I need help answering a couple questions concerning the supernatural since a lot of people try to use it as an explanation for certain events and phenomena. Some people go as far as saying that these claims can be objectively detected on their own. . . . . . .

A supernatural entity in my own understanding is one that is above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena and undetected, . . . .My question is, if supernatural entities like, god,demons, satan, were to exist, how would we know? Is there any mechanism by which to objectively conclude that the supernatural is real?

No answers like "faith" please.

I also have a question regarding the "soul". Where does it come from? . . . As in, is one's "soul" 50% from the mother and 50% from the father? Do little spermies have souls, or do eggs in the ovaries have souls. Are souls lost during every mas.turbation session, or every time an unused egg is "flushed out"; Or does the soul enter into the body after birth, or at the point one gains "consciousness", in which case it has nothing to do with the parents. . . . ?

Thank you very much for your questions Mazaje.  In order for this thread to get off the ground I think that you will need to provide a generic definition for what Natural is first.  And then we can say that anything that doesn't fit this definition can be called supernatural.  

Calling something "above or beyond what is natural, unexlainable by natural law or phenomena "  . . .ya da yada ya da is not saying anything at all if we don't have a working definition for what we call Natural.  

In all my years of discussions and reading books and websites by atheists and engaging them in tete a tete, I am yet to hear a well thought out, simple definition of Natural.  I will appreciate it if you could attempt this simple task, thank you.

To properly get where I'm coming from it might help to view this thread.  
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.160.html#msg3998952

I would say starting from post 183, but that could just be my ego talking.  

The thread is actually very messy cos it seemed that Huxley was simply reluctant to offer a properly rigorous definition or he was put out of his depth by the question.  I tried really hard to help him.

I put it to the forum that there is absolutely no way to define Natural without leaving room in observed phenomena for the supernatural (the non-natural, that is).  All the top Naturalists have tried, I would welcome you to give it a go.

And you are not allowed to simply say that the Natural is "All there is" that is not a definition and is in fact an -ism rather than a concept.

@OP
Perhaps if you decide you don't know and then open your mind it will help. You can start by talking to those who claim to have had experiences. Dreams, for instance. If you don't dream, do you know anyone that does?

Truth to tell, you can never grasp these things with your hands, that is why they are "supernatural". That is why scientists who investigate them in the cold and detached atmosphere of a laboratory often come up with nothing. The scientist here seems to have made some progress, though inconclusive.

I do not believe anyone can show these things to you. You can find out for yourself. I suggest you read and question, then start trying to verify every claim you hear.

Krayola:

I also have a question regarding the "soul". Where does it come from? . . . As in, is one's "soul" 50% from the mother and 50% from the father? Do little spermies have souls, or do eggs in the ovaries have souls. Are souls lost during every mas.turbation session, or every time an unused egg is "flushed out"; Or does the soul enter into the body after birth, or at the point one gains "consciousness", in which case it has nothing to do with the parents. . . . ?

I tried to highlight this point in easylogic's tread about mind-body. Obviously the spermies and the eggs aren't souls, half souls or pseudo-souls, therefore they cannot on their own turn to souls after fusion. This leaves us with the option of the soul coming from outside. There are two schools of thought: that it enters at the middle of pregnancy or when the baby takes it first breath, as figuratively captured by the Genesis account of creation. I am not proving anything, of course. But I could suggest a book or two. They won't prove anything, but they will give you something to chew on.
Cheers

Krayola:

I also have a question regarding the "soul". Where does it come from? . . . As in, is one's "soul" 50% from the mother and 50% from the father? Do little spermies have souls, or do eggs in the ovaries have souls. Are souls lost during every mas.turbation session, or every time an unused egg is "flushed out"; Or does the soul enter into the body after birth, or at the point one gains "consciousness", in which case it has nothing to do with the parents. . . . ?

Souls are precipitations from the radiation of the one true reality - God.

