• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is the Supernatural Impossible?

Yahweh

Philosopher
Y
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
9,006
Hypothetically, lets say someone writes a biography about the life of Yahweh - lets say some of the details included lots of unusual events (bending spoons with my mind, communicating with spirits, healing lepers with my magic touch, etc.).

Most skeptics are going to be disinclined to believe the supernatural details of my life really happened.

There is a good chance that there are natural explanations for the extraoridinary claims in my life, but ultimately the reason I find that the superatural events are so unbelievable to others is because those types of events are impossible.

What is it that makes the supernatural so impossible?

Thoughts?
 
It's not so much the supernatural is impossible, it's that it's very unlikely. And even then, there are degrees of unlikeliness, based on how ignorant we are about a particular area. I'm sure most people could construct a hierarchy of weirdness, where they rated phenomena from most to least likely. I suspect there would be a reasonable amount of concordance at either end of the scale.
 
Other than logical/mathematical impossibilities, I would say that nothing should be seen as being impossible, at least from our limited perspective. It's much wiser to talk about probabilities instead, imo.
 
Yahweh said:

Most skeptics are going to be disinclined to believe the supernatural details of my life really happened.
Click to expand...


If they do that without any investigating, then they are not skeptics, but scoffers.


What is it that makes the supernatural so impossible?
Click to expand...

The events may very well be explainable under another conceptual framework, explainable someday. These types of things are paranormal.

Supernatural things are things, which almost by definition, cannot occur in the natural world.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Please define "supernatural".
Click to expand...
Without opening up a semantics can of worms, but try to think of "supernatural" as things relating to forces of magick, divinity, mysticism, forces that behave contrary to the material laws that govern the universe, spiritualism, etc.

Although almost every dictionary definition I've come across says something to the effect of "beyond scientific explanation", I would much rather stay away from that definition because it gives too much wiggle room for those who insist that "psi" powers arent explicable yet, but maybe someday in the future with some development of M-theory or other technical sounding words. (And I think by definition, things not yet explained are not impossible unless they involve some kind of logical contradiction - but I dont think "psi" powers or spoon bending engage in any necessary logical contradiction.)
 
So far as I can see, then, the "supernatural" under those varying defintions, some of which you reject, is not impossible.

The nearest you came to making it impossible (though only by defintion) was "forces that behave contrary to the material laws that govern the universe", except that in order to make this look like it had meaning, you stuck in the word "material"...

... which means?

We can go into philosophy, and come out none the wiser, or we can conclude that there aren't "forces of magick" any more than there are unicorns... 'cos as yet, we haven't found any, though we probably would have if there were, and from no deeper basis.
 
I'd stick with "Define supernatural."

Yahweh said:
Without opening up a semantics can of worms, but try to think of "supernatural" as things relating to forces of magick, divinity, mysticism, forces that behave contrary to the material laws that govern the universe, spiritualism, etc.
Click to expand...
If these things have behavior that is entirely disjoint from the behavior of things in the natural world, then there is no way we can know about them. If, on the other hand, they share some behaviors with the natural world, such that we can detect them, then they are not entirely supernatural, and, by induction, are therefore not supernatural at all.

You just can't eat your supernatural and have it, too.

~~ Paul
 
Yahweh said:
What is it that makes the supernatural so impossible?
Click to expand...

Unrepeatability/unreliability. Charles Richet, who had many sittings with Eusapia Palladino, and witnessed some (apparently) extraordinary things, always found himself coming to doubt his observations a week or two after his sittings. Had he controlled for X? Had he seen Y correctly? Another sitting would take place, in which he affirmed his previous observations. He made an important statement on this..."Certainty does not follow on demonstration, it follows on habit." Things that are constantly replicable are well taken care of by scientific method...those which are not become somewhat sticky. Those that are very rare, and appear to be at extreme variation with what we know about how the world works appear impossible. That is the problem faced when dealing with anomalistics...be it mediums, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc...
 
Red says that supernatural means literally, "beyond or outside that which is natural." And since Red says only that which is natural can exist, that means that if it exists, it's not supernatural. If it's supernatural, it doesn't exist. I say this because I believe that there is only one set of rules for all reality. We just don't know all them yet.

