Supernatural does it exist?

[Accipiter]

Do you think ghosts are real etc, or werewolves any other mysterious creatures like loch ness.

Ghosts have been captured on camera but it makes you wander who comes up with "OMG I SAW A WERE WOLF" Surely their would be origins of their ideas ^^.

I think it'd be cool if they did exist, would make a whole new meaning to life. I sound like a geek saying this :rolleyes: But it would be a good place to discuss wether you've seen ghosts etc.

Well, i've only seen 1 ghost in my life, it was crouching behind a friend at the top of some stairs, although i only saw it for a split second the image stuck in my mind, She was drenched colourless with long hair. 1 Thing that only made me think it couldn't have been is that their was light reflecting off the door behind it, but it was very visible for the time i saw it.

Another wierd occurance is something in my house, not ghosts but some sort of sound, just outside of my room i always hear a sound, like talking, i always think its my tv but its not, its switched off, i can hear it loud and clear & its definately not tv's down stairs etc, unless outside my door is some sort of position were all the sound rebounds off walls & meets up @_@.

Anyone else felt like they've interracted with the super natural?

Sorry if this doesn't sound like a debate D:

[Jordy]

A couple of years ago I heard someone say something like 'If you believe in it then you're going to fear it. If you don't believe it, it can't happen'. Which basically means if you believe in Ghosts, you'll see Ghosts and be scared by them. If you don't believe in Ghosts you won't see Ghosts so you therefore have nothing to fear. This mindset seems to of done me fine as I'm yet to be spooked by anything which is so-called supernatural.

I am also Scientifically minded therefore I don't really believe in it happening or luck for that matter.

[Accipiter]

I like to see science as truth but in this case i feel different, im not scared of ghosts, haven't been since i popped my head out from under the blanket and realised it was still on in the morning.

[Immenseman]

I don't see why there would be so much controversy surrounding the sitution if they didn't exist, it must have originated from somewhere although this somewhere could have been a myth. I can't believe in things like the Loch Ness monster, sure there might be a big creature in the river but I can't believe the myth as that's exactly what is is, a myth.

I am human thus I will question everything as it's what differentiates us from other living beings the quality to doubt. I struggle to believe in ghosts until I see one. Other people seeing one and talking about them isn't enough for me. So I'm 50:50 on the whole topic of ghosts. There is so much hype and stories about them at least one of the stories must have substance. Although until I actively see a ghost I will be be relatively doubtful.

[Mentor]

100% absolutely definitely no.

The whole concept of super natural is a total fail from the get go as by definition it is an impossible circumstance.

Consider, nature is what occurs naturally. Hence for something to be super natural it must not occur naturally. BUT if anything, regardless of what occurs, that then means this occurrence is natural. Meaning being super or non-natural is an impossible circumstance as by the act of happening in nature, it defines itself as natural.

So yea, as above, 100% no, supernatural does not exist.

[Catchy]

Mentor you can't be 100% sure when saying that, surely.. There could be anything beyond this we just don't know.

[Mentor]

Mentor you can't be 100% sure when saying that, surely.. There could be anything beyond this we just don't know.
What we know and dont know is irrelvent, the semantics of the question answer it in the same way 1+1=2. It introduces a logicality impossible scenario.

For example, say event X turns lead in to gold. The ignorant will say its supernatural, the people who understand the word supernatural and have factuality capable of basic logic on the other hand will note its actually pretty obvious we were just wrong about whether this could be done and the process is in reality entirely natural.

Just because we dont know how something works does not make it super natural, it just means natures a little more complex than we first thought.

[Myth]

Yes they do exist,but I would say were wolfs existed back in the day.

[Mentor]

Yes they do exist,but I would say were wolfs existed back in the day.
If ghosts/werewolf were to exist (despite contrary evidence) that would make them a natural occurrence, not a super natural one. So regardless of your beliefs about them, really you should still be going with no on the question of super natural occurrences.

[Chippiewill]

Of course super natural doesn't exist, people just use it as a way to explain odd things. Just think about it and try to quantify it...

