Thread: Is science and religion too young to understand each other?

Science relies on provable actuality
Religion preaches faith on the uncertain
Suppose one says that current science do not have the means to explain religion beyond reasonable doubt what are your thoughts?
To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god, and this science cannot explain. Even with Stephen Hawking's notion that we might have happened as mere chance in vast ocean of big bangs till the jackpot hit, we still don't know do we?
In court neither arguments can win for nothing can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
thoughts........

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god

We do know that all things can be explained without the need of god.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Suppose one says that current science do not have the means to explain religion beyond reasonable doubt what are your thoughts?

do you mean science cannot explain religion, or science cannot explain the claims of religion, or science cannot explain what religion claims to explain, or what exactly?

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god, and this science cannot explain.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." GW Bush

There's an old saying in Rome - I know it's in Canterbury, probably in Rome - that says...If the Devil didn't exist, or should that be God - it would be necessary to invent Him.

Originally Posted by prasit

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god

We do know that all things can be explained without the need of god.

This is true, but my point is science cannot explain if god does exists or not with zero doubt can it?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Suppose one says that current science do not have the means to explain religion beyond reasonable doubt what are your thoughts?

do you mean science cannot explain religion, or science cannot explain the claims of religion, or science cannot explain what religion claims to explain, or what exactly?

When broken down all 3 makes sense, but my focus is science cannot truly prove that god exists or that he doesn't exist

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by prasit

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god

We do know that all things can be explained without the need of god.

This is true, but my point is science cannot explain if god does exists or not with zero doubt can it?

Well, if everything can be explained without the need of god (which it can as far as 'science knows') then what has this 'god' actually done? Surely, that would mean that god simply doesn't exist.

I do not think it beyond the realms of science to disprove 'god(s)', look how far science has come by today- it was only a few centuries ago that people thought that atoms were 'indivisible' and 'whole' and they could never be split...

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by prasit

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god

We do know that all things can be explained without the need of god.

This is true, but my point is science cannot explain if god does exists or not with zero doubt can it?

Well, if everything can be explained without the need of god (which it can as far as 'science knows') then what has this 'god' actually done? Surely, that would mean that god simply doesn't exist.

I do not think it beyond the realms of science to disprove 'god(s)', look how far science has come by today- it was only a few centuries ago that people thought that atoms were 'indivisible' and 'whole' and they could never be split...

Im not saying that science cannot explain many types of phenomena, all Im saying is that we don't have solid evidence that god doesn't exist. Science does explain things without the need of god equations but it still lacks the SOLID proof god isn't there. Just because theory is justified that things are the way they are it still lacking evidence of beyond doubt 100% correct. The old saying "even if you don't see it it never necessarily means it's not there" applies to this well of course until you show your formula that discredits any doubt. No arguments here just trying to get opinions :-D And yes it has come a long way and we ain't seen nothing yet

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

Yes were waiting, don't u agree the only way to solve the puzzle is actual proof instead of philosophical arguments such as "there are holes in your bible, it doesn't add up"

Originally Posted by prasit

To be honest we do not know if there is a god or if there isn't a god

We do know that all things can be explained without the need of god.

Exactly my point "ALL THINGS" Im not religious but I can think with unbiased thought.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

...but my point is science cannot explain if god does exists or not with zero doubt can it?

If you want to take scepticism that far (like Descartes loved to), we cannot 100% SOLID prove gravity exists. We might just 'really' be in a matrix style trance. However, there comes a point where such notions just become silly.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

... don't u agree the only way to solve the puzzle is actual proof instead of philosophical arguments such as "there are holes in your bible, it doesn't add up"

Empiricism is only viable once there is something to measure (even if it's just a well-defined concept). Also 'holes in the bible arguments' are rarely philosophical arguments.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Im not saying that science cannot explain many types of phenomena, all Im saying is that we don't have solid evidence that god doesn't exist.

How does one prove nonexistence? Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? Is the fact that you can't reason to accept them as an animal that lives on earth?