So yeah, for me it comes down to the definition of supernatural.

If someone really can move objects with their mind, it's not supernatural, just unexplained.

If God exists, it's not supernatural, just damn scary.
 
Please demonstrate that something which is labelled as "supernatural" actually exists, then we can start to look for an explanation for it.

So far, no-one has convincingly demonstrated that any "supernatural" phenomena actually exist, so it's a little premature to start looking for explanations.
 
It's so cute when woo and gothy types spell magic "magick" like it's all mystical and stuff.

But anyway, nobody ever said any of the supernatural stuff was impossible. It's just that there's no good evidence at all for it.
 
I'm a great fan of the evolution argument that I came across for the first time on this board:

- If paranormal powers exist, they'd be a significant evolutionary advantage.
- Things that are evolutionary advantages become stronger and more prevalent in a species in which they occur at all.
- No species has strong paranormal powers.

Therefore, no paranormal powers exist.
 
I'm not sure I agree with this. Why would they be a significant evolutionary advantage? It might well be that they would be linked with something dis-advantageous for the species in question.

And how do you know that no species has strong paranormal powers? Have you tested them all? Maybe giraffes are mutually telepathic. How would you know?
 
Well, of course giraffes are telepathic. Why else would they have those little antennae on their heads? To pick up the BBC Home Service?
 
"I'm a great fan of the evolution argument that I came across for the first time on this board:

- If paranormal powers exist, they'd be a significant evolutionary advantage.
- Things that are evolutionary advantages become stronger and more prevalent in a species in which they occur at all.
- No species has strong paranormal powers.

Therefore, no paranormal powers exist."

followed by:
Traveller

"I'm not sure I agree with this. Why would they be a significant evolutionary advantage? It might well be that they would be linked with something dis-advantageous for the species in question.

And how do you know that no species has strong paranormal powers? Have you tested them all? Maybe giraffes are mutually telepathic. How would you know?"

Now me:

To take both of these consecutive posts together.

During the recent Tsunami in the Indian Ocean regions, it was reported (as has been reported with previous Tsunamis elsewhere) that animals. e.g. elephants , smaller mammals and birds, head inland well before the wave reaches the shore. Scientiists are so convinced of some kind of extra-sensory perception in animals, that they are contemplating using them as part of a future warning system for Tsunamis.

Now if true, it would certainly be useful, in evolutionary terms, to possess such supernatural powers.
 
I actually agree with the conclusion of RamblingOnward's argument, I just didn't think it followed from the premises.

I too have heard the stories about animals heading inland prior to the arrival of the tsunami but of course a lot of animals would have gone that way anyway; so any that just happened to have been seen doing so in advance of the arrival of the tsunami could be used as evidence of some "power" they possessed.

But even were it to be so I hardly think that it would be necessary to postulate some sort of supernatural explanation. An ability to detect natural phenomena undectectable by human beings eg infra sound would account for it.
 
Explorer said:
Scientiists are so convinced of some kind of extra-sensory perception in animals, that they are contemplating using them as part of a future warning system for Tsunamis.
Click to expand...
Er... no... that would be "sensory perception". So far as I know no scientists think there's anything paranormal about this.

And, let's be pedantic... "extra-sensory perception" really would be a contradiction in terms.
 
I too have heard the stories about animals heading inland prior to the arrival of the tsunami but of course a lot of animals would have gone that way anyway; so any that just happened to have been seen doing so in advance of the arrival of the tsunami could be used as evidence of some "power" they possessed.
Click to expand...

If you have a land-based animal near the sea, spooked by a major earthquake and so on the move, where does one think the animal is going to go? Swim out to sea? Of all the remaining directions a land animal can go, only two are not "inland".

Besides, if the critters could be shown (anecdotes don't count) to have been deliberately seeking higher ground, that isn't defacto evidence of the paranormal. It would simply mean that through some mechanism, animals know better than to hang around a large body of water after an earthquake.

First, however, one must demonstrate conclusively that animals seek higher ground when tsunami conditions exist. There's no point in speculating about mechanisms until this has been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom