What is "supernatural"

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:07 am

One common objection that I get in regards to the supernatural is that it has no reasonable meaning. One specific objection is that the definition of the supernatural contradicts what nature means. Some skeptics who make this claim even go as far as saying that everything is natural, and claims of anything being supernatural are just superstition and thus misunderstood or unknown natural phenomena. With this in mind, I will attempt to establish a coherent definition for the supernatural along with 4 criteria points to further elaborate on that definition. I will also define "nature" since the supernatural is defined in terms of it. Keep in mind this is more about "meaning" and not necessarily proving the existence of. After all, having a good definition for some thing should be the first step since only then you can know what it is that you need to prove, if provable. I'll leave it up to you guys to let me know whether or not if my definition is coherent or unreasonable.

Definitions:
Supernatural: any place, person (or being), or phenomena that is not of or from nature nor restricted by its laws.

Nature: The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.

Criteria (further elaboration on key parts of my definition and the supernatural in general):

1. Any person, place, or thing that's not from nature. Some may say that when God visits Earth, or more generally the natural world, He's natural at that point. I disagree, just because God is in nature, that doesn't mean He's from nature.

2. Not restricted to the laws of nature. Something would be call supernatural if it was able to violate an *authentic* or *true* law of nature. The words "authentic" or "true" are emphasized to indicate that a supernatural event is is the breaking of a *true* law of nature not simply just a product of misunderstanding the laws of nature or ignorance of a law of nature. If it's an *authentic* or *true* law of nature, then it would be an actual correct law of nature that was broken.

3. Immaterial. This is a tricky criteria since critics would say logic or any other concept is immaterial; does that therefore make it supernatural? To solve this issue for the time being I have considered restricting this criteria to only applying to immaterial *beings* and not just anything immaterial.
*As an exception, I'd also say that some supernatural events can also be observed. For example, Jesus walking on water would be an example of what a supernatural event that we could observe. You'd know this was supernatural by considering my criteria #2 which is right before this one.*

4. Not explainable as a law of nature. I don't believe that science has to be only a pursuit of knowledge under the paradigm of naturalism. Therefore, science in the future may choose to openly explore supernatural aspects and potentially gain some understanding of how the supernatural works, enough to class something as being supernatural. That is, it wouldn't fall into the category of any of the laws of nature. This would be like explaining something to be immaterial.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Gonzo wrote: "Willpower" is also chemicals in your brain, measurable at that, same with the amount of kinetic energy generated, and there would be a third measurable interaction between the willpower and the energy (or you could figure out a ratio to solve for a constant).

I already said that "will power" and "kinetic energy" are natural phenomena. What I want to know is if interaction can occur to the extent that someone can fly as Superman could? Where is the scientific validation for this? Why haven't scientists observed psychokinesis to this scale or psychokinesis at all for that matter? What TheMessage was giving me was theoretical and really fiction, not scientific and therefore not in accordance to a known law of nature.

I'm also not sure if you factored in my other point. I understand that "will power" and "kinetic energy" are natural phenomena but the way they're used doesn't have to necessarily be natural. You're not factoring in that something natural may be involved but *the way* in which the natural thing(s) were used may not be unnatural. Also, what if I was able to create things just by thinking about it? For example, I could think of a car, and it would appear right before my eyes. I know "will power" is perhaps a natural phenomenon, but wouldn't *the way* I just described using it be an unnatural thing?

Gonzo wrote: Jesus' "miracle powers" are a bit contradictory even in the bible.
as seen here:

Matthew 21:18-22 (New International Version)

The Fig Tree Withers
18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.

21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Why didn't he just make it grow figs? The Mark version of this says he cursed the tree.

I'm not sure why He didn't just cause figs to grow. Although, I would call being able to make trees wither just by cursing them as being unnatural by itself.

Gonzo wrote:I already told you, there is no absolute certainty, then used the example of the switch from Newtonian mechanics for gravity to Einsteinium. Natural laws aren't absolute, they only fit our current observations and understanding of the world around us. Any of the events we've been talking about would drastically alter our concepts of these laws as new information about them would be brought to light.

The laws of nature exists irregardless of if scientists notice them or know about them accurately. Just as I mentioned earlier, if they aren't absolutely certain that they understand them, then that would also mean they're not sure as to how they work. If you're sure about how something works, you need to have accurate knowledge of it which involves absolute certainty. Also, if scientists are not absolutely certain about the laws of nature they currently notice, and if there's laws that are functioning that they don't even know about, then they wouldn't be able to class something as natural or supernatural in some cases. That is because a supernatural event may occur, that is violating an "authentic" or "real" law of nature" and they couldn't class that as natural without first knowing if that's a law of nature to begin with. I hope, they'd at least class it as mysterious, instead of as some try to do as just calling that an unknown law of nature and not possibly being a supernatural event.