E.g. Something brushes past you

You may think: OMG GHOSTZ!
I would think: No that's insane, I imagined it duhh

[RedStratocas]

nah. im sorry but when someone my age or older says they believe in ghosts, that just makes me think so much less of them, honestly.

[Wahey]

You should check my cupboard out :(

Anyways i'm 50/50
I've had experiances in my house, so has my brother but i don't know if there is possibly an explanation for them, my brothers one would be harder to explain though

[Mentor]

You should check my cupboard out :(

Anyways i'm 50/50
I've had experiances in my house, so has my brother but i don't know if there is possibly an explanation for them, my brothers one would be harder to explain though

unexplained phenomena/even ghosts, doesn't prove the supernatural exists, only that there is a natural occurrence here we dont understand or were not aware of. If something happens, its a natural occurrence by definition, meaning super natural is still an impossible status.

So logically i'd assume your answer to the titled question would still be no?

[Accipiter]

Supernatural might be defined in a dictionary as an occurance of nature which causes something crazy. But thats only a definition.
Supernatural in my eyes means something caused by nature to do something humans wouldn't expect to come by.

[LuketheDuke]

I wouldnt believe in the Supernatural as its logically improvable and Im quite stubborn like that.

Although people who I think are credible claim to have seen such things so why not jump into a position of faith if you have such respect for them?

Each to their own.

[N!ck]

I do think there's something that we don't understand yet. I probably wouldn't call it supernatural as if it happens it's natural right?

For instance that perception/instinct that animals have just before a natural disaster happens like an earthquake that seems to be missing from humans.

Whatever it is I don't think it's supernatural, but whether humans will ever be able to understand it or not I don't know. Ghosts I dont believe in, and especially not warewolves lol that's 100% absurd.

[RedStratocas]

Supernatural might be defined in a dictionary as an occurance of nature which causes something crazy. But thats only a definition.
Supernatural in my eyes means something caused by nature to do something humans wouldn't expect to come by.

okay well first, how can you argue with a dictionary? the definition of supernatural really isnt open ended, it's "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." its pretty set, its not really something you can have your own definition for. its not like i can say "well the dictionary might say that an apple is a fruit on a tree, but to me its a blue spaceship."

second, your definition is incredibly broad, and pretty nonsensical. i dont expect a tornado to form outside my house, that doesnt mean its supernatural. the supernatural is exactly what the word implies- something that is beyond the laws and explanation of nature.

[Accipiter]

okay well first, how can you argue with a dictionary? the definition of supernatural really isnt open ended, it's "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." its pretty set, its not really something you can have your own definition for. its not like i can say "well the dictionary might say that an apple is a fruit on a tree, but to me its a blue spaceship."

second, your definition is incredibly broad, and pretty nonsensical. i dont expect a tornado to form outside my house, that doesnt mean its supernatural. the supernatural is exactly what the word implies- something that is beyond the laws and explanation of nature.

@_@either your small minded or maybes i chose the wrong word because you could technically call getting a hurricane in july "Supernatural" as they occur naturally in autumn.

[Mentor]

@_@either your small minded or maybes i chose the wrong word because you could technically call getting a hurricane in july "Supernatural" as they occur naturally in autumn.
I could call your understanding of the word natural supernaturally bad.. but i wont as just like your claim its untrue, you not understanding the word is far more accurate :)
a july hurricane is unlikely but far from super natural. Just because you dont drop glasses very often doesn't mean its a super natural occurrence when you do >.<

[luce]

I don't believe in ghosts wondering the Earth because i'd never sleep at night. I never give it a thought really because i would scare myself..

[k0rfain]

of course they are real, ive seen a ghost before in the library, it was just sitting next to me staring at me...

[Mentor]

of course they are real, ive seen a ghost before in the library, it was just sitting next to me staring at me...
If ghosts were real, that would mean they are a natural thing, not a supernatural thing.
So the supernatural part wouldn't exist ether way o.0

[MrGazet]

I believe in supernatural

[Mentor]

I believe in supernatural

Which is pretty much the same as saying you believe in nothing, as there is nothing that can ever be classified as super natural o.0

[Sfinx]

I believe in the supernatural. And correct me if i am wrong but i think that supernatural things are infact a natural thing. The word does exist of the two words
super and natural, with super in my opinion meaning that its not above nature itsself but above the nature that we has humans can see...

i dont know if this makes sense.. but yeh ..

