Is 'something' an appeal to supernatural entites?

[OccamsRazor]

When people say that they believe in 'something' isn't that an appeal to a supernatural entity in exactly the same fashion as religion?

In another thread

I believe in a 'something'....I never said that this 'something' I mentioned is supernatural

Does this statement make sense? If you make an appeal to 'something' then, by definition, are you not appealing to 'something' beyond physical existence?

[McCulloch]

I am thinking that when people say that they believe in 'something' that they are referring to some sort of supernatural entity. Otherwise their statement makes very little sense.
What I think that they are really stating, is that they are hesitant to admit that they can specify any attributes to that 'something' like true theists do. Their 'something' may or may not have a personality. It has not clearly communicated to humanity. It may or may not perform a post mortem judgement on souls. It is the reason for the universe's existence. It is an expression of one form of agnosticism.

Either that, or they mean, "I've got my own religion and I don't want to argue with you about the particulars. Go bug my neighbour!"

[QED]

Isn't this purely an anthropocentric reaction? If we wander into some fabulous garden with fountains and paving we know somebody must own it and have created it. We're simply not used to seeing what natural order can do and so assume the existence of a supernatural garden designer.

[Bugmaster]

If we wander into some fabulous garden with fountains and paving we know somebody must own it and have created it. We're simply not used to seeing what natural order can do and so assume the existence of a supernatural garden designer.

This is actually the same false analogy as the watch and the watchmaker. We know that gardens are designed; we design them all the time, just like watches. A better analogy would be: "If we're sailing along on the ocean, and notice an island full of hexagonal pillars, should we assume that they're designed ?"

[QED]

If we wander into some fabulous garden with fountains and paving we know somebody must own it and have created it. We're simply not used to seeing what natural order can do and so assume the existence of a supernatural garden designer.

This is actually the same false analogy as the watch and the watchmaker. We know that gardens are designed; we design them all the time, just like watches. A better analogy would be: "If we're sailing along on the ocean, and notice an island full of hexagonal pillars, should we assume that they're designed ?"

Yes it's a false analogy, but I think the persuasive effects analogies like this can have on the mind of an individual are incredibly strong. I think people are unaware of the hold that an unconscious decision like this can have. Some part of our brains seems to be almost inaccessible to our reason when it has "seen" something.

[Bugmaster]

Some part of our brains seems to be almost inaccessible to our reason when it has "seen" something.

This is precisely the difference between science and religion. In science, we have an external standard against which to test our visions; and we have an atmosphere where criticism is encouraged, just to make sure we're testing everything as much as possible. In religion, though, there's no external standard, so anything goes.

[OccamsRazor]

I think that these are all good points. My own 2-pence worth is that the 'something' is, by definition a supernatural entity.

The issue is that when string theory was posited I do not believe that this would satiate such a persons belief in 'something'. They would not say "ahh, yes I knew I believed in 'something' and that 'something' happens to be 11D supergravity".

I think that no physical law or process would ever fill the 'something' because this 'something' is always an unreachable supernatural process or thing.

Or possibly McCulloch may have hit the nail squarely on the head with

"I've got my own religion and I don't want to argue with you about the particulars. Go bug my neighbour!"

[HughDP]

When people say that they believe in 'something' isn't that an appeal to a supernatural entity in exactly the same fashion as religion?

In another thread

I believe in a 'something'....I never said that this 'something' I mentioned is supernatural

Does this statement make sense? If you make an appeal to 'something' then, by definition, are you not appealing to 'something' beyond physical existence?

Personally I don't think so.

The use of the 'something' is very syntactically dependent, but I don't think it can always be taken to mean a supernatural 'something'.

The appeal to the supernatural 'something' prevents any further empirical knowledge of the 'something', but there are also 'somethings' that perhaps we can't define precisely right now, but we don't file them in our supernatural trays and beyond the realms of all future science.