I see also that Prometheus has addressed this well prior to me.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

Yes were waiting, don't u agree the only way to solve the puzzle is actual proof instead of philosophical arguments such as "there are holes in your bible, it doesn't add up"

I take your point, but I'm not sure the issue will ever be solved. When one assumes a position based on faith alone, evidence by itself is not generally sufficient to alter it.

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

Might as well wait for Jesus to explain it to us then...

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

Might as well wait for Jesus to explain it to us then...

IF your up to it he'll be here around the year 3,000 ad. We should just perfect our stargate powers and open the realms our selves

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

I disagree.
By the very definition, science can never define what is God.
The logical consequences are quite straightforward;
If science are able to explain God, it is either science is not science anymore or God is not God any longer.

deathrhapsody wrote:

By the very definition, science can never define what is God.

inow asks for someone to define God, he does not ask science to define God.

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

By the very definition, science can never define what is God.

inow asks for someone to define God, he does not ask science to define God.

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Suppose one says that current science do not have the means to explain religion beyond reasonable doubt what are your thoughts?

do you mean science cannot explain religion, or science cannot explain the claims of religion, or science cannot explain what religion claims to explain, or what exactly?

When broken down all 3 makes sense, but my focus is science cannot truly prove that god exists or that he doesn't exist

Originally Posted by inow

Sure it can. We're still waiting for people to define god in a consistent, but falsifiable manner.

First of all, prasit is correct. The point is that god has not been defined in a consistent nor falsifiable manner. Once that occurs, then of course science can study it and potentially demonstrate it to be false and/or nonexistent. I don't really give a rats ass about who defines it, but instead the fact that nobody has despite millenia of belief (or, those who have tried have relied on incredibly vague woo words and often use little more than terms which could be interpreted differently by different people... god as a "catch all" concept).

Second, I'm not really sure what your point is, deathrhapsody. Can you please elaborate on it, and clarify your challenge so I may seek to address it?

Originally Posted by inow

First of all, prasit is correct. The point is that god has not been defined in a consistent nor falsifiable manner. Once that occurs, then of course science can study it and potentially demonstrate it to be false and/or nonexistent. I don't really give a rats ass about who defines it, but instead the fact that nobody has despite millenia of belief (or, those who have tried have relied on incredibly vague woo words and often use little more than terms which could be interpreted differently by different people... god as a "catch all" concept).

Second, I'm not really sure what your point is, deathrhapsody. Can you please elaborate on it, and clarify your challenge so I may seek to address it?

As science advances to higher and higher levels who knows 1 day this riddle "explain god" thousands of years old will have new light.

One persistence fundamental mistake regarding science, is that the notion which it can somehow-someday falsify the existence of God, this is clearly not only impossible - but also completely outside of scientific boundary.

God, by Its very nature (using Abrahamic tradition here) is an unfalsifiable proposition, a metaphysical concept, a supernatural theorized entity, and thus - therefore cannot be scrutinize by science in anyway whatsoever.

Suppose we assert that God can be falsified naturally, we are then straight away faced with the refutation; if God is natural - than God will not be God any longer, therefore what we attempt to falsify isn't God, but merely a natural phenomena born out of the universe itself.

Truth to be told, God can never exist outside of the abstract world inside our mind.

Okay. Let me validate my understanding. If I'm reading you correctly, your basic argument is this:

God is supernatural, and supernatural means beyond/outside nature. Anything outside of nature cannot be subjected to scientific tests and scrutiny. You then suggest that if god were testable within nature it would no longer be any valid version or form of what people call god, as this would mean it is no longer supernatural.

Correct?

Originally Posted by inow

Okay. Let me validate my understanding. If I'm reading you correctly, your basic argument is this:

God is supernatural, and supernatural means beyond/outside nature. Anything outside of nature cannot be subjected to scientific tests and scrutiny. You then suggest that if god were testable within nature it would no longer be any valid version or form of what people call god, as this would mean it is no longer supernatural.

Correct?

Correct, but the term "supernatural" itself is very dubious and I personally label it as meaningless (I use it only as reference to the Theists). I would like for my argument to be presented as in;

God is a metaphysical concept, and thus non-scientific by Its very definition.