[RandomManJay]

I would say that is it possible for the supernatural to exist since there are too many unexplainable things in the universe that was can't explain as yet with our ways of understanding.

[Mentor]

I would say that is it possible for the supernatural to exist since there are too many unexplainable things in the universe that was can't explain as yet with our ways of understanding.
theres plenty of nature we cant understand, putting them down as super natural and giving up the search for this understandings only gonna get you to another dark age o.0

[MaryMagdalene]

Mentor? The smartest scientist with the worst spelling? You ARE proof of the supernatural.

[Mentor]

Mentor? The smartest scientist with the worst spelling? You ARE proof of the supernatural.
Sorry to say, a scientist isn't simply defined as someone who isn't a moron, else i think you'd be one of the few unqualified people on this board :)

I'm applying some simple logic, much like you would find used in the average Sats test aimed at primary school kids. Maybe one day, with alot of work, you too will be able to understand elementary school level logic... at least, it isn't impossible.

Supernatural = Something that doesn't occur natural.
Natural = something that takes place in nature
nature = all existence

Hence to classify as not natural, and thus supernatural, there's a requirement for the thing in question to not exist. The result is that its pretty simple to see, supernatural is a contradictory and failed concept.

[RandomManJay]

Sorry to say, a scientist isn't simply defined as someone who isn't a moron, else i think you'd be one of the few unqualified people on this board :)

I'm applying some simple logic, much like you would find used in the average Sats test aimed at primary school kids. Maybe one day, with alot of work, you too will be able to understand elementary school level logic... at least, it isn't impossible.

Supernatural = Something that doesn't occur natural.
Natural = something that takes place in nature
nature = all existence

Hence to classify as not natural, and thus supernatural, there's a requirement for the thing in question to not exist. The result is that its pretty simple to see, supernatural is a contradictory and failed concept.

Your definitions are a bit off.

- Nature isn't all of existence, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally without superior interference (e.g. manmade objects are not naturally made objects, their components perhaps, but not the object itself. These objects would be classed as nature and natural in your definitions.
- Natural is not strictly what occurs in nature, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally, as said above.
- Your definition of supernatural more closely matches unnatural definitions; supernatural is the addition of an unknown or abnormal 'believed' to be superior interference.

* Wasn't sure if you were critiquing my post or using it to state your opinion, but just to say, I didn't envelop everything which is unknown to us, considering of course that there is no proof that our evolution or unexplainable 'nature' has been influenced by unknown interference, therefore it's sceptical to state that unknown areas of nature are supernatural as we don't know if there has been that interference. *

[Mentor]

Your definitions are a bit off.

- Nature isn't all of existence, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally without superior interference (e.g. manmade objects are not naturally made objects, their components perhaps, but not the object itself. These objects would be classed as nature and natural in your definitions.
Indeed, i would class these items as natural, humans are not super natural beings, we do not have any powers or attributes above any other naturally occurring lifeform on the planet. I generally subscribe to Humes definition of natural, and don't follow the idea that many humans seem to have of humanities supposed superiority to the rest of nature. We don't consider the rocks birds use to smash open snails as super natural, so why should we think such a thing of a computer or car just because its humans that make and use them as tools?


- Natural is not strictly what occurs in nature, but what occurs or has come into existence naturally, as said above.
All things come in to existence naturally, if not, then i would claim they never occurred.

- Your definition of supernatural more closely matches unnatural definitions; supernatural is the addition of an unknown or abnormal 'believed' to be superior interference.
Which means pretty much the same thing? Things are ether natural, or not natural. Not half natural any more than something can be half existent. Its a boolean state?
Since non-natural things are fictitious / non real things, i think my definitions hold "/


* Wasn't sure if you were critiquing my post or using it to state your opinion, but just to say, I didn't envelop everything which is unknown to us, considering of course that there is no proof that our evolution or unexplainable 'nature' has been influenced by unknown interference, therefore it's sceptical to state that unknown areas of nature are supernatural as we don't know if there has been that interference.
In was more referring to the person i was responding to (quoted individual)
That said i would totally disagree, if hypothetically a god exists, then he is a natural force by definition, so even that cannot lead to the possibility of something super(beyond) natural occurring.
Its semantically impossible no matter how you play it "/

Equally ignorance / not knowing cannot be used to prove/ague anything beyond the fact its something you don't know. Even more so it makes no sence to state something is beyond nature just because you dont understand the works, You aint got a clue how a computer works, but i doubt you'd put it down to some mystical force rather than hard science.