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:02 pm

I already said that "will power" and "kinetic energy" are natural phenomena. What I want to know is if interaction can occur to the extent that someone can fly as Superman could? Where is the scientific validation for this? Why haven't scientists observed psychokinesis to this scale or psychokinesis at all for that matter? What TheMessage was giving me was theoretical and really fiction, not scientific and therefore not in accordance to a known law of nature.

Yeah, which is why I gave the example of being able to extrapolate a constant from the data provided. It's obviously fiction, as no one is able to fly with "willpower", but the point is both "will power" and "kinetic energy" (could even be in the form of displacement of air molecules, which one would need to do if they flew) are measurable and so we can determine the third, energy or whatever it is, that you decide to deem supernatural.

I'm also not sure if you factored in my other point. I understand that "will power" and "kinetic energy" are natural phenomena but the way they're used doesn't have to necessarily be natural. You're not factoring in that something natural may be involved but *the way* in which the natural thing(s) were used may not be unnatural. Also, what if I was able to create things just by thinking about it? For example, I could think of a car, and it would appear right before my eyes. I know "will power" is perhaps a natural phenomenon, but wouldn't *the way* I just described using it be an unnatural thing?

When has anyone since the advent of modern recording devices witnessed anything you would deem supernatural? Using the car example, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so the components that make up the car would have to come from somewhere, and again, we could measure the mass of the car as compared to activity in your brain, and we get yet another constant.

I'm not sure why He didn't just cause figs to grow. Although, I would call being able to make trees wither just by cursing them as being unnatural by itself.

Seems he got really upset, doesn't he control the weather and didn't he create plants? In one of the versions the plant takes a day to wither, salt can do that.

The laws of nature exists irregardless of if scientists notice them or know about them accurately. Just as I mentioned earlier, if they aren't absolutely certain that they understand them, then that would also mean they're not sure as to how they work. If you're sure about how something works, you need to have accurate knowledge of it which involves absolute certainty. Also, if scientists are not absolutely certain about the laws of nature they currently notice, and if there's laws that are functioning that they don't even know about, then they wouldn't be able to class something as natural or supernatural in some cases. That is because a supernatural event may occur, that is violating an "authentic" or "real" law of nature" and they couldn't class that as natural without first knowing if that's a law of nature to begin with. I hope, they'd at least class it as mysterious, instead of as some try to do as just calling that an unknown law of nature and not possibly being a supernatural event.

And the laws of what you consider supernatural exist whether or not anyone observes them or not. Once we would observe such laws, we would compile them with our current understanding of the universe.

The point is they don't need to classify them as separate, as they obviously pertain to our reality if they can manipulate it. Everything is natural.

TheMessage · Post by **TheMessage** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:37 pm

Angel wrote:
TheMessage wrote:Are planes supernatural now too? It was a comic book, they didn't feel like wasting an entire issue on explaining how superman can fly. Perhaps his species can manipulate kinetic energy to produce enough force to launch into flight. The outstretched fist is the focal point of this energy. When they need to hover, they manipulate the energy inwards at an even rate and the conflicting forces hold them up.

TheMessage wrote:Willpower? That would be a cognitive function of the brain which means it's manipulating energy. Basically, the way I just explained it above is using 'willpower' to manipulate kinetic energy.
What you seem to be describing is psychokinesis and on a grand scale as well. Just like I stated earlier, if you want to call something natural, you need to base it off how it's defined and there's nothing known from the laws of nature that validates what you're saying as far as will power being able to manipulate kinetic energy to the extent of what someone can levitate or fly at supersonic speeds. That's science "fiction" or comic "fiction". You're also assuming that just the mere use of natural things is automatically natural, but you should also factor in "how" they're used which may not always fall in line as to what's natural. What if for example, kinetic energy is something that naturally can't be manipulated by "will power" to where you can fly? Then that means kinetic energy which is a natural phenomena was being used by "will power" which for now we can say is also natural phenomena but "in a supernatural way". Also according to the Bible, Jesus used "GOD's power" to do miracles and God's power did not originate in nature. And perhaps I should say Jesus is said to have used "faith" so not necessarily His will power since our will power has no power to do the types of miracles that's written that Jesus did. Another example I can think of is lets say if I used my will power to create things "just by thinking about it", although "will power" is perhaps natural but the way I used it, is not natural at all.

But it's not 'someone' it's another species entirely. Superman isn't human and it's entirely possible that his brain allows for such extreme manipulation of energy. If he existed he would be natural, which is my point.

