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

[Beth]

Nice Thread! Some excellent posts so far.

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?

Yes, I live with "uncertainty" about those things.

Otherwise, I agree with your analysis - the problem is with the word 'supernatural'. Anything that affects the physical world must have a physical component and therefore must be part of nature - and, in principle, amenable to scientific examination and explanation. If it doesn't affect the physical world in any way, it doesn't physically exist, and we have good explanations for the non-physical in terms of the mind - abstract ideas and concepts.

Abstract ideas and concepts affect the world in many ways whilst not physically existing. Ancient religions attributed much power to words and symbols - the essence of abstract ideas.

If we redefine 'supernatural' to mean natural but beyond our current knowledge, we run into the evidence problem. The other side of the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' coin is that all the evidence we do have suggests that claimed supernatural phenomena either have an explanation that fits our existing models of how the universe behaves, or don't physically exist at all. This is what we find whenever we investigate or experiment carefully.

I find mathematics to be a marvelous way to model the real world. If you look for a rational approximation of any irrational value, you can find such an approximation to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. Still, we mathematicians accept that the irrationals exist and are, in fact, far more numerous than the rationals.

There is also the issue that we know enough about nature, particularly physics, to say that the majority of claimed supernatural phenomena cannot physically exist because, to behave as claimed, they would violate the most fundamental natural 'laws'

This depends on the specifics of what we choose to define as supernatural.

If that were the case, then the physical world would not be what we experience. This interpretation is a version of solipsism, where nothing apparently real has physical existence. Ultimately, it goes nowhere - if the world we experience is purely imaginary, all bets are off, anything can happen, and we can rely on nothing. Each of us inhabits a potentially unique simulated universe, and what is natural or supernatural becomes moot, as none of it is externally, objectively real.

Yes. Solipsism is unfalsifiable and logically sound. It simply isn't a very satisfying way to view the world.

Today, people aren't just shrugging and saying that quantum entanglement is supernatural and unexplainable; they're working to revise the laws of nature to include it.

Yes. Those quantum particles do at least seem to obey some physical laws of their own. It's just all pretty mystifying for us humans.

 

[Belz...]

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

If by "certain", you mean "certain for all practical intents and purposes", then yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

Abstract ideas and concepts affect the world in many ways whilst not physically existing. Ancient religions attributed much power to words and symbols - the essence of abstract ideas.

Yes and no. Abstract ideas and concepts can affect the world if instantiated, if they are represented in some concrete form. If not, then... Not.

 

[gentlehorse]

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? *snip*

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.

If we can detect it, it's not supernatural.

On the other hand:

How do we distinguish between something for which there can be no evidence, even in principle, and something that does not exist?

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.

If you posit the existence of something for which there can be no evidence, how can it be meaningfully said to exist?

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?

Again, if it can be detected and tested, it is not supernatural.

 

[qayak]

If we can detect it, it's not supernatural.

Evidence please. Nowhere is that part of the definition of supernatural and no logical reason exists as to why it should be.

 

[Soapy Sam]

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.

True. But so does everything we do.
It's perfectly possible ZXcV(3) exist (all nty7 of them) and that they do so in qrwgg(!) and in fffffg shedus of kkk5.

But since nobody knows WTF any of that means, how to test for it, or whether it's chocolate flavour or pink, it's hard to see why we should care.

Fifty years ago, we could not detect neutrinos. Now we can take photos of the sun, through the Earth, using them.
But if something DOES NOT INTERACT with the universe, then it does not exist in that universe. It's not a question of our technology being inadequate, but a matter of the definitive property of X being that X is in no way detectable, by any means, ever.
This seems (to me) like a fair definition of "does not exist".

 

[gentlehorse]

Evidence please. Nowhere is that part of the definition of supernatural and no logical reason exists as to why it should be.

Rather than play "dictionary war", perhaps we could cut to the chase and you could provide me with an example of a phenomenon that is both detectable and supernatural. I'm willing to stand corrected.

 

[qayak]

Rather than play "dictionary war", perhaps we could cut to the chase and you could provide me with an example of a phenomenon that is both detectable and supernatural. I'm willing to stand corrected.

I say there are no supernatural forces, you are claiming there are. The burden of proof is on you.

Perhaps you could just explain how a supernatural force could interact with our universe and not be detected. Make it comprehensive.

 

[Malerin]

I say there are no supernatural forces, you are claiming there are. The burden of proof is on you.

That's not what Horse is claiming.

And the burden of proof is on you as well.

Perhaps you could just explain how a supernatural force could interact with our universe and not be detected. Make it comprehensive.

Easy: A supernatual entity might interact with the universe only when no one's looking.

 

[Malerin]

So if there's zero evidence, that means it doesn't exist, as opposed to merely that we cannot know if it exists.

If no evidence is possible, that does mean it doesn't exist.

Wrong. Other universes might exist that, in priciple, we will never have evidence of.

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe.

Wrong on so many levels.

Things that don't interact with the Universe don't exist - by definition. That's what it means to exist.

