Is the supernatural unobservable by definition?

[Beleth]

Something has to be visible in order to be observable?

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

I would welcome your productive participation in this thread, Claus.

 

[Beleth]

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.

Well, I wouldn't use the subjective word "simple"; I'd use "discovered" or at least "discoverable". And we find out that they are natural by observing them.

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.

Surely not "debunked". If we discovered actual ghosts, then they would be observable and explainable. Would they then become part of what we consider "natural", though?

I don't think we can rule out the supernatural as being impossible (although there seems absolutely no evidence for it).

There's stuff we don't know now. Is it okay to call it "supernatural" even if there's a possibility that it will be observable/explainable in the future?

 

[Beerina]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to the natives." - Arthur C. Clark

I submit there is no such thing as supernatural, even in theory. Anything operates according to some set of rules, and as such, that is the "physics" of that thing. When a "god" does something, it's gotta happen by some mechanism. God's "brain" has to operate via some mechanism.

 

[PixyMisa]

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?

Yes, exactly. That's the fundamental problem with the supernatural: it's a dualistic system. Unless the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent, the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yes, exactly. That's the fundamental problem with the supernatural: it's a dualistic system. Unless the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent, the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural.

Could we say that it is "dualistic" for a reason? A reason that is practical in nature, and serves the purposes of the believers? It allows them, after all, to avoid any sort of need for justifying their beliefs: "it is outside the universe, so it follows whatever rules it needs to!"

That neatly dodges the question of why no one can ever demonstrate any of the stupidity they believe in.

 

[Beleth]

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!

So, then, how does it get resolved?

Is "supernatural" a word, like sphenisc's use of the word "lost", that only temporarily applies to things we haven't figured out yet? In other words, it's an adjective describing the state of information about a thing, rather than describing the thing itself, such as the words "tall" or "noisy" do? If so, how can we rule out the possibility of... well, of anything? Just because no one's observed the invisible pink dragon in your garage yet, doesn't mean no one ever will...

 

[PixyMisa]

JoeEllison - Yep. They've just redefined the nature of evidence, so that objectively observable fact has less relevance than their current whimsy. They're doubly dishonest, though, because if they actually believed and acted on this nonsense, most of them would be dead in short order.

 

[JJM 777]

I would welcome your productive participation in this thread, Claus.

Does CFL have also a productive side in his personality?

Wow.

I would be surprised to learn that more than 0% of his JREF forum posts of all time are "productive". He spends most of his time simply tearing down stuff, without building anything in its place.

 

[Beleth]

Does CFL have also a productive side in his personality?

I would welcome your productive participation in this thread too, JJM.

 

[Beleth]

Could we say that it is "dualistic" for a reason? A reason that is practical in nature, and serves the purposes of the believers? It allows them, after all, to avoid any sort of need for justifying their beliefs: "it is outside the universe, so it follows whatever rules it needs to!"

Can a cause be supernatural even if its effect is observable?

 

[drkitten]

Yes, exactly. That's the fundamental problem with the supernatural: it's a dualistic system. Unless the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent, the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural.

That's a point of view, but it's hardly the only one -- and by assigning that particular meaning to the word "natural" you've more or less assumed what you are trying to prove. If, for example, you consider "natural" to mean "all that exists," and God exists, then God is not supernatural, but natural.

Which is ludicrous, since God is the type-case of the "supernatural." Ergo, your definition of "natural" is flawed.

Or to put it another way, the statement "the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural" is, by definition, false. Therefore, the statement "Unless the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent, the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural" is equivalent to the statement "the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent."

The question, then, is where to draw the line between the natural and the supernatural, and there are a lof of suggestions about where to draw that line, many of them later discredited. However, I don't see any actual evidence opposing the idea that everything that existed prior to the creation of the universe (see Genesis 1:1) is "supernatural," while "the heavens and the earth" are natural -- a very traditional Christian belief. Another (different) traditional Christian belief is that the Eternal is supernatural, the transient natural. Others have suggested that Mind is the ultimate supernatural, and therefore there is lots of observations of the supernatural about us.

Basically, if you want to define "natural" in such a way as to make the universe inconsistent by definition, that's your perogative. If you want to define "bird" as "anything that flies," thereby including bats, bees, and Boeings, thats's also your perogative. But you'll not get a lot of traction in trying to convince others of the usefulness and accuracy of your definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's a point of view, but it's hardly the only one -- and by assigning that particular meaning to the word "natural" you've more or less assumed what you are trying to prove. If, for example, you consider "natural" to mean "all that exists," and God exists, then God is not supernatural, but natural.

No. Existence is necessary but not sufficient; the other requirement for something to be natural is that it follows consistent rules. (It's not necessary that we know those rules; just that there are such rules.)

Which is ludicrous, since God is the type-case of the "supernatural." Ergo, your definition of "natural" is flawed.

Except that you made up that definition of "natural", not me.

Or to put it another way, the statement "the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural" is, by definition, false. Therefore, the statement "Unless the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent, the supernatural is merely an aspect of the natural" is equivalent to the statement "the universe itself is fundamentally inconsistent."

Not really.

We have to be careful with the use of the term supernatural, because it can have a well-defined meaning or a poorly-defined one. Using the poorly-defined, common, definition, either what is assumed to be "supernatural" is just misunderstood or misidentified natural events, or the universe is fundamentally inconsistent. If we specifically define the supernatural as being that which does not follow consistent laws, then what you said follows.

The question, then, is where to draw the line between the natural and the supernatural, and there are a lof of suggestions about where to draw that line, many of them later discredited. However, I don't see any actual evidence opposing the idea that everything that existed prior to the creation of the universe (see Genesis 1:1) is "supernatural," while "the heavens and the earth" are natural -- a very traditional Christian belief.