Depending on the degree of energy within each soul, some souls remain floating in unconsciousness outside the material realm for all eternity.

Other souls with high degrees of energy are prompted by that energy to float out from the immaterial and enter the world of matter.

In this material realm, souls incarnate within developing foetus about the middle of pregnancy.

The laws of attraction govern what sort of soul is attracted to what sort of mother.

The laws of Karma are also active at this. But the laws of Karma are really nothing but a manifestation of the laws of attraction.

Pastor AIO:

Thank you very much for your questions Mazaje. In order for this thread to get off the ground I think that you will need to provide a generic definition for what Natural is first. And then we can say that anything that doesn't fit this definition can be called supernatural.

Calling something "above or beyond what is natural, unexlainable by natural law or phenomena " . . .ya da yada ya da is not saying anything at all if we don't have a working definition for what we call Natural.

In all my years of discussions and reading books and websites by atheists and engaging them in tete a tete, I am yet to hear a well thought out, simple definition of Natural. I will appreciate it if you could attempt this simple task, thank you.

To properly get where I'm coming from it might help to view this thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-279631.160.html#msg3998952

I would say starting from post 183, but that could just be my ego talking.

The thread is actually very messy cos it seemed that Huxley was simply reluctant to offer a properly rigorous definition or he was put out of his depth by the question. I tried really hard to help him.

I put it to the forum that there is absolutely no way to define Natural without leaving room in observed phenomena for the supernatural (the non-natural, that is). All the top Naturalists have tried, I would welcome you to give it a go.

And you are not allowed to simply say that the Natural is "All there is" that is not a definition and is in fact an -ism rather than a concept.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS NATURAL ONLY. WE USE THE WORD "SUPRENATURAL" BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND CERTAIN THINGS.

WHEN WE SEE A MAN WALKING ON WATER WE CALL IT SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE NATURAL LAWS BY WHICH SUCH A THING MAY HAPPEN.

Deep Sight:

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS NATURAL ONLY. WE USE THE WORD "SUPRENATURAL" BECAUSE WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND CERTAIN THINGS.

WHEN WE SEE A MAN WALKING ON WATER WE CALL IT SUPERNATURAL BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE NATURAL LAWS BY WHICH SUCH A THING MAY HAPPEN.

My brother, you go fail exam o! This is exactly the kind of comment that I said I didn't want to hear. All I asked for is a definition of Natural. Not whether everything qualifies as natural or not.

I repeat; anything that exists is what is natural.

Nothing exists that is not natural.

The fact of existence is what I choose to define as naturalness.

This is because existence means that some is resting in reality.

What better definition of naturalness can we contrive, save to state that what is natural is that which is real?

Reflect carefully on this.

Deep Sight:

I repeat; anything that exists is what is natural.

Nothing exists that is not natural.

The fact of existence is what I choose to define as naturalness.

This is because existence means that some is resting in reality.

What better definition of naturalness can we contrive, save to state that what is natural is that which is real?

Reflect carefully on this.

I heard you first time.

Try this for an argument.

wirinet:


@ Pastor,

To me the supernatural is what is not understood under our present stage of scientific development. At one time and with all cultures, thunder and lightening was a supernatural event, Leprosy and other bacteria and viral infections were demonic attacks, madness and other mental conditions was a spiritual attack, so was movements of the planets and comets, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. If a witch can be verified to fly on a broomstick, then we will need to examine the process which propels the broom and replicate the system. that is the way an atheist like me reason, it will not be enough for me to accept the notion that the propulsion system of the broom is too mysterious to understand so it must be the work of God, Satan, Angels, Demon or Santa Claus.

To make my point, let me turn things around. I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural. Everything is supernatural. thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything. A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens. Nature is a fallacy.

But my bone of contention was best stated in this post back in June last year:

huxley2:

So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

I glad you said the above first because it shows that you haven't yet quite got what I'm getting at, so I know more explanation is necessary. What I said doesn't tie in with what you said earlier, neither can it for a number of reasons.

