Jump to content
Science Forums

Natural | Supernatural


C1ay

Recommended Posts

Where is the line between natural and supernatural? Many beliefs in the supernatural are claimed but what evidence is there of anything supernatural? Are natural events that are currently beyond our scope of knowledge supernatural just because we don't understand that aspect or property of nature yet? Those that invented and believed in the Fire God thought fire was supernatural but we know much better than that now. Why should we regard anything that we don't currently understand as being supernatural? Isn't this just an excuse to quit looking for the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The line is located exactly at the border between that which exists and that which does not.

 

What exists is all natural. Anything "beyond" natural does not exist.

 

It's a way for people to feel less scared about that which they do not understand.

 

So everything that no longer exists (but used to) is not all natural but supernatural? If that's the case, then the past would be decided on the basis of natural artifacts, but the original context of those artifacts (subject to disappear due to the natural law of temporal change) would be lost and hence in the realm of the supernatural. Now do you believe in your own definition (which by the way I agree with :) )? It would prove that historical facts (information about events that happened but no longer exist) are exclusive of scientific facts (conclusions which are those stated principles which are believed to be timeless and pertain to no event in particular).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think natural is basically the world we know, which we analyse and interact with. We go into the realm of the suprnatural when we start speculating. Eg:I guess most of Jules Vernes' stories, at ther time of publication, could be said to be dealing with the supernatural. But we know those things to be facts today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could redefine it as everything that is assumed to exist but cannot because it violates scientific laws, or never had existed, just is assumed to be so.

Why redefine it? Everything could be natural even if there are some things in nature that we don't understand. I question man's need to invoke the term "supernatural" to explain things we don't understand. Can't there be natural things we don't understand yet?

 

For example, if ghosts were/are real couldn't they be a natural phenomenon we just don't understand yet? Why regard them as supernatural instead of looking for a rational explanation for their natural existence. (Disclaimer: I do not claim a belief in ghosts.)

 

IMO, anything that does exist in reality is natural whether we understand it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, supernatural could also refer to phenomena that do not happen, but some say that they do, and strongly believe them.

 

For something to be supernatural we can consider:

1- It does not happen, because it violates science or rationalism, or because it is not a phenomena that has ever been actually observed.

 

2- It is firmly believed in by some people.

 

3- It may be associated with religion.

 

4- It is kinda mysterious...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with Hallenrm, and C1ay. Supernatural would have to be fiction, however that is only because fiction is the abstraction of reality, which is always far odder than what we imagine.

 

I found it extreamely funny that we reject and ridicule so much when repeatedly we find that what we thought was "impossible" or blatantly false, turns out to be utterly true and self evident. I personally don't believe in a great deal many things, however I only concider them disproven, and therefore not understood. If at a future date something becomes verified then it leaves that status and joins the understood.

 

there is nothing in reality that is super-natural, if something exists, wheather proven or not, then it is a part of nature and therefore natural.

 

Psionics is my favorite to point to for this kind of thing, as it is seen as paranormal or supernatural. However I can see how it works in the standard model. Psionics to me merely classifies as a quantum phenomena. One of the restrictions Quantum phenomena suffer from is the inability to directly observe for that changes the outcome of the event and therefore changes the results of the experiment. Psionics to me works the same, doubt in the sciences of belief changes the nature of the belief and it's power on the world. Therefore if you don't believe you are capable of psionics then most likely you are not.

 

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those that invented and believed in the Fire God thought fire was supernatural but we know much better than that now.
Supernatural: Just a word that expresses events or circumstances which we don't fully understand.

 

Why should we regard anything that we don't currently understand as being supernatural? Isn't this just an excuse to quit looking for the truth?
From my point of wiew, anything labled as supernatural raises my curiosity to a level allowing me every excuse to find the answer. The word 'supernatural' is commonly used by many folks to describe things which are thought beyond our eventual understanding. About this view, I must disagree. All events and circumstances have defineable reasons, given enough time and resources we could determine the basis and cause........Infy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ.

 

Supernatural means "above nature" and hence something not constrained by the laws of nature. Such things either don't exist or, if one believes they do, are a quite different thing from something we don't currently understand, or a law of nature we don't yet know; to these I wouldn't apply the term supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ.

 

Supernatural means "above nature" and hence something not constrained by the laws of nature. Such things either don't exist or, if one believes they do, are a quite different thing from something we don't currently understand, or a law of nature we don't yet know; to these I wouldn't apply the term supernatural.

I agree almost entirely.

 

However, there are some phenomena that are easily explianed by our current knowledge and understanding, but not true, yet considered in the range of supernatural due to the shadiness of the claimer or observer's description. Eg- the yeti.(poor example, however)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clay says:

 

''Where is the line between natural and supernatural? Many beliefs in the supernatural are claimed but what evidence is there of anything supernatural? Are natural events that are currently beyond our scope of knowledge supernatural just because we don't understand that aspect or property of nature yet?''

 

since this statement can largely be agreed upon, why does it not follow that

the universe could have been created by ID and we just don't yet understand the mechanics? we wouldn't claim supernatural cause if we understood the mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yet considered in the range of supernatural due to the shadiness of the claimer or observer's description
IMV the average Joe Blo tends to use words inappropriately, that's why they come to have many odd meanings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...