Is the supernatural unobservable by definition?

[Beleth]

Supernatural:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

​

The first part, up to the especially, makes me wonder: can the words "natural" and "observable" be synonymous? If we can observe something, does that make it by definition natural, and therefore (since observing something provides evidence for it) is the phrase "evidence of the supernatural" completely oxymoronic?

If not, how can we know when we have evidence of the supernatural?

Say you wake up one morning and everything is different. You have senses you didn't have before, for instance; your environment is completely unfamiliar in every detail; and you come to realize in a matter of hours that your survival is totally dependent on a substance you never before knew existed. Would this qualify as being a supernatural occurrence, or would the mere fact that you are experiencing these things qualify them as natural?

I see this as a huge dilemma.
If "observable" and "natural" are not synonymous, then how can theism be ruled out as a viable philosophy?
If they are synonymous, then isn't the Million Dollar Challenge, as so many critics of it have pointed out, unwinnable by definition?

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Isn't we the most important word in all this?

What only one person can get at is quite useless as evidence.

 

[vexed]

Observable:

1. Worthy of notice and attention. Needing to be followed or respected.

2. Some physical property of a system that can be observed.

3. discernible: capable of being seen or noticed; "a discernible change in attitude"; "a clearly evident erasure in the manuscript"; "an observable change in behavior"

4.In physics, particularly in quantum physics a system observable is a property of the system state that can be determined by some sequence of physical operations. These operations might involve submitting the system to various electromagnetic fields and eventually reading a value off some gauge. In systems governed by classical mechanics any experimentally observable value can be shown to be given by a real-valued function on the set of all possible system states.

Natural:
1. existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation; "a natural pearl"; "natural gas"; "natural silk"; "natural blonde hair"; "a natural sweetener"; "natural fertilizers"
2. existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"
3. functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies; "it's the natural thing to happen"; "natural immunity"; "a grandparent's natural affection for a grandchild"
4. A substance that is derived from mineral, plant, or animal matter and does not undergo a synthetic process as defined in section 6502(21) of the Act (7 USC 6502(21)). For the purposes of this part, nonsynthetic is used as a synonym for natural as the term is used in the Act.

Umm, I'm going to have to say that 'observable' and 'natural' are NOT synonymous.

Synonymous:
1.(of words) meaning the same or nearly the same
2. Synonyms (in ancient Greek syn 'συν' = plus and onoma 'όνομα' = name) are different words with similar or identical meanings. Antonyms are words with opposite or nearly opposite meanings. (Synonym and antonym are antonyms.)

If we start giving our own meaning to words rather than the agreed upon definitions, it's impossible to have any type of converstation since we really wouldn't be speaking the same language.

 

[JJM 777]

If we can observe something, does that make it by definition natural
(...)
how can we know when we have evidence of the supernatural?
(...)
I see this as a huge dilemma.

In a hypothetical case of witnessing supernatural powers at work, what we would "observe" would only be the physical reality that our senses and scientific devices are able to observe.

The existence of the unobservable force would be proven by such facts as:
a) new material being created into the world
a1) objects moving or changing direction without any known force affecting them
a2) instantaneous recovery from untreatable major health problems, such as Down Syndrome etc.

Those who want to make big money by fooling people, try to imitate some or all of these, hoping that the audience will believe that they have witnessed supernatural powers at work on the dimly-lit stage.

 

[Beleth]

Observable:

4.In physics, particularly in quantum physics a system observable is a property of the system state that can be determined by some sequence of physical operations. These operations might involve submitting the system to various electromagnetic fields and eventually reading a value off some gauge. In systems governed by classical mechanics any experimentally observable value can be shown to be given by a real-valued function on the set of all possible system states.

Natural:
2. existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical; "a perfectly natural explanation"

Umm, I'm going to have to say that 'observable' and 'natural' are NOT synonymous.

Could you describe how those two definitions are functionally different?

 

[NeoRicen]

IMO The supernatural, by definition cannot exist. If it exists then it's natural...

 

[blobru]

I take supernatural most often to refer to disembodied consciousness: either gods, ghosts, or souls. They are "superior" to nature in that they are eternally alive, not subject to the same entropic decay natural organisms are. Such beings are not "unobservable" in principle, just in practice (they're awful shy).

Close but not the same is paranormal, which refers to cognition and communication "beyond" what we assume possible via our normal senses and reason.

dilemma 2nd horn of:
Since the $1 million dollar challenge is set up to test the paranormal, there is no conflict between it and what can be observed (given appropriate controls any paranormal ability can be tested for scientifically).

dilemma 1st horn of:
As an agnostic, I cannot completely discount theism; I don't believe in the supernatural because I see no evidence for it nor likelihood I ever will. But I'm not obliged to rule it out by definition... an atheist might be.

 

[CFLarsen]

Something has to be visible in order to be observable?

Stop, hey, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down....

 

[Darat]

This is just a semantic issue that is a hold over from a previous time when we did not have a way of (seemingly) accurately describe the reality we all experience.