First the word definition. Definition, by definition ( ) puts a limit around something. De - Fine. -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary. In-finite. Is without boundary, without limit. So when you define something, you give it boundaries. Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not. We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Secondly, having pointed that out I tried to help out with a possible definition of Nature. Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time (in a futureward direction). This is the definition that we are working with at the moment and any reference to any other definition will only confuse issues because with differing definition what I'm calling nature might not be what you are calling nature.

huxley2:



Agree also. To flout the laws of Nature would be non-natural. But here-in lies the problems. Do we have knowledge of the full sample space of the laws of nature.

With a definition of Nature you do not need to have full knowledge of all the laws of nature. Once you have defined Nature when you discover a Law you can then determine whether it is a natural law or some other kind of law.

For example, We all know there is a Biological definition of a genus called Canine. We know that dogs are canines. However you don't need to know absolutely every example of a canine in the world before you recognise one. Once I know what a canine is If I run into a wolf for my first time I will know that it fits the definition of a canine. If I run into a Bear for the first time which looks remarkably different from a dog, upon closer study I'll realise that it too is a canine. It fits the definition. If however I ran into a duck for the first time, on close examination I'll correctly conclude that it isn't a canine. (or is it Canus).

Once you have the definition of Nature you don't need to know every natural thing that can possibly happen. When you come across something you can assess against your definition whether or not it is Natural.

huxley2:

For instance, if you were to ressurrect Isaac Newton today in the mindset of a 16/17th century man, in the first few hours or days of in this "new" world, he would probably consider all our modern technologies as flouting the laws of nature. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, of electronics, of electrons, of genetics, of strong/weak nuclear force, etc, etc. In the eyes of 16/17th century man, the modern world is non-natural.

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

Funny that you should use Newton as an example. I don't think Newton would be that phased and I know he certainly won't think our modern technologies were supernatural. Newton was a lot deeper that many people imagine. Principia Mathematica was only the tip of the iceberg.
Now, if Newton were to use our definition he might be amazed at the wonderful things of nature but he would not think any of our technologies were supernatural. They all employ forces and effects that traverse space and time.

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural. If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law. A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law.

huxley2:

Further, of the main natural laws that we currently know, how often do these get flouted?

1) Have you ever seen the law of gravity flouted?

2) Have you ever seen a half-duck half-crocodile creature?

3) Have you ever seen contravension of the law of conservation of energy?

Laws of Nature are flouted all the time and it has been evidenced.

I personally haven't seen gravity flouted, or ducrodile or conservation of energy flouted.

Pastor - I hear you, but still disagree.

I disagree that anything that is defined necessarily must be finite. In this let us not be too picky on the etymology of the word "define." We could use the word "describe" - (although you would come around to tell me that anything that has been described is thus circumscribed.)

If i define God as Eternal - having no boundaries - that definition holds - and yet God is not finite in the least. In this however we have clearly pointed out what God is (eternal) and what he is not (finite).

I may also define infinity as being endless - that definition holds - and yet infinity is not finite in the least.

At all events i am convinced that the foregoing is neither here nor there.

Because for anything to exist, it must be possible. For something to be possible, it must fit into, or derive from self-existent laws of existence, or be a self-existent thing

The laws of existence are the very definition of what is natural: for the precise reason that they are reality itself - and nothing could be said to be natural but reality itself.

Thus it follows that everything that exists and rests in reality is what is natural. There is thus nothing like supernatural at all. God itself is natural.

The problems exists only when you attempt to define natural as that which mankind knows, apprehends, or can explain. This is a fallacy. If an alien civilization exists 50 billion light years away from the earth they might describe humans as "unnatural" or "supernatural" simply because humans are not within their experience.

Now are humans "supernatural?" No we are not. We are simply outside the experience of that civilization.