TheMessage wrote:I think pegging down the laws of nature would be required before any discussion of what violates them, just as criminal law must be passed before anyone can be prosecuted for violating it. This means of course that we're a long ways away from getting a solid definition for this, and for the most part yours seems sound, except for the part about 'immaterial beings'.
You don't agree that science knows about some laws of nature already? That's troubling if that's so, because then they wouldn't be certain of how anything works.

We do, but not a whole lot in the grand scheme. We though we had gravity figured out but now we know that's been wrong for years. I'm saying that until we get much closer we can't stary drawing lines as to what breaks the rules.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue May 05, 2009 6:53 pm

Gonzo wrote: Yeah, which is why I gave the example of being able to extrapolate a constant from the data provided. It's obviously fiction, as no one is able to fly with "willpower", but the point is both "will power" and "kinetic energy" (could even be in the form of displacement of air molecules, which one would need to do if they flew) are measurable and so we can determine the third, energy or whatever it is, that you decide to deem supernatural.

First off, we aren't absolutely certain of the laws of nature as you admitted in your previous post. So we can't be "absolutely" sure nor can we make an absolute statement such as matter can "NEVER" be created nor destroyed. Besides, even if that law of thermodynamics was indeed an actual or "authentic" law of nature, then being able to make a car pop out of nowhere just by thinking about it would be against the laws of nature, and thus supernatural. That is the whole point of the supernatural to begin with. I don't even find this being logically impossible considering that the laws of nature are not the extent as to what's logically possible.

Gonzo wrote:When has anyone since the advent of modern recording devices witnessed anything you would deem supernatural? Using the car example, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so the components that make up the car would have to come from somewhere, and again, we could measure the mass of the car as compared to activity in your brain, and we get yet another constant.

I'm speaking in terms of definition, not necessarily actual existence in reality. All a definition needs is to make sense that is be non-contradictory, also that we can picture or understanding what it means or is, so that could identify it whether in a fictional story or in real life. The reason you need to give examples of actual things is because nature is defined and proven to be an actual existing thing or force with laws functioning. So if you want to give examples of what's natural, it should be in line with the laws of nature or based on the laws of nature. Otherwise, you can't call your examples natural and to be consistent you also wouldn't call them supernatural neither. I'd call it a mystery or an anomaly, or simply something in which we wouldn't know how to classify.

Gonzo wrote: And the laws of what you consider supernatural exist whether or not anyone observes them or not. Once we would observe such laws, we would compile them with our current understanding of the universe.

The point is they don't need to classify them as separate, as they obviously pertain to our reality if they can manipulate it. Everything is natural.

I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume that science can explain and understand everything in reality. We have limits to our understanding. The Universe is turning out to show more mysteries than people just centuries ago would've never dreamed of and I won't put my stock in science being able to explain all of it, if that's even possible to begin with.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue May 05, 2009 10:54 pm

Angel wrote: All a definition needs is to make sense that is be non-contradictory, also that we can picture or understanding what it means or is, so that could identify it whether in a fictional story or in real life.

Edit of my last response, from 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence:

Sorry for the typos. I couldn't edit the original post so I'm editing it on a separate post. I was trying to say that all that's needed for a definition is that it makes sense by not being contradictory. It should also give us a picture or some understanding of what it means or is so that we could identify it whether it be in a fictional story or in real life.

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Fri May 08, 2009 11:56 pm

Ok, so your argument is that some occurrence unable to be explained by our currently defined laws of nature would be supernatural. I get it, the only problem is, while it might be considered "supernatural" for a short period of time, we will come to realize there is a process by which it occurs that can be measured and explained since the changes are occurring in our world. Your definition might be used for a short time by non-scientists, but ultimately anything that would happen in our reality would be considered a natural occurrence, because it could be explained (by god if all else fails).

As you said here

The laws of nature exists irregardless of if scientists notice them or know about them accurately.

The laws of what you define as supernatural still exist.

I just don't understand why anything that occurs in reality would be considered outside of it, like I said, even if we can't glimpse into or measure the other reality that affects ours, we can indirectly figure out it's impact into ours using constants as I explained.

I understand that maybe the occurrences should be classified differently, but something natural has the connotation that it can be explained and supernatural that it can not, that's my only real discrepancy.

Also, sorry for taking so long to answer.

Sir Rhetor · Post by **Sir Rhetor** » Fri May 29, 2009 10:31 pm

It is important to distinguish the "supernatural" with the concepts we do not yet understand. For example, a higher dimensional being could "appear" in one place and disappear only to appear far away from point A.

