Can we be "certain" whether or not supernatural realities exist or do not exist?

[randman]

It's a failure of the human mind. People want facts and certainty in their lives, but science only offers theories and probabilities. Religion does offer certainty, so many people think it's better. They just don't seem to realize that being certain doesn't mean that you are right!


That poseur! Trying to steal my good reputation by choosing a similar username! But don't worry, soon I will get my revenge!!1!

Only 3 more posts to go...

Religion may offer certainty in some things but not all. The so-called certainty is more just trust in the midst of great uncertainty, as far as the Christian faith goes.

 

[gumboot]

But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

Given that we ourselves exist within a physical reality, for anything to have any impact on us whatsoever, it must also have some form of physical existence. Anything that exists solely within a supernatural reality cannot influence us in any way, and therefore we shouldn't care about it at all.

For example, even if you accept that "ghosts" exist and explain it away as being "non physical", this doesn't explain how people can see them. Our vision is a physical thing that exists within the physical world. For us to "see" a ghost it must either be made of physical matter that is reflecting light, or must be made of matter that is producing light.

If it is either of these things, it has a physical aspect to its existence, and therefore can be, in theory at least, be proven or disproven by scientific means.

The same applies for all supernatural claims. They all have some sort of physical manifestation.

 

[PixyMisa]

So if we have evidence of say, God, interacting with the universe, does that mean we have scientific evidence God exists?

Depends on what God is, depends on what the evidence is.

So science could potentially confirm or suggest that God exists?

Define "God".

Not really. Things can exist whether we have evidence or not.

So what?

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe. Things that don't interact with the Universe don't exist - by definition. That's what it means to exist.

 

[Trent Wray]

But do you live with "uncertainty" about whether or not there exist supernatural realities, that is, realities that are not bound by the laws of physical reality, non-physical modes of existence? Note that these realities need not be anything mentioned in any religions. That last bit is important.

To me, it seems that there is no way to prove or refute the possibility, because we would have no idea as to how to even begin to detect it, or if that would even be possible. We can't even say it is unlikely, or likely, through observation. We just don't know... In this case, absence of evidence is truly neither evidence of absence nor evidence of presence. How would we, when we would have no idea what we were even looking for? How would we know it could even be detected or tested?

Is our imagination supernatural?

 

[Resume]

Is our imagination supernatural?

No.

 

[mike3]

It's a failure of the human mind. People want facts and certainty in their lives, but science only offers theories and probabilities. Religion does offer certainty, so many people think it's better. They just don't seem to realize that being certain doesn't mean that you are right!

However, if science doesn't give certainty, then why treat it as though it does in many debates I've seen? It seems that it can offer something darned close to certainty... and are you saying that they would not accept the "naturalism" because there's the 0.0000000000000001% odds, shrinking every day, that it is _not_ right? That these people who "need" that certainty would be disturbed by the tiny chance that supernatural _does_ exist, that there's a little chance that, for example, maybe, just maybe, God really does exist?

I'm also curious, which of these, both of which it seems you think are wrong, do you think is more wrong:

1. the view of 100% certainty that supernatural does not exist
2. the view that the "level of non-absolute certainty" is much less certain than 99.9999999999%

If you were to argue for (1), then woldn't you be saying that going against the very foundation of science itself (because science cannot give certainty) is less "wrong" than just quabbling over the p, no?

That poseur! Trying to steal my good reputation by choosing a similar username! But don't worry, soon I will get my revenge!!1!

Only 3 more posts to go...

Heh. And what happens after 3 more posts?

 

[John Jones]

So if we have evidence of say, God, interacting with the universe, does that mean we have scientific evidence God exists?

So science could potentially confirm or suggest that God exists?



Not really. Things can exist whether we have evidence or not.

Evidence?

 

[Oualawouzou]

However, if science doesn't give certainty, then why treat it as though it does in many debates I've seen?

Science offers "certainty" only as far as the evidence we have currently gathered allows us to. So, for all intent and purpose, it offers "certainty" until a new and better theory comes along.

It offers "certainty" in a pragmatic sense, not in a philosophical sense.

It seesm that it can offer something darned close to certainty... and are you saying that nobody would accept the "naturalism" because there's the 0.0000000000000001% odds, shrinking every day, that it is _not_ right? That people would be disturbed by the tiny chance that supernatural _does_ exist?

My two cents on this matter: science is complex. Religion is not. The human brain wants answers, and it is much more satisfying to accept a simple though imperfect answer than to try and wrap one's mind around a complete but very complex answer. Remember that we are still hardwired to determine quickly weither or not a tiger is hiding in that bush, not to wonder about the exact mechanisms that allows a tiny seed to grow into a bush and a pair of gametes to grow into a tiger.

 

[mike3]

But this still leaves you with a problem of defining supernatural as something outside of natural; you're still left with the task of drawing a line somewhere outside of this area of the map we call the known; where on this side you can say things are natural, and on that side supernatural. I don't know how to draw this line for your question; frankly, this should be your job anyway because it's your question.

However, without enough knowledge myself, the "job" cannot be done by me, unless others do have such knowledge, and can provide ideas so I can figure out which ones would work best for making the question better. Now, if nobody has such knowledge, then I guess the question is moot and worthless, at least at this point in time.

 

[mike3]

Science offers "certainty" only as far as the evidence we have currently gathered allows us to. So, for all intent and purpose, it offers "certainty" until a new and better theory comes along.