In much the same way, God, UFOs, ghosts, spirits and other such phenomena are simply outside the experience of alot of humanbeings. This is why they call such things "supernatural."

I thus fully agree with huxley on this -

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

If something exists: it cannot be said to be "super-existent" - it is "existent" and that is what is my perception what of what natural is.

Deep Sight:

Pastor - I hear you, but still disagree.

I disagree that anything that is defined necessarily must be finite. In this let us not be too picky on the etymology of the word "define." We could use the word "describe" - (although you would come around to tell me that anything that has been described is thus circumscribed.)

If i define God as Eternal - having no boundaries - that definition holds - and yet God is not finite in the least. In this however we have clearly pointed out what God is (eternal) and what he is not (finite).

I may also define infinity as being endless - that definition holds - and yet infinity is not finite in the least.

Don't you see how you are contradicting yourself?  By defining things you not only tell us what they are but you also tell us what they are not.  After de-fining you know that when you observe something beyond the '-fine' that you are no longer talking about the defined thing. 

I really wish that you read the rest of the thread to the end. 

By the Way, to de-scribe is to put in writing.  -scribe being related to writing so while there is some connection with what we are talking about, it is not so apt a substitute.

Secondly, Eternity does not mean having no boundaries.  It means non-temporal.  Even the progress of time may or may not extend into infinity.

A definition of God not only tells us what God is, but it tells us what God is not.  Therefore it puts limits on God. 

As an aside, I would not just place God (or define God) in Eternity.  I don't see why God could not be temporal too, and partake in the temporal evolution of events. 

The rest of your posts is answered by this post of Pilgrim1's

Quote from: huxley2 on June 10, 2009, 12:49 PM
So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.
Quote from: huxley2 on June 11, 2009, 03:01 PM
Why don't you have objects as part of nature.


Quote from: Pastor AIO on June 09, 2009, 06:09 PM
The point I'm making is that defining something as 'everything', such as when you say Nature is Everything that exist, is the Grandaddy of all absurdities.
Quote from: Pastor AIO on June 10, 2009, 08:03 PM
A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.


Quote from: Pastor AIO on June 10, 2009, 08:03 PM
Secondly, having pointed that out I tried to help out with a possible definition of Nature. Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time (in a futureward direction). This is the definition that we are working with at the moment and any reference to any other definition will only confuse issues because with differing definition what I'm calling nature might not be what you are calling nature.
Quote from: Pastor AIO on June 10, 2009, 08:03 PM
With a definition of Nature you do not need to have full knowledge of all the laws of nature. Once you have defined Nature when you discover a Law you can then determine whether it is a natural law or some other kind of law.
Quote from: Pastor AIO on June 10, 2009, 08:03 PM
Once you have the definition of Nature you don't need to know every natural thing that can possibly happen. When you come across something you can assess against your definition whether or not it is Natural.



Are we missing something . . . or the

And this:

huxley2:


                                                                    How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time?  Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us.  That is not the issue.  The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not. 

According to our definition of Nature if the phenomenon does not seem to rely on traversing space and time then it is NOT operating according to a Natural law.

If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL.  Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.

 

Pastor AIO I don't really understand what you are trying to get at. . . . . . .From wikipedia "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic"

This definition I very much agree with. . . . .

Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time

How is this diferent from my statement that "natural" is anything that exists? ? ? Only that i would stretch it in my case to include even things beyond space and time.

On "define" and "describe" - i already predicted that you would drag us into hair-splitting semantics. What would you say if i use the word - "Explain."

Will that pull the rug from your word games?

I state that nature = reality. Will you also tell me that "reality" cannot be "defined" because that will limit it? Ok, i leave the semantics to you, i will henceforth use the word "explain" to escape your word games, which i believe are neither here nor there and do not address the question - "what is natural?"

Anything real and embeded in the laws of existence is what is natural. That, my friend, if it is not a definition or a description, is an explanation.