Fair enough. I tend to agree with you, but then that leaves open the question of, why bother with god? It's like trying to study the wing flap motion of unicorns when looking into wind energy to replace petrochemicals.

Originally Posted by inow

Fair enough. I tend to agree with you, but then that leaves open the question of, why bother with god? It's like trying to study the wing flap motion of unicorns when looking into wind energy to replace petrochemicals.

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition - "the unknown", the concept of God itself is quite pointless in our daily life. This is why the late Vienna Circle were virulently oppose to anything metaphysical.

deathrhapsody wrote:

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition

It is not a fact. It is just a speculation.

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition

It is not a fact. It is just a speculation.

Ah no, the existence of the metaphysics is a fact by the very definition.
In fact, since it is a priori-ly inferred, the truthfulness of the statement is absolute.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition

It is not a fact. It is just a speculation.

Ah no, the existence of the metaphysics is a fact by the very definition.
In fact, since it is a priori-ly inferred, the truthfulness of the statement is absolute.

Wasn't metaphysics the very beginning of all formal studies of reason and from there came the categorized sciences.........

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition

It is not a fact. It is just a speculation.

Ah no, the existence of the metaphysics is a fact by the very definition.
In fact, since it is a priori-ly inferred, the truthfulness of the statement is absolute.

Wasn't metaphysics the very beginning of all formal studies of reason and from there came the categorized sciences.........

I don't think so, but since the definition of metaphysics is rather broad and unclear, in this instance, I request a clarification, that is; within what context did your notion of metaphysics refer too?

Let me leap back a few posts for some observations.

A useful definition of the supernatural would be anything that does not follow natural laws. This would not need to be a God, or god, although these would qualify.

Now science follows a methodological naturalism. That is to say science has decided to work on the basis that either there is no supernatural, or - if there is - that it cannot be studied by scientific process. Thus science does not deny the existence, or the possible existence of the supernatural, but declares it is unable to study it with its tools and is disinterested in it.

Once that occurs, then of course science can study it and potentially demonstrate it to be false and/or nonexistent.

inow seems to presume here that with God clearly defined it would be shown to be non-existent. That's literally prejudice and is unbecoming of you inow.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

A useful definition of the supernatural would be anything that does not follow natural laws. This would not need to be a God, or god, although these would qualify.

What does it mean by not following natural laws?
What are natural laws actually?

Natural laws are consistently reproducible behaviour and patterns of cause and effect.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Natural laws are consistently reproducible behaviour and patterns of cause and effect.

In another words, natural laws is a product of human observations of the universe. In the event that our observation fail to determine the cause and effect pattern, a phenomena will then be regarded as supernatural.

If this is so, can't we argue that the supernatural is actually unexplained natural phenomena?

I think you have followed a false logic. In the event that our observation fails to establish a cause and effect pattern, the phenomenon will be characterised by science as an unknown natural phenomena. It would require clear, definitive broaching of hitherto established natural law, with no plausible alternative mechanism, for a phenomenon to be provisionally considered as supernatural.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Once that occurs, then of course science can study it and potentially demonstrate it to be false and/or nonexistent.

inow seems to presume here that with God clearly defined it would be shown to be non-existent. That's literally prejudice and is unbecoming of you inow.

I disagree with the assessment you've made of my comment. I presumed little more than the idea that with a clear, consistent, and falsifiable definition of god provided science could potentially demonstrate the god concept to be false or nonexistent.

Yes. I clearly have a bias on this topic in that I strongly suspect most (if not all) god concepts are false and based on little more than human wish thinking and imagination. I concede that.

However, I clearly stated above that defining the god concept precisely at least broadens the "potential" or possibility of proving it false, not that it necessarily would do so. If you review what I said in this regard, I think the claim of prejudice is unwarranted and without basis, and... dare I say... unbecoming.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I think you have followed a false logic. In the event that our observation fails to establish a cause and effect pattern, the phenomenon will be characterised by science as an unknown natural phenomena. It would require clear, definitive broaching of hitherto established natural law, with no plausible alternative mechanism, for a phenomenon to be provisionally considered as supernatural.