You see that there is an explanation for this "supernatural" event.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:16 am

Gonzo wrote:
Angel wrote:What you seem to be describing is psychokinesis and on a grand scale as well. Just like I stated earlier, if you want to call something natural, you need to base it off how it's defined and there's nothing known from the laws of nature that validates what you're saying as far as will power being able to manipulate kinetic energy to the extent of what someone can levitate or fly at supersonic speeds. That's science "fiction" or comic "fiction". You're also assuming that just the mere use of natural things is automatically natural, but you should also factor in "how" they're used which may not always fall in line as to what's natural. What if for example, kinetic energy is something that naturally can't be manipulated by "will power" to where you can fly? Then that means kinetic energy which is a natural phenomena was being used by "will power" which for now we can say is also natural phenomena but "in a supernatural way". Also according to the Bible, Jesus used "GOD's power" to do miracles and God's power did not originate in nature. And perhaps I should say Jesus is said to have used "faith" so not necessarily His will power since our will power has no power to do the types of miracles that's written that Jesus did. Another example I can think of is lets say if I used my will power to create things "just by thinking about it", although "will power" is perhaps natural but the way I used it, is not natural at all.
"Willpower" is also chemicals in your brain, measurable at that, same with the amount of kinetic energy generated, and there would be a third measurable interaction between the willpower and the energy (or you could figure out a ratio to solve for a constant).

You assume that there would be a third scientifically measurable interaction. I'd also add even if we could measure or detect the mechanism that causes willpower and kinetic energy to work together to produce psychokinesis, that is still not to say that that mechanism can be scientifically explained... or that it would be how the physical universe would work. One reason I say this is because measurability is just one step to scientific explanation, not the only task or step. Scientists may detect or be able to measure the mechanism but dont' have any understanding of how that mechanism is able to produce a psychokinetic effect. Figuring out the constant would only be detecting what is causing the interaction to work, not necessarily how or why or that it's something we could repeat ourselves.

Gonzo wrote:Ok, so your argument is that some occurrence unable to be explained by our currently defined laws of nature would be supernatural. I get it, the only problem is, while it might be considered "supernatural" for a short period of time, we will come to realize there is a process by which it occurs that can be measured and explained since the changes are occurring in our world. Your definition might be used for a short time by non-scientists, but ultimately anything that would happen in our reality would be considered a natural occurrence, because it could be explained (by god if all else fails).

You assume that everything classed as supernatural will eventually be explained as a normal function of the physical or material universe. I would only speculate that some things will, not all. I also noticed that you at least mentioned that for a supernatural occurrence to be eventually classed as natural, it would undergo being measured AND *explained* which is something you left out in your point about figuring out how willpower and kinetic energy could produce psychokinesis formulating a ratio to figure out a constant. If it can ever be proven that matter and energy (as I'd say is all the physical universe or NATURAL universe is composed of) then I'll embrace the idea that all supernatural phenomena will eventually be shown to be natural.

Gonzo wrote:I just don't understand why anything that occurs in reality would be considered outside of it, like I said, even if we can't glimpse into or measure the other reality that affects ours, we can indirectly figure out it's impact into ours using constants as I explained.

I've encountered many people trying to define reality as only being the natural world. I'm not sure if these people aren't factoring in that the word "nature" has different meanings and does not always relate to nature as in meaning a governing force with laws operating in the Universe. Perhaps it can be said that reality always has things natural to it but this can be natural as in the other meaning which is "characteristics". In other words, you'd be speaking about the nature of reality or saying that reality has basic characteristics. That is not the same as speaking of the other meaning of nature that is usually distinguished with the supernatural.

Others may say that all of reality is natural because their adherence to naturalism which is a philosophical position that asserts that "everything" is of nature and it is usually put in connection with materialism. I see scientists accepting naturalism or materialism out of necessity since it fits in with what we can readily observe for one reason but it is not accepted based on actual proof that "everything" is composed of matter or is of nature. This would mean that nature is not all there is to reality or at least we wouldn't know that. Even if we said the Universe was all that existed, I'd simply distinguish between the spiritual part and the "physical" part.

Gonzo wrote:I understand that maybe the occurrences should be classified differently, but something natural has the connotation that it can be explained and supernatural that it can not, that's my only real discrepancy.

Also, sorry for taking so long to answer.

I would say it depends on "how" it's explained or explained as being what. For example, religionists offer "spiritual" explanations for some of their experiences. We don't know if science won't eventually be expanded to include supernatural or spiritual aspects, so I won't put my full stock on scientific explanation always leading to explanations based on the natural world.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:29 am

Modman wrote:It is important to distinguish the "supernatural" with the concepts we do not yet understand. For example, a higher dimensional being could "appear" in one place and disappear only to appear far away from point A.