Quote from Pastor AIO -

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us. That is not the issue. The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not.

So as soon as such laws become known to us, then they become "natural?" Because i see that you regard the known laws as natural.

Haba, Pastor, so "natural" now means anything that mankind knows?

I suppose in that case 6000 years ago the Earth's water cycle was not natural, since it was not known to man? ? ?

Come on.

Deep Sight:

Quote from Pastor AIO -

So as soon as such laws become known to us, then they become "natural?" Because i see that you regard the known laws as natural.

Haba, Pastor, so "natural" now means anything that mankind knows?

I suppose in that case 6000 years ago the Earth's water cycle was not natural, since it was not known to man? ? ?

Come on.

Ol'boy, let's leave it for now. I don't want headache. I'll try to tackle this tomorrow as I can see that you are not getting my point at all. Not even remotely.

O, Come on now Pastor.

You stated this -

If however you reject our definition of Nature and leave Nature open ended so that we can keep shifting the goalposts in order to fit in any phenomena that we might encounter then we need to be ready for one possibility.

That we will discover a spiritual reality and even God and find that it is ALL very NATURAL. Spirits will be Natural to and there'll still be no such thing as the supernatural.

And this ties perfectly into my surmise: that EVERYTHING is natural.

Huxley, I have no doubt that there are loads of laws of the universe currently unknown to us. That is not the issue. The question is if these Laws can be considered Natural Laws or not.

Let us look at this statement of yours critically again.

You accept that there are unknown laws.

You accept that the laws known so far are natural laws.

So on what basis will you question the "naturalness" of laws yet to be known?

Only on the basis that they are not yet known?

mazaje:

Pastor AIO I don't really understand what you are trying to get at. . . . . . .From wikipedia "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic"

This definition I very much agree with. . . . .

Please sir, the above is circular reasoning.  "Nature is defined as the Natural world".  Oh gosh really?

The next thing you're going to tell me is that money is a monetary object, and that Fashion refers to fashionable trends.

Please excuse my sarcasm, but I hope it makes my point.  Wikipedia's definition tells me nothing.  Physical world, ie physics comes from the greek word physis which simply means nature.  

However that Nature refers to the material world is starting to get somewhere.  If nature refers to matter then we could say that non-nature, or supernature refers to other phenomenon like energy, force, space itself, time etc etc etc.

My point is that we can define Nature arbitrarily if we want to but once we make a definition we have to stick with it and there is absolutely no definition of Nature extant that can account for all the phenomenon that we are aware of, so therefore Naturalism is a sillly fallacy.  

Let me give you a helping hand by referring you to some of the foremost atheistic thinkers on the subject.

The Meaning of 'Nature' or 'Natural'

Danto's definition of a natural cause, while capturing very general features of natural causation and natural causal explanation, does not shed much light on what is meant by the term 'natural' itself. One obvious candidate for what is meant by the term 'natural' is physical. The earliest forms of naturalism, in fact, were versions of materialism or physicalism which maintained that everything that exists is physical. As I have construed naturalism, simple (reductive) physicalism maintains that everything that exists within nature is physical and solely influenced by physical causes. However, the prominent twentieth century debate over materialism in the philosophy of mind has revealed several difficulties with reductive physicalism as a solution to the mind-body problem.

One of the most persistent difficulties for reductive physicalism has been the apparent inability of physicalistic explanations to capture qualitative features of conscious experience. It has been persuasively argued that qualia--the experiential feels of 'what it is like' to be in a conscious mental state--cannot be captured by any physicalistic explanations in principle because physicalistic explanations inherently refer to objective or public features of phenomena, whereas the experiential features of consciousness are inherently subjective or private (Teller 1992, pp. 190-191). While such arguments for the irreducibility of consciousness are not the last word on the subject, they have not been decisively refuted either--at least not in the view of several prominent philosophers. Although such difficulties may be resolved in the future, their current resistance to a clear resolution that gains widespread acceptance gives us good reason to resist simply identifying the natural with the physical.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html

It's a good essay called "In defence of Naturalism".  He goes through a number of different possible definitions of Naturalism and Nature.