Please do give me an example of supernatural phenomena.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I think you have followed a false logic. In the event that our observation fails to establish a cause and effect pattern, the phenomenon will be characterised by science as an unknown natural phenomena. It would require clear, definitive broaching of hitherto established natural law, with no plausible alternative mechanism, for a phenomenon to be provisionally considered as supernatural.

Please do give me an example of supernatural phenomena.

I don't know of any.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I don't know of any.

Correct, there aren't any, because the definition that you gave for it is in fact - meaningless (I had pointed out the meaninglessness of the word in my reply to inow). The logic is as follow;

Everything perceived by our senses are products of nature (natural world), regardless of whether they obey the established "natural laws" or not. Indeed, the "natural laws" themselves are nothing more but our rationalization of nature, and thus therefore bear no absolute "truth" value i.e. just like anything else perceived by our senses, they bear the possibility of error.

In short, the supernatural are nothing more but unexplained natural phenomena. And to emphasize this point, I challenge you to provide just one example of supernatural phenomena that does not fall under my definition - even hypothetically.

Supernatural:
1. : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)


Metaphysics:
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
(2) : ontology
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

The existence of metaphysics does not validate the existence of supernatural or anything outside observable realms, in the same way that the existence of astrology does not validate the existence of remote stars' influence to an individual's destiny.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I don't know of any.

Correct, there aren't any, because the definition that you gave for it is in fact - meaningless (I had pointed out the meaninglessness of the word in my reply to inow). The logic is as follow;

Everything perceived by our senses are products of nature (natural world), regardless of whether they obey the established "natural laws" or not. Indeed, the "natural laws" themselves are nothing more but our rationalization of nature, and thus therefore bear no absolute "truth" value i.e. just like anything else perceived by our senses, they bear the possibility of error.

In short, the supernatural are nothing more but unexplained natural phenomena. And to emphasize this point, I challenge you to provide just one example of supernatural phenomena that does not fall under my definition - even hypothetically.

I like your definition, makes much sense to me.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by MiguelSR1

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

Indeed, apart from being a form of "mind exercise", that is to remind us of the fact that there exist outside of our limited cognition

It is not a fact. It is just a speculation.

Ah no, the existence of the metaphysics is a fact by the very definition.
In fact, since it is a priori-ly inferred, the truthfulness of the statement is absolute.

Wasn't metaphysics the very beginning of all formal studies of reason and from there came the categorized sciences.........

I don't think so, but since the definition of metaphysics is rather broad and unclear, in this instance, I request a clarification, that is; within what context did your notion of metaphysics refer too?

Metaphysics is categorized as main cosmology (study of surroundings, universe ) ontology (one's self) and began if Im not mistaken in Greece from the famous "Ws" who what where when how ancient men asked and metaphysics was born.

Originally Posted by prasit

Supernatural:
1. : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)


Metaphysics:
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
(2) : ontology
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience

The existence of metaphysics does not validate the existence of supernatural or anything outside observable realms, in the same way that the existence of astrology does not validate the existence of remote stars' influence to an individual's destiny.

Clearly this shows the purpose of metaphysics in quantifiable explanations. On the other side of "supernatural" which is nearly unquantifiable according to many or simply not worth mentioning metaphysics maybe structured enough to be used in search of answers for the uncertain.

Still don't see how it can confirm the existence of non-observable entity.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I don't know of any.

Correct, there aren't any, because the definition that you gave for it is in fact - meaningless (I had pointed out the meaninglessness of the word in my reply to inow).

What a complete load of utter clap trap. trying to redefine the meaning to supernatural is just a special pleading fallacy.
Ophiolite can have no examples of supernatural phenomena, whatever examples he gave would be natural ones thus making them null and void. this was a poor attempt of a strawman fallacy.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

The logic is as follow;

Everything perceived by our senses are products of nature (natural world), regardless of whether they obey the established "natural laws" or not. Indeed, the "natural laws" themselves are nothing more but our rationalization of nature, and thus therefore bear no absolute "truth" value i.e. just like anything else perceived by our senses, they bear the possibility of error.