By "definition" the OP is correct however how do we get the definition? Well we simply make it up. By definition I can define many things (at least in English) but that does not mean they do or have to exist. If you think about it the OP is really the ontological argument put forward by Anselm about a thousand years ago. And if you agree with that argument I really do have an invisible pink dragon in my garage!

 

[JayT]

You Cannot Prove Anything Supernatural - EVER !

... how can we know when we have evidence of the supernatural?

We can't prove that anything we observe is supernatural!

But we can prove it is natural, if in fact it is, merely by the fact that we detected it.

Nothing natural can prove anything supernatural. Ever. No exceptions.

Religious zealots take delight in this, claiming that since you cannot possibly prove they are wrong, therefore they are correct or justified in their beliefs. Pure gooey, stinky brain droppings all over the place! Ou, pardonner mon français, merde de taureau!



Consider this very important question:

If we actually make a definite physical detection and recording of something, then on what grounds does it qualify as supernatural in character? What is supernatural about it?

In other words, what is it about what you recorded that identifies it as supernatural as opposed to a natural phenomenon? What is the distinction aside from it being mysterious?



Something supernatural, by definition, operates outside the laws of nature and thus, cannot be explained, defined or predicted in any natural terms. No natural laws at all apply or can make it predictable.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that when science or prior experience fails to explain or disprove something, that it automatically qualifies as supernatural. Every superstition and probably every religion in the world, at least those that originated thousands of years ago, were founded upon that fallacy. Today, that fallacy is less justified than ever before.

 

[sphenisc]

I can never find my lost keys. Whenever I find them, they aren't lost any more.

 

[Darat]

So your keys were never lost!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As Darat said, this is a discussion of the definition of terms, pure and simple.

Until someone gives a specific definition of supernatural, there is no way to answer the OP question. For example, if we define supernatural to mean "having no natural existence and no interface to the natural world," then:

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi


~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

It goes beyond 'what is supernatural?' though, because even things agreed upon as 'natural' cannot be observed or detected. For example strings (from string theory) and multiverses come to mind.

So are they supernatural or natural?

 

[PixyMisa]

If the supernatural is something that affects the universe, but is not of the universe, yet behaves consistently, we should be able to define a larger universe that encompasses the supernatural within the natural. The only situation that this could not be done would be if the universe is not self-consistent.

 

[Taffer]

Well...depends on your definition, dunnit?

Remember: Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'll add to that: The pursuit of science is a meta-experiment to test the hypothesis that the universe is self-consistent. So far, so good; this is the best evidence we have that there is nothing at all that can be classed as supernatural.

 

[Beleth]

If the supernatural is something that affects the universe, but is not of the universe, yet behaves consistently, we should be able to define a larger universe that encompasses the supernatural within the natural. The only situation that this could not be done would be if the universe is not self-consistent.

How can something affect the universe but not be of the universe? Wouldn't the definition of "universe" just automatically expand to encompass more things?

For instance, one of the theories I've heard to describe gravity from a string-theory standpoint (and I may be getting this wrong here) is that it's actually a force that's leaking into our universe from a nearby, but external, brane. Since gravity affects the universe and behaves consistently, if this external-brane theory is true doesn't that automatically make the external brane part of this universe and therefore make it entirely natural?

 

[Beleth]

As Darat said, this is a discussion of the definition of terms, pure and simple.

Until someone gives a specific definition of supernatural, there is no way to answer the OP question. For example, if we define supernatural to mean "having no natural existence and no interface to the natural world," then:

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi

That quote from Yahzi always made me think that he equated the words "inobservable", "supernatural", and "nonexistent". Which is one way to define them, I suppose, but like I mentioned in the OP it makes the MDC meaningless.

 

[chriswl]

Natural explanations of the world assume that the world works according to simple laws. Whenever we encounter complex entities, like say animal brains, we find that they are merely very complex arrangements of simple components acting according to the laws of physics. And the formation of these complex arrangements of matter is in turn explained by the iterative application of simple laws (evolution). Naturalism states that everything is reducible to the (simple) laws of physics (or to some future, yet-to-be discovered laws of physics). There is no inherent complexity.

Now take ghosts, for example. If we could explain the ghost phenomenon by science then this would mean that it was ultimately be explicable in terms of the laws of physics. Armed with such an explanation we would consider ghosts to have been debunked. However, if we failed to do this and believed that no such explanation was ever going to be possible then we would have an example of a supernatural phenomenon. Ghosts would just be certain irreducibly complex phenomena that mainifested themselves in certain ways and at certain times. Perhaps we could come up with a theory of the psychology of ghosts which would enable us to learn how to better predict their behaviour or to appease or counter them. But this psychology would not be built up from the simple physical mechanisms that the psychology of humans rests on. It would just be an inherently complex feature of our physical world.

I don't think we can rule out the supernatural as being impossible (although there seems absolutely no evidence for it). But I am still a hard atheist, rather than an agnostic because theism goes further than supernaturalism. It doesn't merely posit the existence of animate beings whose behaviour cannot be reduced to any physics-based description. It says that one or more of these beings (God) has qualities such that they deserve to be worshipped. I think that this is nonsensical - there are no qualities that could make a being worthy of worship.