Deep Sight:

O, Come on now Pastor.

You stated this -

And this ties perfectly into my surmise: that EVERYTHING is natural.

That all depends on what you define as natural. The definition can be arbitrary, but the point is that once you make it you've got to stick with it rather than just shifting goal posts in order to account for every phenomena that you might encounter.

Saying everything is natural means nothing to me if you don't give a definition of what is natural. You might as well say that everything is gogogaga.

@pastor, What about "whatever isn't man made"?

Deep Sight:

Let us look at this statement of yours critically again.

You accept that there are unknown laws.

You accept that the laws known so far are natural laws.

So on what basis will you question the "naturalness" of laws yet to be known?

Only on the basis that they are not yet known?

meeeenh!  I don't know what thread you're reading.  I've noticed a tendency of yours to read what you want to hear into what other people are saying without any consideration for what the person actually said.  

Yes, I accept that there are unknown laws

No, I never said anything about all those laws, known or even unknown, being natural (remember I don't even know what you mean by natural so why should I be calling anything natural).  

As regards the unknown laws or the universe I cannot say whether they are natural laws or not because[b] I don't know what you mean by natural.[/b]

My throat is going hoarse just because I'm screaming my thoughts in my head.  Yes what you do to me.  You're making me lose my voice without even using it.

Krayola:

@pastor, What about "whatever isn't man made"?

If that is going to be your definition that let's roll with it.

Obviously we can blow naturalism out of the water cos Naturalism says that all that exists is Natural. However we know that many man made things exist. . . . therefore . . . Naturalism isn't true.

However we can question what you mean by 'made'. It can be argued that Man doesn't 'make' but rather re-shapes what nature has already made. In this case we are defining 'make' as creation ex nihilo

Pastor AIO:



However we can question what you mean by 'made'.  It can be argued that Man doesn't 'make' but rather re-shapes what nature has already made.  In this case we are defining 'make' as creation ex nihilo

I concur. Footsteps in the snow are not natural, even though snow is, and feet are.

But e be like say small k-leg go still dey,  What category will we put "acid rain"?

or dog footprints in the snow?

SAID THE SKEPTIC: “All these mountains and rivers and earth and stars — where do they come from?”

SAID THE MASTER: “Where does your question come from?”

Pastor AIO:

You're making me lose my voice without even using it.

Now, that would not be an example of 'natural', would it? Just kidding.

Anyway guys, it's great that we first have to understand what is meant by the terms 'natural', 'nature' and perhaps 'naturalism', before we could then contextually proffer definitions for 'supernatural'. Indeed, arbitrary definitions of any of those terms would not be sufficient, especially as we cannot account for all phenomena in existence (whether known and understood or not).

Interestingly, shades of meanings to terms emerge as more questions are asked. The idea that 'nature' is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world (Wikipedia) is quite circular and reductionistic - and I share the same disagreement with PastorAIO on that. Bearing in mind that existence itself involves not only the substance of anything, but also causes, processes and occurences, then shades of meanings to particular terms become as important as any consideration of anything at all in this subject.

Shades of meaning? Yes, indeed - for which reason even physicalists now seek (a) more rigorous definition(s) of 'nature' and 'naturalism'. Yet, besides the 'supernatural', there are terms describing other phenomena that we might need to consider, such as [i]preter[/i]natural and [i]supra[/i]natural. Certainly, many people confuse these terms as well; but we don't need to. Whatever terms we may use would depend on context.