In short, the supernatural are nothing more but unexplained natural phenomena.

I think your confusing "Supernatural" with "Preternatural".
Preternatural has all the qualities you wish for, but to try and redefine Supernatural to suit you premise is ludicrous. especially when we already have that definition within Preternatural.

Can you give me your definition of Supernatural or do you agree with the popular dictionary definition by prasit?

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Can you give me your definition of Supernatural or do you agree with the popular dictionary definition by prasit?

Lol, the dictionary definition of Supernatural isn't the point, the fact your trying to change it's definition to equal Preternatural definition is. (which I might add is a perfectly adequate definition).
Don't you think you should accept that, and stop being childish by trying to get your way. Supernatural means something different.
Look them up you will see the subtle differences, it ain't hard, it isn't rocket science.

To be honest, this is the first time for me to encounter the word "Preternatural". But I don't dwell within the triviality of popular dictionary definition. I'm more towards the essential meaning of the word itself.

After checking the popular dictionary.com:

Preternatural
–adjective
1.
out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal: preternatural powers.
2.
outside of nature; supernatural.

Supernatural
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.
3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.


I fail to see the essential differences between the two. In fact, the dictionary itself pointed out at the interchangeability for both words. Or perhaps you like to choose other popular dictionary that suits your trivial definitions?

Originally Posted by prasit

Still don't see how it can confirm the existence of non-observable entity.

Exactly. And that's not the definition of supernatural, or at least isn't in application as people read religious scriptures when reading about J-man walking on water or wondering about the knocking in their attic they'd like to attribute to their dead uncle.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

To be honest, this is the first time for me to encounter the word "Preternatural". But I don't dwell within the triviality of popular dictionary definition. I'm more towards the essential meaning of the word itself.

After checking the popular dictionary.com:

Preternatural
–adjective
1.
out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal: preternatural powers.
2.
outside of nature; supernatural.

Supernatural
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.
3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.


I fail to see the essential differences between the two. In fact, the dictionary itself pointed out at the interchangeability for both words. Or perhaps you like to choose other popular dictionary that suits your trivial definitions?

I see huge differences, It surprise me that you cant, perhaps it's the blinkers.
Then all I can suggest is you put your definition against each and see which it is closest too. Then perhaps you'll see exactly what your doing wrong.

Perhaps making snide remark instead of pointing out exactly where the differences lies is more important to you. Well, I'm not really into such pettiness, if anyone can point out the essential differences between both of them, I would gladly concede, but I fail to see any.

Preternatural;
out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal: preternatural powers.

Supernatural;
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.


Both implied the very same thing and used the very same word to describe it; "abnormal" [behaviour that does not fit with the natural law, which is what "out of the ordinary course of nature" really imply].

Originally Posted by prasit

Still don't see how it can confirm the existence of non-observable entity.

It cannot confirm the existence of non tangible entities but i'ts logic and structure of reason maybe used (to certain degrees) to try and draw a map to the unseen.

Preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations that are yet to be known.

Whereas Supernatural literally means the Divine, which is alleged known. ie: Paranormal, Metaphysical.

Science cannot consider Supernatural explanations, as they cannot be investigated empirically.

Whereas science presumes that Preternatural phenomena will eventual be proven. Such as Dark matter.

A god can never be classed as Preternatural, as there is nothing to infer it actual exists. Thus it remains in the Supernatural.

There lies the difference.

I don't see where you get your empirical inference claim in preternatural definition, where is it?
Let me quote back the Preternatural definition;


Preternatural
–adjective
1.
out of the ordinary course of nature; exceptional or abnormal: preternatural powers.
2.
outside of nature; supernatural.


Please explain to me how dark matter is "out of the ordinary course of nature"? Dark matter is inferred in order to make sense of our current cosmological model. It is not something that is - following preternatural definition above - "out of the ordinary course of nature (implying here; against the natural law), "exceptional or abnormal", outside of nature, or supernatural.

In another words, dark matter is a hypothesis.


