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

[randman]

I can make up all sorts of stuff that you can't prove wrong if you go by the mentality that you have presented. For example, I believe that there are two realities. One is the world that we live in, and the other is an alternate reality, governed by Charlie Sheen, in which we are all his slaves and forced to dump piles of cocaine into a pipeline filled with heroin that eventually turns into a catheter that is linked directly into his bloodstream. The Goddesses are the slave drivers, and Charlie Sheen is 30,000 feet tall. Prove me wrong. Since you can't prove me wrong, we must only assume that it is possible for this reality to exist

MWI says this world by definition exists and that you, or a copy of you, is a slave in that world....one reason to suspect MWI may be wrong!

 

[randman]

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


Define "God".


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.

No, not really. Consider your comment:

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.

Some physicists say there are alternative universes we never interact with. May be crazy and I do not accept MWI, but if true, then existence according to some physicists can be inferred even if there is no interaction with us.

Also, God as a concept that interacts with the universe is by your definition natural, part of the universe, at least part of God.

 

[qayak]

I don't know where you get that out of:


In any event, let me state categorically that, despite any misunderstanding that may have arisen as a result of my poor command of the language, I do not claim that supernatural entities interact with our universe without our knowing it, or that they exist at all. As there is no compelling evidence of their existence, I see no reason to conclude that they exist.

Clear enough?

(This post isn't really aimed at anything you said, just some ramblings by me to clarify some ideas.)

I do not understand your point about "If we can detect it, it isn't supernatural." To be supernatural, one must only live, or be able to operate outside natural laws, hence . . . supernatural. Something could obviously be supernatural and we would be able to detect it.

Theists rely on the claim that their supernatural friend is also omnipotent and it is this attribute that makes it impossible for us to detect him. The problem is that they can't think up a mechanism whereby this would be the case. They fall back on the "He is omnipotent, he would have a way!" when what they really mean is "IF he exists, IF he is omnipotent, and IF there is a possible mechanism, our omnipotent being MIGHT be able to do it." The odds of those two statements being true, vary greatly. Occam's Razor and all that.

But, we can prove logically that omnipotence isn't possible. There are limitations to any being's abilities. At this point theists fall back on the "suffuciently omnipotent" rescue of their argument. Their god only has to be at a certain level of omnipotence. This is just silly. Something is either omnipotent or it isn't. What they are doing is admitting their god isn't omnipotent but retaining the label that makes him appear to be.

All these theistic claims are just extensions of the god of the gaps fallacy. Everytime you fill in a gap you think you have given their god one less place to hide but they see it as two more places for their god to hide, one on either side of your filled in gap.

And perhaps they are right, their god has twice as many places to hide but each, and every, time their god must get smaller, and less powerful, to fit into the new gaps.

There is no hope of getting rid of this silly god idea. The only hope is that theists realize that a god as tiny as the one they worship isn't deserving of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

How do you know what are the laws of physical reality? Quantum mechanics throws the laws of physical reality out the door conclusively.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Quantum Mechanics is a very precise, very well-defined, and very successful theory describing physical reality. Scientists and engineers all over the world apply it every day. The computer you used to write that drivel was designed using the principles of Quantum Mechanics.

 

[gentlehorse]

(This post isn't really aimed at anything you said, just some ramblings by me to clarify some ideas.)

I do not understand your point about "If we can detect it, it isn't supernatural." To be supernatural, one must only live, or be able to operate outside natural laws, hence . . . supernatural. Something could obviously be supernatural and we would be able to detect it.

For instance?

Earlier, I asked if you could provide me with an example of something that is both detectable and supernatural. A single counterexample would demonstrate that the conditional statement I made is not true. As I said, I'm willing to stand corrected.

 

[Beth]

For instance?

Earlier, I asked if you could provide me with an example of something that is both detectable and supernatural. A single counterexample would demonstrate that the conditional statement I made is not true. As I said, I'm willing to stand corrected.

Ghosts. Supposedly they can be detected by some sort of electrical meter. Any kind of psi power should also be detectable. Sure, nobody has actually done it yet, but in theory they are detectable.

 

[gentlehorse]

Ghosts. Supposedly they can be detected by some sort of electrical meter. Any kind of psi power should also be detectable. Sure, nobody has actually done it yet, but in theory they are detectable.

As there is no compelling evidence that either psi power or ghosts exist, there is no reason to conclude that they do. Consequently, neither will serve as a counterexample.

 

[qayak]

For instance?

Earlier, I asked if you could provide me with an example of something that is both detectable and supernatural. A single counterexample would demonstrate that the conditional statement I made is not true. As I said, I'm willing to stand corrected.

A being from another dimension moves your parked car sideways across the street. We can detect that. We know what is required to move something according to our laws, a supernatural being, by definition, can violate those laws. So, you see the vehicle move, you detect added energy to a closed system, you detect a force where there is no source for the force. That all violates the laws of our universe.

Does this happen, no, but a supernatural being could do that because they are not bound by our laws and it would be detectable by us. The important thing is that we can detect all that.

A being could even materialize inside our universe, perform a bunch of feats as we watch and then return whence they came. They would be outside our natural world, and therefore, supernatural.