I believe the OP was just asking a simple question which is if the so called "supernatural" entities like demons, angels, gods, satan etc were in existence how can they be objectively detected? Is there any mechanism by which we can objectively measure the existence of such entities and conclude that the supernatural is real?

toneyb:

I believe the OP was just asking a simple question which is if the so called "supernatural" entities like demons, angels, gods, satan etc were in existence how can they be objectively detected? Is there any mechanism by which we can objectively measure the existence of such entities and conclude that the supernatural is real?

Even then, without an understanding of what he means by 'supernatural' I'm afraid that what he is asking is just simply nonsensical. What makes demons and angels 'supernatural'? Why can they not be natural?

There seems to be the implication that 'supernatural' means 'difficult to objectively detect'.

I gave an example earlier that there is a well defined Genus of the animal kingdom called the Canus. These Canus, or canines, are various. Someone who has the definition of a Canine is aware that 'Lucky', his pet dog, is a canine as is the wild wolf that he ran into in the woods last week. They both fit the descriptions or definitions of canine.

Such a person might never have seen a bear before in his life and if he encounters a bear it is unlikely at first glance that he would call it a Canine, but on closer investigation, held against his definition of a Canus he will have to conclude that a bear does indeed belong to the group of Canus. All this is possible simply because he has a definition for Canus.

Without a definition for supernatural, as opposed to natural, there is no telling what is natural or not, not to talk of measuring or objectively detecting it. Do you get my point?

viaro:



Anyway guys, it's great that we first have to understand what is meant by the terms 'natural', 'nature' and perhaps 'naturalism', before we could then contextually proffer definitions for 'supernatural'. Indeed, arbitrary definitions of any of those terms would not be sufficient, especially as we cannot account for all phenomena in existence (whether known and understood or not).

I don't mind an arbitrary definition. If it is made and stated at the beginning of our discussion then I'll be happy with it. Then we can talk till the cows come home and we'll all know what we are talking about.

What I can't stand is undefined terms that allow us to shifts the goalposts here there and everywhere.

What makes demons and angels supernatural entities?

toneyb:

I believe the OP was just asking a simple question which is if the so called "supernatural" entities like demons, angels, gods, satan etc were in existence how can they be objectively detected?  Is there any mechanism by which we can objectively measure the existence of such entities and conclude that the supernatural is real?

Baba Sikira the babalawo can help with instant, raw evidence. Just kidding.

If you mean objective in scientific terms, there are no mechanisms. That is why they are said to be supernatural. They cannot be proved materially although their manifestations can be felt in material world and these are then subject or amenable to different interpretations. There seems to be some agreement that you have to develop your perceptive powers, not intellectual but intuitive, to actually see things for yourself. It is said that people with highly developed spirits see things others can't. That is why people join esoteric schools of thought such as Rosicrucianism, esoteric Christianity (Christian mysticism), sufi (Islamic mysticism), Kaballah (Jewish mysticism), Vajrayana Buddhism, the Fourth Way, Eckancker, Grail Message, etc. There is no doubt that students of followers of these schools gain "experiences" which they believe to be genuine. But there are naysayers who dismiss such experiences as "self-hypnotism".

Googler:

Baba Sikira the babalawo can help with instant, raw evidence. Just kidding.

If you mean objective in scientific terms, there are no mechanisms. That is why they are said to be supernatural. They cannot be proved materially although their manifestations can be felt in material world and these are then subject or amenable to different interpretations. There seems to be some agreement that you have to develop your perceptive powers, not intellectual but intuitive, to actually see things for yourself. It is said that people with highly developed spirits see things others can't. That is why people join esoteric schools of thought such as Rosicrucianism, esoteric Christianity (Christian mysticism), sufi (Islamic mysticism), Kaballah (Jewish mysticism), Vajrayana Buddhism, the Fourth Way, Eckancker, Grail Message, etc. There is no doubt that students of followers of these schools gain "experiences" which they believe to be genuine. But there are naysayers who dismiss such experiences as "self-hypnotism".

Might i ask what your personal persuasion is?

None