You see that there is an explanation for this "supernatural" event.

I'm not sure if you're responding to my example where I mentioned a ghost materializing long enough for us to see it, and then dematerializing shortly after. If you are, I don't believe your explanation applies. I would not say the ghost dematerializes or disappears because it's gone to another location or some other dimension, rather it's still in the same spot but we just can't perceive it since it is in an immaterial state.

I apologize if my point was not what you were referring to.

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:54 pm

You assume that there would be a third scientifically measurable interaction. I'd also add even if we could measure or detect the mechanism that causes willpower and kinetic energy to work together to produce psychokinesis, that is still not to say that that mechanism can be scientifically explained... or that it would be how the physical universe would work. One reason I say this is because measurability is just one step to scientific explanation, not the only task or step. Scientists may detect or be able to measure the mechanism but dont' have any understanding of how that mechanism is able to produce a psychokinetic effect. Figuring out the constant would only be detecting what is causing the interaction to work, not necessarily how or why or that it's something we could repeat ourselves.

You assume that everything classed as supernatural will eventually be explained as a normal function of the physical or material universe. I would only speculate that some things will, not all. I also noticed that you at least mentioned that for a supernatural occurrence to be eventually classed as natural, it would undergo being measured AND *explained* which is something you left out in your point about figuring out how willpower and kinetic energy could produce psychokinesis formulating a ratio to figure out a constant. If it can ever be proven that matter and energy (as I'd say is all the physical universe or NATURAL universe is composed of) then I'll embrace the idea that all supernatural phenomena will eventually be shown to be natural.

I make these assumptions because they are all we have to rely on when it comes to explaining the world around us, we have to assume things worked the way they have worked until we are given evidence to the contrary, it's like questioning one's senses, yeah we don't know if they tell us the truth about reality, but what else are we going to use (since they are all we have to tell us about our reality)?. In the hypothetical example you proved your point, which summarized is I believe "we won't know until we find out (if something is natural that is)".

Sorry if this has already been addressed, its been a while since we last talked about this, but do you have any examples of the supernatural? preferably something recorded please.

I've encountered many people trying to define reality as only being the natural world. I'm not sure if these people aren't factoring in that the word "nature" has different meanings and does not always relate to nature as in meaning a governing force with laws operating in the Universe. Perhaps it can be said that reality always has things natural to it but this can be natural as in the other meaning which is "characteristics". In other words, you'd be speaking about the nature of reality or saying that reality has basic characteristics. That is not the same as speaking of the other meaning of nature that is usually distinguished with the supernatural.

Well, the reality of you and I is only that which we can interpret with our senses, nothing more, since it is otherwise irrelevant.

Others may say that all of reality is natural because their adherence to naturalism which is a philosophical position that asserts that "everything" is of nature and it is usually put in connection with materialism. I see scientists accepting naturalism or materialism out of necessity since it fits in with what we can readily observe for one reason but it is not accepted based on actual proof that "everything" is composed of matter or is of nature. This would mean that nature is not all there is to reality or at least we wouldn't know that. Even if we said the Universe was all that existed, I'd simply distinguish between the spiritual part and the "physical" part.

It has worked thus far and there is no "proof" to the contrary which would constitute further study into the matter. We deal with what we have evidence for, and right now the evidence points towards a materialistic universe, perhaps that idea will change (when new evidence is brought to the table.

How do you know there is a spiritual part of the universe? What proof do you have?

I would say it depends on "how" it's explained or explained as being what. For example, religionists offer "spiritual" explanations for some of their experiences. We don't know if science won't eventually be expanded to include supernatural or spiritual aspects, so I won't put my full stock on scientific explanation always leading to explanations based on the natural world.

If the scientific method can be used on it and it can be explained, there is no reason to put it under any definition other than "natural", since it would say the exact same thing science does about any other property of the universe. "Well under this set of circumstances <blank> happens anytime we do this repeatable action and currently the evidence we have for why it happens makes the likely reason for its occurrence blah blah blah"

I'm not sure if you're responding to my example where I mentioned a ghost materializing long enough for us to see it, and then dematerializing shortly after. If you are, I don't believe your explanation applies. I would not say the ghost dematerializes or disappears because it's gone to another location or some other dimension, rather it's still in the same spot but we just can't perceive it since it is in an immaterial state.

It can't exist in our universe if it is immaterial, because then it wouldn't take up space, so it would have to be in another dimension. If it doesn't take up space, it definitely can't be in the same spot, that defies basic logic. And what evidence do you have that ghosts exist?