Talk:Supernatural/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cdesign proponentsist

"William Dembski writes: "For the theist attempting to understand nature, God as creator is fundamental, the creation is derivative, and nature as the physical part of creation is still further downstream".[1] " While he's better qualified as a theologian than as a mathematician or scientist, he's not a reliable source, so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It also isn't clear in that context what he's saying and there are UNDUE issues since he isn't a major theologian. Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion and the Supernatural

I think this article makes a big assumption in some points that supernatural realities and religious worldviews are identical. Furthermore it uses the word in many different ways confusing to the reader. For example, a genetically modified organism could be considered "supernatural" as it is completely above the natural order. Also, the point about Hindu vs christian eschatology has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural realm; it seems like a lot of these points are thoughts that individuals here have had d not hardline philosophy. I think the article needs to be cleaned up. 68.60.53.141 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

a genetically modified organism isn't "above the natural order", it's simply pushing the envelope as far as what has manifested so far in the world. It's completly natural and as big a part of this world as we and any other form of life, the only real difference being that it was "forced" into being rather than spontaneously appearing. Supernatural phenomena relates to aspects of the world that are beyond the physical reality without being, according to those who believe in such things, in direct conflict with the fabric of reality or "how things work". It's breaking the rules while playing by them. Genetic modification is replicating a process that occurs constantly in nature by it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proof of Supernaturalism

This Wikipedia entry is fascinating proof of the supernatural. An extension of these very profound proofs exist in regard to the Tunguska Event. which should be included in the article and made available for the cognitive Wikipedia audience. It makes it very difficult to be NPOV in regard to supernaturalism.

we are not here to "prove" whether or not there exists supernatural phenomena, we're here to convey information deemed important by the wikipedia standards. As far as proof goes for supernatural going-ons, the fact that someone yet has to explain something and describe how it came to be is far from proof that it's part of a supernatural world view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL "This extraordinarily powerful flash of lightning succeded the movement towards the earth of a visible body. If the rationales here are to be correct then, it stands to reason the identity of the body should be Satan himself!" Why not Stalin? Either way, creoblogs ≠ WP:RS. . dave souza, talk 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Science cannot approach the supernatural"

I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement "science cannot approach the supernatural." I don't necessarily disagree but I wish to see attribution so I can evaluate how widely accepted this statement is, by whom, and why. The scientific method article does not mention the supernatural. Cheers. Schmitty120 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Schmitty: after seeing your comments on the Evolution talk page, I clicked over to your user page and was compelled to follow it here. Your comments at Evolution and now this comment above seem to imply that you might benefit from reviewing what science is. No citation is required to support this statement: the definition of science necessarily excludes the supernatural, although the definition of WHAT is "supernatural" is often defined by the limitations of technology at the time. Science is a method that requires repeatable ways of collecting objective measurements to test falsifiable hypotheses. If you can do that about ANYTHING, then that "anything" is not supernatural. For example, there would have been times in human history when things like radio and microwaves, X-rays, viruses, and even the atom were "supernatural" because humans did not yet possess the tools or knowledge to measure them under the scientific method. Things like ghosts, gods, and "psychic phenomena" will remain supernatural until (and unless) a day arrives that we are able to design repeatable ways of collecting objective measurements to test falsifiable hypotheses about them. Science cannot approach the supernatural because science, as a method of inquiry, is not equipped to. You can't mow a lawn with a sewing machine. You can't address the supernatural using science. TxMCJ 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement is inappropriate on different grounds. You make the point that some things that are today science that would once have been (and to some still seem) supernatural. To then say science cannot approach the supernatural gives an incorrect impression that what is currently considered supernatural can never be explained by science (this is not the actual statement, but the wording could easily be interpreted like that). They may be outside current knowledge, but may later be explainable. Scientific method can be used to test claims even if the reasons for the results cannot explained by a non-supernatural means. The supernatural and scientific knowledge effectively meet at the moment on discovery/realisation where some thing goes from being an unexplained phenomenon to a principle that there are rules to; these rules are discovered and/or refined by the use of scientific method. The two do meet as the use of science to expand knowledge causes the supernatural to recede. --Nate 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concede the point, though I won't reverse my edits right away since Nate appears to still have objections. Schmitty120 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me at the edits in question to see if it can be rephrased? --Nate 09:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the particular one we were actually talking about [2]. I also made numerous changes in a wave of edits here. [3]. Good luck. Schmitty120 14:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And not to mention that nobody wants to make the necessary effort to develop such real experiments, etc. (or even to try to see if they are in fact impossible and thus said "supernatural" phenomena would remain totally irrelevant to the "real" world) since no "scientists" believe in the stuff in the first place (and they don't bother to look for the stuff either.). Saying that science "cannot" approach suggests it will never approach it. mike4ty4 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<- Honestly seems tagged on there, and think the article is better off without it. --Nate 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another problem that didn't seem to get mentioned is that this would entail that supernatural phenomena are totally impossible to observe, as observation would constitute some sort of "data" having been gathered, and thus any report of a "supernatural" phenomenon being "observed" would be a logical contradiction in terms. How can you observe something you can't observe? It's like saying 1 = 0. It makes no sense. If ghosts or other "supernatural" phenomena exist then they would not be "supernatural" since observations of them have been reported (this does not say whether ghosts are spirits or not, it would just rule out them as being "supernatural" under this definition.). So it seems this is not a good definition. Supernatural phenomena would be totally unknown, and thus there would be no reason to even consider the concept in the first place. "Phenomenon" itself would be an invalid descriptor since it implies the ability to observe the thing, so "supernatural phenomenon" would be an oxymoron. If it can be observed, then it would not be "supernatural". Period. So if ghosts, etc. exist and people really have seen them, they are not "supernatural", PERIOD. So this is pretty much a useless definition. mike4ty4 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All supernatural activity, if proved, is no longer supernatural in definition, so it is technically impossible to capture or enforce beliefs in supernatural activity, a better word would be unexplained or paranormal, am i correct?