The undetectable claim by theists only comes about because people said, "Fine, show me where this happened" and they couldn't. They then began to claim that god was omnipotent and could make himself, and his miracles, impossible to detect.

We may not be able to detect something that is supernatural but as soon as it interacts with the natural we can.

 

[dafydd]

Consider this comment:



How do you know what are the laws of physical reality? Quantum mechanics throws the laws of physical reality out the door conclusively. MWI is an attempt to preserve those laws by invoking trillions of alternate universes, none of them observed or testable.

Is saying the Multiverse did it more logical and reasonable than saying God did it?

Find out what the words "quantum theory" mean before you start throwing them around.

 

[Trent Wray]

Quantum mechanics throws the laws of physical reality out the door conclusively.

Do you therefore think that quantum mechanics are "supernatural laws" ?

Dare I quote it? Any sufficiently advanced technology (in this case, physics) is indistinguishable from magic ...

 

[Beth]

As there is no compelling evidence that either psi power or ghosts exist, there is no reason to conclude that they do. Consequently, neither will serve as a counterexample.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were asking for an example of something supernatural that is both detectable and has been shown to exist. No, I don't think there is anything like that.

 

[gentlehorse]

A being from another dimension moves your parked car sideways across the street. We can detect that. We know what is required to move something according to our laws, a supernatural being, by definition, can violate those laws. So, you see the vehicle move, you detect added energy to a closed system, you detect a force where there is no source for the force. That all violates the laws of our universe.

Does this happen, no, but a supernatural being could do that because they are not bound by our laws and it would be detectable by us. The important thing is that we can detect all that.

A being could even materialize inside our universe, perform a bunch of feats as we watch and then return whence they came. They would be outside our natural world, and therefore, supernatural.

We may not be able to detect something that is supernatural but as soon as it interacts with the natural we can.

It seems a bit ironic that, in providing your counterexample, you posit the existence of a supernatural entity capable of interacting with the natural world. That is very close to what you mistakenly accused me of doing when you said:

You are claiming that a supernatural being can interact with our universe without our knowing it. The only way that can happen is if you think they exist because if they don't exist, they can't interact.

You went on to say:

Now, it is on your shoulders to explain by what mechanism a supernatural being could interact without us detecting it.

Would you care to provide the mechanism by which a being from another dimension moves a parked car or materializes inside our universe, performs a bunch of feats as we watch, and then returns whence it came?

With this in mind, I'll say that you seem to have some inconsistent thoughts on the matter and ask: Do you think supernatural entities exist? As you say, if they don't exist, they can't interact.

So far, I think I'll stand on:

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

Unless you have another counterexample?

Perhaps we're having another misunderstanding?

 

[dlorde]

Perhaps. I never thought about it that way before. That's what I love about forum! Getting interaction that leads me to a new synthesis of thought. I've only thought of it as an analogy and like many analogies, it's hard to tell exactly what aspects are and are not reasonably analogous.

Yes, and the Dreyfus model would suggest this is at least a sign of progress from proficience towards expertise in thinking about this stuff (or not).

 

[qayak]

It seems a bit ironic that, in providing your counterexample, you posit the existence of a supernatural entity capable of interacting with the natural world. That is very close to what you mistakenly accused me of doing when you said:

You asked me for an example of something that would be supernatural and detectable.

Would you care to provide the mechanism by which a being from another dimension moves a parked car or materializes inside our universe, performs a bunch of feats as we watch, and then returns whence it came?

But you ASKED for an example of a event that is both supernatural and detectable.

With this in mind, I'll say that you seem to have some inconsistent thoughts on the matter and ask: Do you think supernatural entities exist? As you say, if they don't exist, they can't interact.

What part of "you asked me for an example" have you failed to understand?

So far, I think I'll stand on:

Doesn't make sense to stand on a position that has been shown to be false but fill your boots.

Unless you have another counterexample?

How many do you need, I can think up millions? Your cat is lifted and suspended in mid air by a force that can't be detected . . .

Perhaps we're having another misunderstanding?

I'm pretty sure. Perhaps you should be more precise in what you ask for. If you want scenarios that could likely happen, that's a different story but you didn't ask for that.

 

[gentlehorse]

You asked me for an example of something that would be supernatural and detectable.

And you responded with fantasy.

But you ASKED for an example of a event that is both supernatural and detectable.

And you responded with fantasy.

What part of "you asked me for an example" have you failed to understand?

What part of "fantasy" don't you understand?

Doesn't make sense to stand on a position that has been shown to be false but fill your boots.

I see. It's been shown to be false because of the fantasy that exists between your ears.

How many do you need, I can think up millions? Your cat is lifted and suspended in mid air by a force that can't be detected . . .

Making stuff up doesn't make thing so, but if you think that multiplying fantasies helps your case, knock yourself out.

I'm pretty sure. Perhaps you should be more precise in what you ask for. If you want scenarios that could likely happen, that's a different story but you didn't ask for that.

The statement isn't all that complicated, and I'm fairly sure you've responded as realistically as you're likely to.

Peace.