It offers "certainty" in a pragmatic sense, not in a philosophical sense.



My two cents on this matter: science is complex. Religion is not. The human brain wants answers, and it is much more satisfying to accept a simple though imperfect answer than to try and wrap one's mind around a complete but very complex answer. Remember that we are still hardwired to determine quickly weither or not a tiger is hiding in that bush, not to wonder about the exact mechanisms that allows a tiny seed to grow into a bush and a pair of gametes to grow into a tiger.

However, science doesn't give complete answers, as was mentioned. Because it doesn't give certainty. But it does give more complete answers, however this suggests the problem is because they're more complex. So it seems like complexity is the bigger problem, more than certainty, or lack of certainty.

 

[mike3]

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe. Things that don't interact with the Universe don't exist - by definition. That's what it means to exist.

How is that? I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else. Of course that's not a proof that such things exist -- but that's fine, since that's not what it's supposed to be arguing for, rather it is arguing that this definition of "existence" doesn't seem to capture the "intuitive sense" of what it means for something to exist.

Though of course, if it does not interact, then pratically it can be treated as if it did not exist, but that does not have anything to do with the actual reality of the situation. It has more to do with our knowledge and attitudes, or lack thereof.

 

[Oualawouzou]

How is that? I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else. Of course that's not a proof that such things exist -- but that's fine, since that's not what it's supposed to be arguing for, rather it is arguing that this definition of "existence" doesn't seem to capture the "intuitive sense" of what it means for something to exist.

Though of course, if it does not interact, then pratically it can be treated as if it did not exist, but that does not have anything to do with the actual reality of the situation. It has more to do with our knowledge and attitudes, or lack thereof.

Existence, by definition, is what is, not what you can imagine being. Arguing about the potential existence of something that we can't, by definition, detect/interact with at all is, IMHO, philosophical masturbation.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

How is that? I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else. Of course that's not a proof that such things exist -- but that's fine, since that's not what it's supposed to be arguing for, rather it is arguing that this definition of "existence" doesn't seem to capture the "intuitive sense" of what it means for something to exist.

Though of course, if it does not interact, then pratically it can be treated as if it did not exist, but that does not have anything to do with the actual reality of the situation. It has more to do with our knowledge and attitudes, or lack thereof.

Yes, you're right: It has to do with our knowledge. We may very well never know many things that could actually exist, but they're beyond our ability to know them.

There could be parallel Universes, advanced Alien technologies, super powerful Gods, incredible and amazing things beyond our comprehension. Our intelligence certainly is limited so it is not unreasonable to assume that there may be a lot of things beyond our ability to discover.

No one has denied that. But still, to our knowledge those things don't exist. They could exist, but we don't know it. And since these "supposed" things don't interact with our reality, talking about them as if they existed is irrelevant. But yes that these things could exist and that they're beyond our ability to discover them is a possibility.

 

[Tatyana]

This is just my take on things.

We can measure the background radiation from the big bang and do spectral analysis on stars a phenomenal distance away.

We are splitting atoms into quarks, spitting quarks and looking for the Higgs Boson.

We can measure and observe so many things to a phenomenal degree of accuracy, yet we haven't ever had any accurate recordings or measurements of supernatural phenomena.

For my own purposes, I think it is fairly safe to assume these things do not exist, however, I would be willing to change my mind if accurate evidence emerges.

 

[PixyMisa]

How is that? I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else.

No you can't. Think it through.

 

[mike3]

No you can't. Think it through.

Why is it logically impossible to have two totally disconnected things that "exist"? Can you explain the details of your argument?

Furthermore, this viewpoint suggests that existence is dependent upon interaction with other things. (This is intriguing, since it resembles certain Eastern philosophies. Is that what you're using here?) In that case, with what does the material universe interact with, to make it exist? Or is it self-existent? If so, what stops there from being a second instantiation of self-existence, a fully disconnected, independent second entity like the universe? In other words, why can only one self-existent entity exist?

 

[Trent Wray]

How is that? I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else.

This wasn't a conversation I was a part of .... but please give an example of imagining something that exists yet doesn't interact with anything else.

 

[Brainache]

This wasn't a conversation I was a part of .... but please give an example of imagining something that exists yet doesn't interact with anything else.

Does the act of imagining it count as interacting with it?

 

[Trent Wray]

Does the act of imagining it count as interacting with it?

Shhhhhh !!!! You'll ruin the surprise

 

[Nonpareil]

Why is it logically impossible to have two totally disconnected things that "exist"?

That isn't the issue. You said

I can imagine something "existing" yet not interacting with anything else.

That means that you can imagine something existing without interacting with anything else, not just one other thing.

Things that don't exist have no effect on the universe. They interact with absolutely nothing. Anything which exists must have some effect on the universe, even if that effect is incredibly, unbelievably small. Otherwise it is indistinguishable in any way from a nonexistent object, and therefore does not exist.

Furthermore, this viewpoint suggests that existence is dependent upon interaction with other things.

Not exactly. It's simply a logical necessity that everything which exists does interact with something.

In that case, with what does the material universe interact with, to make it exist? Or is it self-existent?

You're making the mistake of labeling a set - a collection of objects - as an object in itself. It isn't. "The universe" is simply shorthand for "everything that exists". It doesn't interact with anything else because it isn't anything. It's just a name.