What would you do if you were suddenly in touch with a 'sixth' sense for example one day you felt as if you had a telepathic experience(s)? Wouldn't that be 'supernatural' in a way and possibly suggestive of some 'god' or otherworldly experience or at least a very strange one? Now it could be the 'cargo plane phenomenon' verse god(s)/spirits-or not. Perhaps there is something to it - 'god(s)' and 'ghosts/spirits' and even more in some 'dimension' or place that as yet is undefined by science. Perhaps we just might not have the ability to find it with our present technology and our limited human capacity for understanding. Maybe there are some people who have had 'sixth' sense experiences. I disagree that it is technically impossible to capture beliefs in 'supernatural'activity unless its added that its true only by present experimental methods and at the present time. Scientists have studied geese - see Princeton Sixth Sense Study that were able to migrate by sensing magnetic fields and another study that proved certain sharks sensed prey by electrical feedback. These were senses previously undiscovered but once found shed light on unexplained behavior. Perhaps a particular sense(s) may one day be discovered with people who have experiences with the 'supernatural'. It may seem like a long shot but science has to admit that knowledge is an ongoing endeavor and what is the unknown today is tomorrow's truth. Thank god (pun intended) those geese weren't waiting for science to prove that they could find their way home. The tough part in all this is keeping a reasonably open mind despite the unknown and the frivolous. There might even be different degrees of 'supernatural' with 'god' turning out to be plausibly explained or eternally outside of our efforts. I like unexplained better than paranormal as it lends itself to the sideshow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.134.202 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguements against a Supernatual reality

"Many suggested supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative results[7][8][9][10][11](a single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance)."

Ok here is something to ponder, ... as per the previous statement a single affirmattive answer cannot outweigh multiple negative ones... What does that make math? Because we all know that 2+2=4, 3*3=9, 100/4=25, and 3-2=1. Also that none of the following are corect 2*2=5, 6+5=12, 10/2=3, and 6-6=1. Personaly, I belive that arguement has no legs to stand on.

--Integraracer1989 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Integraracer1989 09:36 EDT 20080805

A bit too late, but I couldn't resist answering this one. Your logic is completely flawed. The statement says that more negative than positive studies/evaluations on a claim/a set of claims (like astrology) means that the claim(s) are wrong. Saying that 2*2=5 isn't even evaluating anything. If you say it's evaluating the "correctness" of mathematics ... it's not. Mathematics is not a claim. Like science, it's a method, a way of doing things. --wj32 ^t/c 05:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this contention?

See link: A Secondary World with codes --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge with paranormal?

According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to merging Supernatural with Paranormal? One obvious objection is that there's a nontrivial amount of material in both articles, which will take some work to reconcile. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be possible to be merged after one missing differentiator is properly formulated in both articles. Namely, from the scientific perspective, supernatural is something totally beyond control e.g. miracles, thus lack the possibility of scientific verification through repetition, while as in the context of paranormal e.g. ghost hunting, some sort of communication is under consideration at least. --Marttir (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Arguments in favor of a supernatural reality" - I feel kind of cheated. No argument was actually presented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.64.175 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify your wish in more detail? Reality is something that comes from the nature, unlike supernatural. For me, supernatural reality is absurd like the question, what was before time? --Marttir (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'A word for unexplained events'

This view is essentially subset of the following "Another part of a larger nature" (the title of which should probably be changed). Lynn Thorndike's thesis concerns Christian Europe during the early middle ages, during which time the scientific method was not in use. Many Greek schools of thought, such as the Epicurean school, considered the universe as primarily a natural phenomenon centuries before the scientific method. Similarly, early Buddhism also denied supernatural and magical explanations. I am deleting this view as it is redundant and in error by merit of being too culturally specific (if it is valid at all).24.80.229.203 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Supernatural is Not Real

I am going to end this argument: God is not real, and that is final. The supernatural is not real either, because the definition of the word "supernatural" means "anything that breaks the laws of nature and/or physics".--98.199.76.184 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise it's a while since the above comment was posted, and that replying to it probably doesn't qualify as improving the article. There again, this sort of reasoning is often applied by atheists and other sceptics when arguing against the existence of paranormal phenomena and gods and the like, and given their claims to a greater rationality I think it's important to highlight the faulty logic involved in this particular argument. (I should declare that I am a polytheist myself, but don't intend this comment to be taken as an argument for the existence of any given phenomenon.)

98.199.76.184 is quite correct to say that "the supernatural is not real". By definition, anything that exists - and is therefore real - is natural. Because nature encompasses everything that exists, nothing exists that is outside of nature. Nature is all things that are real, and nothing unreal exists. Logic allows us to say that if there is no evidence for something there is no reason to assume its existence. However, it's backwards logic to declare something supernatural and then use the fact that it's been so declared as evidence that it doesn't exist. - Laterensis (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Odd questions about landscape features

I know its probably not the place to ask, but I don't care -- I don't want to eff with wikipedia's forums. Some years ago I came across a book talking about the man-made phenomena of placing buildings in a series of towns, i.e. a church with a tall steeple in the center of town, so that they line up with a similar tall building in the next town, which lines up with a structure on a hilltop nearby, and so on. What's the name of this? You can draw a perfectly straight line through the series of markers, and they can go for many many miles. Apparently there are a number of places in the UK where this can be observed. Maybe this is more of an occult question than a supernatural one? --RyanTee82 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)