But let us use a more standardize dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster):

Definition of PRETERNATURAL
1
: existing outside of nature
2
: exceeding what is natural or regular : extraordinary <wits trained to preternatural acuteness by the debates — G. L. Dickinson>
3
: inexplicable by ordinary means; especially : psychic <preternatural phenomena>


Only via exegesis will your definition matches with the the 3rd MW definition. But this also does not mean that there are a clear visible line separating preternatural and supernatural as the 1st MW definition clearly stated. In short while MW 3rd definition satisfy your claim, both MW and Dic.com agree that the two terms are interchangeable. Furthermore, what is the source of your definition? I assume Wikipedia here (due to linguistic similarity). If so, let us look at the source that Wikipedia cited, it says:

Preternatural: is the action which goes beyond the structure of the nature of the material universe. The fruit of the action of an angelical or demoniacal nature is said to be preternatural. The word comes from "praeter naturam", beyond nature.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Whereas science presumes that Preternatural phenomena will eventual be proven. Such as Dark matter.

I don't think there's any way to know the difference. If it's a "phenomena" than it has been observed and leaves evidence to be studied.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by pavlos

Whereas science presumes that Preternatural phenomena will eventual be proven. Such as Dark matter.

I don't think there's any way to know the difference. If it's a "phenomena" than it has been observed and leaves evidence to be studied.

Exactly, however with the Supernatural there is nothing to observe. That's the point.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

I don't see where you get your empirical inference claim in preternatural definition, where is it?

As already posted. Preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations as yet unknown.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Please explain to me how dark matter is "out of the ordinary course of nature"? Dark matter is inferred in order to make sense of our current cosmological model. It is not something that is - following preternatural definition above - "out of the ordinary course of nature (implying here; against the natural law), "exceptional or abnormal", outside of nature, or supernatural.

In another words, dark matter is a hypothesis.

Exactly, dark matter is inferred, (yet to be known) from the evidence we know there must be something there, but it is only presumed. thus is it Preternatural (existing outside of nature) until such time as we have prove positive.
Whereas Supernatural can have no such inference to the possibility of it ever being known, it will always be assumed.

I would like to see your source for your definition of "preternatural".

Furthermore, what does "existing outside of nature" suppose to mean? The phrase just doesn't make any sense unless we are talking about a metaphysical concept. Moreover, dark matter is inferred as a natural explanation of our current cosmological model. Placing it as outside of nature simply destroy the very reason why it is empirically inferred.

In short, dark matter must be inferred within nature itself in order for it to be scientifically legitimate.

The universe appears to function according to a set of rules, some of which we understand. Activities that ignore these rules or entities that change them are supernatural.

MiguelSR1 wrote:

It cannot confirm the existence of non tangible entities but i'ts logic and structure of reason maybe used (to certain degrees) to try and draw a map to the unseen.

I think 'unobservable' is more appropriate than 'unseen'.
And it shows that the existence of the non-observable is not a fact, as believed by Deathrhapsody.
And if Metaphysics is what you say, then it starts with the assumption that there exists unobservable entity, then try to draw a map to it.

The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

I would like to see your source for your definition of "preternatural".

Preternatural; Beyond or different from what is natural, or according to the regular course of things, but not clearly supernatural or miraculous; strange; inexplicable; extraordinary; uncommon; irregular; abnormal; as, a preternatural appearance; a preternatural stillness; a preternatural presentation (in childbirth) or labor. (Project Gutenberg edition of the 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.)

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

dark matter is inferred as a natural explanation of our current cosmological model.

Wrong, Dark matter is inferred as a explanation of Something not yet known that effects the natural.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Placing it as outside of nature simply destroy the very reason why it is empirically inferred. In short, dark matter must be inferred within nature itself in order for it to be scientifically legitimate.

Agreed hence why dark matter is considered Preternatural (not yet known), as it is not considered natural yet.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by pavlos

Whereas science presumes that Preternatural phenomena will eventual be proven. Such as Dark matter.

I don't think there's any way to know the difference. If it's a "phenomena" than it has been observed and leaves evidence to be studied.

Exactly, however with the Supernatural there is nothing to observe. That's the point.

And that's an utterly useless definition and doesn't agree with how nearly anyone defines the term.