Also theres plenty of proof to how evolution works, how it happens and why? Its not something unknown in the slightest?

[RandomManJay]

Indeed, i would class these items as natural, humans are not super natural beings, we do not have any powers or attributes above any other naturally occurring lifeform on the planet. I generally subscribe to Humes definition of natural, and don't follow the idea that many humans seem to have of humanities supposed superiority to the rest of nature. We don't consider the rocks birds use to smash open snails as super natural, so why should we think such a thing of a computer or car just because its humans that make and use them as tools?


All things come in to existence naturally, if not, then i would claim they never occurred.

Which means pretty much the same thing? Things are ether natural, or not natural. Not half natural any more than something can be half existent. Its a boolean state?
Since non-natural things are fictitious / non real things, i think my definitions hold "/


In was more referring to the person i was responding to (quoted individual)
That said i would totally disagree, if hypothetically a god exists, then he is a natural force by definition, so even that cannot lead to the possibility of something super(beyond) natural occurring.
Its semantically impossible no matter how you play it "/

Equally ignorance / not knowing cannot be used to prove/ague anything beyond the fact its something you don't know. Even more so it makes no sence to state something is beyond nature just because you dont understand the works, You aint got a clue how a computer works, but i doubt you'd put it down to some mystical force rather than hard science.

Also theres plenty of proof to how evolution works, how it happens and why? Its not something unknown in the slightest?

You put forth good arguments, but I think you may have misunderstood me or I haven't included somethings I should have, therefore I'll explain my argument differently, the following paragraphs do not follow in relation your arguments:

From your arguments, you seem have a narrow view on the origin of objects, of course every object in existence is naturally based because its components are, but intelligent interference creates another form of object, for example; man-made objects, in almost every case, can be described as not being natural in origin as the object could not occur naturally without the intelligent interference. Using your example of a computer, no I don't know 'fully' how a computer works, but they are manmade and using our present understanding, computers do not occur naturally in the world we live in, therefore is it not natural but due to our understanding that it can be made using intelligent interference it can therefore be viewed as not supernatural. Take this example in a common saying that if you demonstrated your ability to create fire using a lighter and presented this to those of pre-history, most likely they would perceive you as something higher than a mere human, using it relation to the topic, they could perceive you are a supernatural being capable of unexplainable abilities at that time. I know the computer example can prove your view that it can be unnatural, but it can also prove that there are more origins than simply natural and unnatural as every object can be traced back to being natural depending on how far back you go into it's creation,

Your example of the birds cracking snail shells with rocks is another example which can be shown as not being supernatural, as I explained in my earlier post; supernatural events are events which appear to occur under the influence of intelligent interference which is not presently known to us. Intelligent interference is not limited to humanity as this is egotistical of humanity to make such a boast, therefore using your example, birds can be viewed as having this intelligence, which we are able to understand and accept, therefore birds cracking snail shells is not perceived as being supernatural.

