Autodidact]

So I'm exploring the idea that "supernatural" means something about not being capable of being understood, no matter how much you study it. "Natural" would mean something that, if we do science at it long enough, should be possible to learn about, use as a model, and understand to some extent. "Supernatural" would be something that, even theoretically, no matter how much we study it, we cannot understand. It is fundamentally mysterious or magic.

Does this resonate for anyone?

That makes sense, but I don't think it can definitively be said that there is anything humanity could never understand if we had unlimited time to study it. If we describe certain occurrences as supernatural, and use it reasoning for not studying it in more depth, than we are severely limiting the options our scientists have for branching out in their fields.

Hmm... yes and no. I see what you're saying, for example, if we had decreed that lightning was Thor's sword, and could not be studied, we would never have found out what it really was. OTOH, scientists cannot use supernatural explanations.

[robnixxo]

Hey! Here is really novel idea. Why not look up the meaning of the word "supernatural" in a dikshunary? And why not do an etymological search on the origin of the word (probably Latin or Greek).

Imagine actually knowing what the word means!

Imagine not having to make erroneous speculations on what the word means!

Imagine actually using this opportunity to aquire some knowledge!

I had to LOL after reading this. If Pax followed his own advice he wouldn't have a need to post on these forums anymore.

[Crazee]

So I'm exploring the idea that "supernatural" means something about not being capable of being understood, no matter how much you study it. "Natural" would mean something that, if we do science at it long enough, should be possible to learn about, use as a model, and understand to some extent. "Supernatural" would be something that, even theoretically, no matter how much we study it, we cannot understand. It is fundamentally mysterious or magic.

Does this resonate for anyone?

That makes sense, but I don't think it can definitively be said that there is anything humanity could never understand if we had unlimited time to study it. If we describe certain occurrences as supernatural, and use it reasoning for not studying it in more depth, than we are severely limiting the options our scientists have for branching out in their fields.

Hmm... yes and no. I see what you're saying, for example, if we had decreed that lightning was Thor's sword, and could not be studied, we would never have found out what it really was. OTOH, scientists cannot use supernatural explanations.

If we take your definition of supernatural, which I think is the best definition if we are to choose to use the word 'supernatural' at all, then it may seem as if science uses many supernatural explanations.

The supernatural would be something that is currently unexplainable, it just is, and the fact that it exists is cause for everything else. The four fundamental forces in physics are an example of something supernatural because we don't know what caused them, they just are. And because they are, all else is. Science worships its laws and mathematical calculations in a similar manner to how theists worship deities.

Thus, scientists endlessly pursue the supernatural in order to make it fit into our natural view of reality. I see infinite potential for scientific and spiritual thinkers to come together and do great things in the world once they realize they really aren't all that different–and their goals are the same.

[Baz]

When we say that an explanation, event or deity is super-natural, what do we mean? How do we identify when something is supernatural?

What sort of events happen in the universe?
Natural events.

For something to happen in the universe, it must somehow follow natural laws. Otherwise, it would not have happened.

One attaches the word 'supernatural' to phenomena that one doesn't yet understand, or doesn't believe actually happened. True supernatural events don't exist. The word itself is paradoxically used both to credit as well as discredit new discoveries that don't agree with one's previously held beliefs about how the universe works.

If there was a vote on this I would go with Crazee.

As I see it “Supernatural� is a construct of our imagination, if something actually happens it must be natural, if god became a physical being and walked on the earth it would have to be a natural event.
If we could travel from dimension to dimension or planet to planet at the blink of an eye it would have to be a naturel event.
Supernatural = stuff we imagine that could never happen. Or stuff we don’t understand, so call supernatural, that when in fact its unexplained nature.

[Mithrae]

Without further nitpicking on scientific specifics which neither of us can claim expertise on, simple fact is that the onus is on you to support your assertions not on others to disprove them - and this particular one appears to involve denying or at best radically redefining the fundamental interaction which scientists consider gravitation to be.

This is without even beginning to raise the question of the dark matter which apparently (since we cannot directly observe it) constitutes over four-fifths of the matter in the universe and is not reducible to quarks or other fermions.

Spoken like a true believer! I have to prove that there are NO instances of events with cause other than attraction/repulsion, rather than you provide even a single instance of one yourself. Now where have I heard THAT bit of reverse rationalization before? I also notice that you headed straight for the grey areas. What about the Higgs-boson! Well, what about it? It hasn't even been discovered yet, so how can I discuss it specifically? What of dark matter! Same problem.

No, I headed straight for the obvious - the fundamental interaction known as gravitation. See post 9.

You suggested that gravity is reducible to mass, which as I've said appears to involve denying or at best radically redefining the notion that it's a fundamental interaction. However on that point it did seem worth raising the question of whether even mass is actually reducible to attraction/repulsion, since it's a property of matter which requires explanation beyond the fermions themselves. Whether experiments this year prove or disprove the Higgs-boson as that explanation, it's obviously an issue which you have not addressed, simply assuming that mass can be validly reduced to attraction/repulsion. As I said earlier, you make a good case that everything we observe of mass, gravity and so on involves the attraction/repulsion of quarks and other fermions, but it also involves other stuff which is not reducible in the way you're suggesting.

Same with dark matter and, as you note, dark energy. From what little I've read it seems that some 96% of the theorised mass-energy of the universe cannot be observed.

This is a debate forum, and a thread discussing what we can consider 'supernatural' and why. Describing everything as a result of attraction/repulsion apparently can't be upheld even for the tiny fraction of the stuff in the universe which we can observe. (Or at least not shown to be true within scientific parameters; I acknowledge that as a source of pondering over the years for you about the "root cause behind everything," it might have some philosophical merit.) But since it serves as a good opportunity for somewhat highlighting the scope of the 'grey areas' in modern science - and by implication, some potential problems of those who define the supernatural with reference to the 'laws of science' - I've taken that opportunity and I thank you for it

[Tired of the Nonsense]

As I said earlier, you make a good case that everything we observe of mass, gravity and so on involves the attraction/repulsion of quarks and other fermions, but it also involves other stuff which is not reducible in the way you're suggesting.

We have agreed to disagree. Fair enough.