As long as both exist, there will always be the juxtaposition of 'truth' from one or the other, and seeing as science cannot explain everything, it can however put work to explain a damn sight more than religion can, and in time science will grow in knowing and explain away all features of religion, if it can't already do it now.

Personally I'd say science can explain religion, and has been by many angles.

Science cannot prove god exists or does not exist, mainly because the claim that god is cannot be explained with our apparent primitive technology. However one day science will be so aware of all dimensions and all phenomena of the universe it might be possible for us to do the godlike tasks religion claims god can already. At that point it will be easy to dismiss religion.

Right now you can easily dismiss it by stating that it is a fragment of imagination, perhaps a delusion of grandeur, a belief system set in motion to progress mass agendas of perhaps more than one culture, or as a means to promote ones own belief and persistence of their own mindset so they can live their life in ignorance, or as they would call it 'awake' or 'aware'.

So to summarise they are not to young for one another, science can easily explain religion. Then again religion likes to think it can easily explain science. Again revealing the same juxtaposition.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by pavlos

Whereas science presumes that Preternatural phenomena will eventual be proven. Such as Dark matter.

I don't think there's any way to know the difference. If it's a "phenomena" than it has been observed and leaves evidence to be studied.

Exactly, however with the Supernatural there is nothing to observe. That's the point.

And that's an utterly useless definition and doesn't agree with how nearly anyone defines the term.

If by that you mean the word "Phenomena" then you do need to look at the definition again.
Here it is from dictionary.com, my emphasis.
1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.
2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.
3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder
Dark matter hasn't exactly been observed but everything points to it's existence.
The use of the term phenomena came for the source encyclopaedia even wikipedia uses that term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preternatural So if you not happy with phenomena, I suggest you take it up with encyclopaedia compilers.

Dude you're just tossing around dictionary definitions without adding anything constructive.

You bold "extraordinary," but that is no way is the same as unobservable. In fact nearly everything we consider extraordinary is considered so specifically because we observed it and it somehow was surprising. special or had some exceptional effect. Many natural phenomena are considered extraordinary a Cat-5 hurricane, a tornado, a long drought, the flood of the Mississippi happening now....all these were once considered supernatural events and still are by some fundamentalist religious nut jobs.

Originally Posted by Quantime

As long as both exist, there will always be the juxtaposition of 'truth' from one or the other, and seeing as science cannot explain everything, it can however put work to explain a damn sight more than religion can, and in time science will grow in knowing and explain away all features of religion, if it can't already do it now.

Personally I'd say science can explain religion, and has been by many angles.

Science cannot prove god exists or does not exist, mainly because the claim that god is cannot be explained with our apparent primitive technology. However one day science will be so aware of all dimensions and all phenomena of the universe it might be possible for us to do the godlike tasks religion claims god can already. At that point it will be easy to dismiss religion.

Right now you can easily dismiss it by stating that it is a fragment of imagination, perhaps a delusion of grandeur, a belief system set in motion to progress mass agendas of perhaps more than one culture, or as a means to promote ones own belief and persistence of their own mindset so they can live their life in ignorance, or as they would call it 'awake' or 'aware'.

So to summarise they are not to young for one another, science can easily explain religion. Then again religion likes to think it can easily explain science. Again revealing the same juxtaposition.

Have you been reading my mind? this is my point

Have you been reading my mind? this is my point

Ah, I think I understand then. It's a valid point and one to which some would benefit to listening to it.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

I would like to see your source for your definition of "preternatural".

Preternatural; Beyond or different from what is natural, or according to the regular course of things, but not clearly supernatural or miraculous; strange; inexplicable; extraordinary; uncommon; irregular; abnormal; as, a preternatural appearance; a preternatural stillness; a preternatural presentation (in childbirth) or labor. (Project Gutenberg edition of the 1913 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.)

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

dark matter is inferred as a natural explanation of our current cosmological model.

Wrong, Dark matter is inferred as a explanation of Something not yet known that effects the natural.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Placing it as outside of nature simply destroy the very reason why it is empirically inferred. In short, dark matter must be inferred within nature itself in order for it to be scientifically legitimate.