And an utterly useless one, of course. It's essentially last-Tuesdayism.

Another (different) traditional Christian belief is that the Eternal is supernatural, the transient natural. Others have suggested that Mind is the ultimate supernatural, and therefore there is lots of observations of the supernatural about us.

Dualism - either an assertion of an inconsistent universe, or an inconsistent assertion.

Basically, if you want to define "natural" in such a way as to make the universe inconsistent by definition, that's your perogative.

I don't, and didn't.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can a cause be supernatural even if its effect is observable?

Not in a self-consistent universe.

In an inconsistent one? Sure. Whatever makes you happy.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So you're saying that what we cannot observe = un-natural?

 

[Beleth]

Not in a self-consistent universe.

In an inconsistent one? Sure. Whatever makes you happy.

My happiness has no bearing on whether the universe is consistent or not, of course. I'm sorry something got you into a sour mood; I was really enjoying your posts up until the last two.

Anyway, back on topic.
It sounds like you are saying that there is a third choice besides "theism cannot be ruled out" and "'evidence of the supernatural' is an oxymoron", and that is "the universe is inconsistent". But I'd say that that is really a close relative, possibly a superset, of the "theism cannot be ruled out" choice.

 

[Beleth]

So you're saying that what we cannot observe = un-natural?

No, since there are things which are wholly natural but cannot be observed (yet). A mundane rock in a cave on a planet orbiting a star in this galaxy, for instance.

"Observable" and "unobservable" are mutually exclusive but "observable" is merely a subset of "natural".

Hmmm... I have just given myself food for thought.

 

[PixyMisa]

My happiness has no bearing on whether the universe is consistent or not, of course. I'm sorry something got you into a sour mood; I was really enjoying your posts up until the last two.

Sorry, that last post wasn't supposed to be sour or snarky or anything, just a direct answer. (The response to drkitten was a bit snarky, I admit, but he strawmanned me, though perhaps inadvertently.)

Anyway, back on topic.
It sounds like you are saying that there is a third choice besides "theism cannot be ruled out" and "'evidence of the supernatural' is an oxymoron", and that is "the universe is inconsistent". But I'd say that that is really a close relative, possibly a superset, of the "theism cannot be ruled out" choice.

Yes, that's a good encapsulation of what I'm thinking.

If the universe is self-consistent, then there is only one class of... stuff. It's the natural. Anything that someone might think is supernatural is just a misunderstanding of some natural event or object or process.

If the universe follows a consistent set of rules (whatever they might be) then observing an effect (whatever that might be) is in itself an indirect observation of the cause. In this case, every cause, every effect, is natural.

To introduce the supernatural, you either have to have it inefficacious - in which case it would be unobservable by definition, but in which case I would assert that it does not exist - or violate the consistency of the laws of nature, in which case anything goes. Because otherwise it's just more stuff.

 

[JoeEllison]

Can a cause be supernatural even if its effect is observable?

Good question. The place to start, of course, would be in actually observing any effect... something that has so far failed to emerge.

But, assuming an effect is observed, and all known explanations have been ruled out, that leaves all "unknown explanations", which could be said to include, but is not limited to, the "supernatural". The problem in calling something "supernatural", is that it doesn't advance our knowledge in any way, and it practically equivalent to saying "I don't know".

 

[blobru]

"Observable" and "unobservable" are mutually exclusive but "observable" is merely a subset of "natural".

If the universe is self-consistent, then there is only one class of... stuff. It's the natural. Anything that someone might think is supernatural is just a misunderstanding of some natural event or object or process.

If the universe follows a consistent set of rules (whatever they might be) then observing an effect (whatever that might be) is in itself an indirect observation of the cause. In this case, every cause, every effect, is natural.

Ok, poking around for an exception: I'm thinking of effects whose causes for whatever reason we can't ever investigate. But, the effects suggest causes which follow universally consistent laws incompatible with our own.

For example, something like Flatland. When beings from some parallel "universe" intersect ours all we see are their shadows (effects). They appear to be completely unaware of us, so we can't interrogate them, nor is there any means of entering their dimension to observe it first hand (unlike Flatland). But we can observe the effects, the shadows, so we study them.

The shadows appear to be of living beings in every way like natural animals we know with one exception: they never age. They don't seem subject to any sort of natural process of growth and decay. Yet everything else about them seems consistent and familiar; we see them interact, and the same beings reappear over time, so they appear to have discrete identities and not be random apparitions. So we conclude the shadows are emanating from a "universe" where life is not subject to the same natural laws it is in ours.

We'd then have evidence of another universe with a consistent set of laws, yet be unable to extend the definition of our universe and its laws to include it, or the [extended] Universe wouldn't be self-consistent. Better to keep them separate, two universes each with consistent but incompatible laws. Since we call our universe and its laws "natural", it wouldn't be too far-fetched semantically to call this other universe and its "supernatural". And then we'd be observing too that which we had defined as supernatural.

Sorry for my long winding, long-winded example. And natch I'm only arguing it may be plausible, not probable.

 

[Beleth]

Good question. The place to start, of course, would be in actually observing any effect... something that has so far failed to emerge.

Like I mentioned in post 18, the source of gravity has so far eluded us. It's so different from the other forces that people are hypothesizing that it comes from interference from outside the universe. They may be crackpots, of course, but there isn't a really solid, "natural", explanation yet.

But, assuming an effect is observed, and all known explanations have been ruled out, that leaves all "unknown explanations", which could be said to include, but is not limited to, the "supernatural". The problem in calling something "supernatural", is that it doesn't advance our knowledge in any way, and it practically equivalent to saying "I don't know".

Ahh, but there I disagree with you. There is a difference between "I don't know (yet)" and "I know, but it's not natural." My question in the OP basically comes down to whether the latter is oxymoronic or not.