From describing what I stated in the top paragraph, I will describe how your definition supernatural can be confusing. Any object which is created via man or any other animal capable of intelligent interference can be viewed as being unnatural, but this is where your definition becomes confusing as you stated that supernatural is where something does not occur in nature, which is the definition of unnatural, but supernatural is something which occurs by intelligent interference which cannot, as yet be understood, therefore it cannot be unnatural because we cannot prove that intelligent interference has taken part and therefore can be viewed a natural. This also creates a problem as it cannot occur naturally without intelligent interference, so what can it be defined as. This is where supernatural definitions take place. As it cannot be proven to occur naturally and cannot be proven to be influenced by intelligent interference, an unexplainable intelligence must be in influencing it, one which is capable of a higher ability that humanity, therefore ‘super’ by definition (super as in, having a greater ability than humanity). Supernatural is a definition for unexplainable occurrences which cannot be explained as of yet. It justifies that the occurrence exists without intelligent interference, but rejects that it cannot exist without it, the occurrence rejects both natural and unnatural definitions, therefore an addition definition must be used until the occurrence can be explained, then it is capable of falling into either the natural or unnatural definitions. A supernatural example can be used in this, UFOs as said to travel at at least the speed of light, otherwise it would take immense amounts of time to travel, longer than our expected lifelines, but as yet we are unable to understand how this is possible. Because we do know that intellgent interfence must be taking part in this occurrence, its rejects the natural definition, but we are as yet uncapable of understanding this intelligent inteference, despite knowing it exists, therefore we must define it as supernatural is it is intelligent interference that is of a higher ability and comprehension than our own.

I would write more but it's 4am and I'm tired :P. I know I've left some loop holes in my arguments and the last example probably has the biggest one, but I had already wrote a lot of it when I noticed and couldn't be bothered to change it, I do have the knowing of the loop holes and ways to remove them, but I'll leave them open cause I can't be arsed to write anymore.

[Mentor]

You put forth good arguments, but I think you may have misunderstood me or I haven't included somethings I should have, therefore I'll explain my argument differently, the following paragraphs do not follow in relation your arguments:

From your arguments, you seem have a narrow view on the origin of objects, of course every object in existence is naturally based because its components are, but intelligent interference creates another form of object, for example; man-made objects, in almost every case, can be described as not being natural in origin as the object could not occur naturally without the intelligent interference. Using your example of a computer, no I don't know 'fully' how a computer works, but they are manmade and using our present understanding, computers do not occur naturally in the world we live in, therefore is it not natural but due to our understanding that it can be made using intelligent interference it can therefore be viewed as not supernatural. Take this example in a common saying that if you demonstrated your ability to create fire using a lighter and presented this to those of pre-history, most likely they would perceive you as something higher than a mere human, using it relation to the topic, they could perceive you are a supernatural being capable of unexplainable abilities at that time. I know the computer example can prove your view that it can be unnatural, but it can also prove that there are more origins than simply natural and unnatural as every object can be traced back to being natural depending on how far back you go into it's creation,

Your example of the birds cracking snail shells with rocks is another example which can be shown as not being supernatural, as I explained in my earlier post; supernatural events are events which appear to occur under the influence of intelligent interference which is not presently known to us. Intelligent interference is not limited to humanity as this is egotistical of humanity to make such a boast, therefore using your example, birds can be viewed as having this intelligence, which we are able to understand and accept, therefore birds cracking snail shells is not perceived as being supernatural.

From describing what I stated in the top paragraph, I will describe how your definition supernatural can be confusing. Any object which is created via man or any other animal capable of intelligent interference can be viewed as being unnatural, but this is where your definition becomes confusing as you stated that supernatural is where something does not occur in nature, which is the definition of unnatural, but supernatural is something which occurs by intelligent interference which cannot, as yet be understood, therefore it cannot be unnatural because we cannot prove that intelligent interference has taken part and therefore can be viewed a natural. This also creates a problem as it cannot occur naturally without intelligent interference, so what can it be defined as. This is where supernatural definitions take place. As it cannot be proven to occur naturally and cannot be proven to be influenced by intelligent interference, an unexplainable intelligence must be in influencing it, one which is capable of a higher ability that humanity, therefore ‘super’ by definition (super as in, having a greater ability than humanity). Supernatural is a definition for unexplainable occurrences which cannot be explained as of yet. It justifies that the occurrence exists without intelligent interference, but rejects that it cannot exist without it, the occurrence rejects both natural and unnatural definitions, therefore an addition definition must be used until the occurrence can be explained, then it is capable of falling into either the natural or unnatural definitions. A supernatural example can be used in this, UFOs as said to travel at at least the speed of light, otherwise it would take immense amounts of time to travel, longer than our expected lifelines, but as yet we are unable to understand how this is possible. Because we do know that intellgent interfence must be taking part in this occurrence, its rejects the natural definition, but we are as yet uncapable of understanding this intelligent inteference, despite knowing it exists, therefore we must define it as supernatural is it is intelligent interference that is of a higher ability and comprehension than our own.