Whose definition? Yours?

 

[gentlehorse]

I say there are no supernatural forces, you are claiming there are.

Nope. Don't know where you got that idea--

 

[PixyMisa]

Wrong. Other universes might exist that, in priciple, we will never have evidence of.

Then in what sense do they exist?

Wrong on so many levels.

Name one.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Easy: A supernatual entity might interact with the universe only when no one's looking.

What a coincidence. Because I happen to have a magical unicorn living in my apartment, but he only shows up when no one's looking. But he's real I swear!

 

[Sledge]

Malerin can post flawlessly logical posts that prove everything he believes, but only if no one reads them.

 

[dlorde]

Abstract ideas and concepts affect the world in many ways whilst not physically existing. Ancient religions attributed much power to words and symbols - the essence of abstract ideas.

True enough, but is there anything supernatural about those abstract ideas and concepts, or are they the result of natural processes?

I find mathematics to be a marvelous way to model the real world. If you look for a rational approximation of any irrational value, you can find such an approximation to any arbitrary degree of accuracy. Still, we mathematicians accept that the irrationals exist and are, in fact, far more numerous than the rationals.

I'm afraid I don't quite see what you're getting at here...

 

[Beth]

True enough, but is there anything supernatural about those abstract ideas and concepts, or are they the result of natural processes?

I don't know about supernatural as there are various ways of defining supernatural. They are certainly non-physical and do fit some definitions of supernatural.

I'm afraid I don't quite see what you're getting at here...

If we can always arrive at a rational explanation for every seemingly supernatural event can we conclude that nothing supernatural exists? Or would it be like concluding that irrational numbers don't exist?

 

[Aepervius]

Hmm. But someone here said that with no evidence, they would believe it does not exist, thus absence of evidence = evidence of absence to them, or if not, then they're asserting a dogmatic position in the absence of evidence (namely absence of evidence of absence since absence of evidence of presence does not in the given case equal evidence of absence, sheesh, what a tonguetwister). That is the kind of thing I was going after, and I've heard it elsewhere.

No, the default position of any entity for which we don't have evidence should always be "they don't exists". Why ? because we cannot ever provide evidence of non existence. So with another default you run into the problem that there is an infinite number of entity for which we have no evidence of existence.

Therefore the default should be "it don't exists until evidenced otherwise".

That is what this is about. People speculate other universe, ghost, gods, djinns, devil, chupacabra etc... But in absence of any evidence, if it goes contrary to what we observed up to now, then the default position should be "if you cannot provide evidence then it does not exists".

You can make it a bit more "relaxed" proposition by saying "we don't know" but the reality is that nobody will take into account that infinite amount of imaginated entities, and even in some case they will downright say "It don't exists". Cue theist which for example say "baron samedi" don't exists or even "the easter bunny" don't exists. Etc...

 

[Malerin]

No, the default position of any entity for which we don't have evidence should always be "they don't exists".

No it shouldn't.

Why ? because we cannot ever provide evidence of non existence.

Sure you can. You're mixing up proof with evidence. There's a lot of evidence unicorns don't exist (on Earth, at least)

So with another default you run into the problem that there is an infinite number of entity for which we have no evidence of existence.

Not quite infinite. We don't know how many non-terrestrial life forms (entities) exist, but it could be a lot. Probably not infinite though. And of course, like you say, we have no evidence of any of their existence.

Therefore the default should be "it don't exists until evidenced otherwise".

What? We should assume extraterrestrial life forms don't exist until we find evidence for them? Everyone else OK with that?

 

[annnnoid]

If something has no properties by which we can determine whether it exists or not, then it doesn't interact with the Universe.

Wrong on so many levels.

Name one.

….google it!

What? We should assume extraterrestrial life forms don't exist until we find evidence for them? Everyone else OK with that?

…what is the sound of a pin dropping?

 

[Aepervius]

No it shouldn't.

Yeah. Sure. Right. What do you propose in replacement ? A "don't know" followed by acting as if they did not exists ?

Sure you can. You're mixing up proof with evidence. There's a lot of evidence unicorns don't exist (on Earth, at least)

No. there is no evidence of non existence. What there is , is evidence that some story had other origin than a live unicorn. And I am not confusing proof and evidence. You will not be able to disprove unicorn existence. That is the WHOLE POINT.

Not quite infinite. We don't know how many non-terrestrial life forms (entities) exist, but it could be a lot. Probably not infinite though. And of course, like you say, we have no evidence of any of their existence.

Infinite. For every entity you make up, I can make 1 more by adding a property. For each of those I newly created and those you had originaly, i can add 1 more property. Again. And Again. And again.

What? We should assume extraterrestrial life forms don't exist until we find evidence for them? Everyone else OK with that?

For extraterrestrial form we have evidence that life can start with a sample of 1. So it isn't a question whether it CAN or CANNOT exists, but with which probability.

The question whether supernatural (or even outside the universe) entity exists is a FULLY DIFFERENT ONE as we have sample of : ZERO.