RE: Open challenge regarding the supernatural
May 20, 2015 at 6:55 pm
(This post was last modified: May 20, 2015 at 6:56 pm by bennyboy.)
(May 20, 2015 at 10:33 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:This comes down to semantics, I think. For something to be identified as supernatural, I would argue it must have an observable effect, but its mechanism must be at least partly hidden to us: i.e. not only unknown, but unknowable-- because it is of a realm beyond nature.(May 20, 2015 at 9:49 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Unknown details is not the same as "supernatural."
Normally, the supernatural is designated as that which can't be explained by natural means. The unknown is that which hasn't been explained by natural means. How do you differentiate between that which hasn't been explained, from that which cannot be explained, in the here and now. In other words, what is the supernatural and how do you identify it, as opposed to simply "the unknown" ?
However, such an entity or effect would exist in SOME realm, presumably: even God, if he IS, must be somewhere. So what would stop us from saying that the presence of God is really just a wormhole to an otherwise inaccessible dimension/set of dimensions?
Only semantics. We'd have to say "the buck stops here," and call supernatural all those things which we ourselves can never directly observe or interact with.
QM as supernatural phenomena, anyone?
(May 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote:Quote:But you could equally assume God exists and start making up correlates for that, and studying God as though it were a thing. What's the difference?
People -did- do that Benny....they came up bumpkiss, eh?
No, they didn't as far as I know. "Mind" has been defined in terms that will work in a lab. If the Christians were ever bright enough to define God in physical terms, and this "study" got into mainstrain science, it would be the beginning of the next Dark Ages.