I would write more but it's 4am and I'm tired :P. I know I've left some loop holes in my arguments and the last example probably has the biggest one, but I had already wrote a lot of it when I noticed and couldn't be bothered to change it, I do have the knowing of the loop holes and ways to remove them, but I'll leave them open cause I can't be arsed to write anymore.

To avoid this getting to convoluted and long winded im going to avoid dissecting, and try and get at the gist of the difference here.
From what i can tell, are main disagreement seems to be on how we are scaling are definitions. Your definitions of natural/beyond natural are firmly related to humans, while mine are related directly to nature itself.

Since i conciser humans, and the intelligence that comes with them as a natural occurrence, humans and all they create, in my view, are as natural as a crow getting grubs with a stick. Equally any technological advances made by non human life throughout existence, in my view, would also fall under the definition of natural.

So to try and clarify my view (its 4 am here too :p may try again when awake)
If something exists, it must obay natural laws. Its true we do not yet know or understand exactly what many of these laws are. But these laws do exist, and are essential for a stable universe to exist.
By obay natural laws, and working on principles that can be understood (even if they are not yet know), i would then define this a natural. Nothing can exist that can disobay these natural laws. Instead all somthing that appears to violate these laws goes to prove is that we have misunderstood a law or failed to account for something, thus the so called supernatural event is not supernatural but entirely natural. Its just are understanding that must have been wrong.
Which is where my view appears to differ from yours as you *i think* take natural to be defined by are human understanding of nature (thus when are view is wrong, we get somthing that would class as supernatural) as opposed to my view where it is simply are human understanding that is counted as wrong, and i take whatever event has gone against are beliefs to simply be proof we made a mistake.

I'm pretty sure ive failed to put over exactly what im trying to say so may have another go tomorrow. Sorry for the disjointed fail-brain dump :p

[RandomManJay]

To avoid this getting to convoluted and long winded im going to avoid dissecting, and try and get at the gist of the difference here.
From what i can tell, are main disagreement seems to be on how we are scaling are definitions. Your definitions of natural/beyond natural are firmly related to humans, while mine are related directly to nature itself.

Since i conciser humans, and the intelligence that comes with them as a natural occurrence, humans and all they create, in my view, are as natural as a crow getting grubs with a stick. Equally any technological advances made by non human life throughout existence, in my view, would also fall under the definition of natural.

So to try and clarify my view (its 4 am here too :p may try again when awake)
If something exists, it must obay natural laws. Its true we do not yet know or understand exactly what many of these laws are. But these laws do exist, and are essential for a stable universe to exist.
By obay natural laws, and working on principles that can be understood (even if they are not yet know), i would then define this a natural. Nothing can exist that can disobay these natural laws. Instead all somthing that appears to violate these laws goes to prove is that we have misunderstood a law or failed to account for something, thus the so called supernatural event is not supernatural but entirely natural. Its just are understanding that must have been wrong.
Which is where my view appears to differ from yours as you *i think* take natural to be defined by are human understanding of nature (thus when are view is wrong, we get somthing that would class as supernatural) as opposed to my view where it is simply are human understanding that is counted as wrong, and i take whatever event has gone against are beliefs to simply be proof we made a mistake.

I'm pretty sure ive failed to put over exactly what im trying to say so may have another go tomorrow. Sorry for the disjointed fail-brain dump :p

I do think I understand where you're coming from, to you intelligence is a natural occurrence in the universe therefore everything which is encompased within that intelligence is natural as well. I've never heard of this view before but it is quite unique and interesting. From looking at what you've said, I would most likely agree with you in this respect as I've never thought to look at nature in this way :P.

[Nxrissa]

i dont belive in anything like this.

[Accipiter]

Im scared of big paragraphs SHORTEN THEM LOL!

[RandomManJay]

Im scared of big paragraphs SHORTEN THEM LOL!

I can be very long winded, sorry :P