Agreed hence why dark matter is considered Preternatural (not yet known), as it is not considered natural yet.

1913 Definition? Nevertheless, I concede here. Preternatural, following your specific dictionary definition, does not equal Supernatural.

However, my original claim "In short, the supernatural are nothing more but unexplained natural phenomena." still stands. And to prove my point, I will use your dictionary as the basis of my argument. According to your dictionary:

Su`per*nat"u*ral (?), a. [Pref. super- + natural: cf. OF. supernaturel, F. surnaturel.] Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous. Syn. -- Preternatural. -- Supernatural, Preternatural. Preternatural signifies beside nature, and supernatural, above or beyond nature. What is very greatly aside from the ordinary course of things is preternatural; what is above or beyond the established laws of the universe is supernatural. The dark day which terrified all Europe nearly a century ago was preternatural; the resurrection of the dead is supernatural. That form which the earth is under at present is preternatural, like a statue made and broken again." T. Burnet. Cures wrought by medicines are natural operations; but the miraculous ones wrought by Christ and his apostles were supernatural." Boyle.

That is supernatural, whether it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect in nature, from without the chain. Bushnell.

We must not view creation as supernatural, but we do look upon it as miraculous. McCosh.

The supernatural, whatever is above and beyond the scope, or the established course, of the laws of nature. Nature and the supernatural." H. Bushnell.

If someone rise a dead person to life, that would classified as Supernatural.
If someone able to cure sickness in the style of Jesus et all, that would classified as Supernatural.

Very well then, I challenge you to show me that if both events do happens, they can't be labelled as Preternatural.

Originally Posted by deathsrhapsody

If someone rise a dead person to life, that would classified as Supernatural.
If someone able to cure sickness in the style of Jesus et all, that would classified as Supernatural.

Very well then, I challenge you to show me that if both events do happens, they can't be labelled as Preternatural.

Well the first is a non-sequitur, as there is no evidence for it ever happening, or any evidence to inter-mate it has ever happened, so it can't be deemed preternatural. Thus it must only be deemed supernatural.

The second, if by that you mean miraculously cures, then under the same reasoning it is a non-sequitur, and there is no evidence for it ever happening, or any evidence to inter-mate it has ever happened, so it can't be deemed preternatural. Thus it must only be deemed supernatural.

The difference you seem to be missing is that preternatural is so named because, for example it is simply a thing that is unknown, There is some evidence to infer it exists, albeit direct or indirect.

If your two things above had one iota of evidence that they had happened albeit directly or indirectly, then you would be right they would be preternatural, but as it stands they must remain supernatural.

The irony is using the 1913 definition is back than, by definitions of the time, people did rise from the dead--after drowning, after their heart stopped beating, after near comotose conditions such as severe hypothermia etc. Whether they are considered supernatural or not depends entirely on the context, knowledge, and religious beliefs of the observer.

Leaving aside the non-sequitur examples given by your own dictionary, you have just presented a rather bogus claim. According to your logic, in order for those two examples to be validly labelled as supernatural - they must not exist in reality, because if they exist - they are then suddenly become preternatural. So, when someone say God is supernatural - what he really saying is God doesn't exist!

This in effect, completely changed the meaning of the word supernatural into abstract concepts that does not and cannot exist in reality. But there's more, how can one claim that raising the dead is supernatural (even as a proposition)? What is the basis for you in making such claim?

superman is supernatural. there's no evidence at all that points towards a man being able to completely defy gravity by flying like superman, or shoot lasers from his eyes.
there's stories of such a person.
similarly, nobody has ever observed a person walking on water.
but it too is written in a storybook, 200 or so years after the person died.

all natural evidence points to the contrary.

deathrhapsody wrote:

The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable.

After claiming that metaphysics proves the existence of the non-observable, now you try again.
You statement is completely nonsense. For example, that I cannot perceive pixtron does not mean pixtron must exist.

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable.

After claiming that metaphysics proves the existence of the non-observable, now you try again.
You statement is completely nonsense. For example, that I cannot perceive pixtron does not mean pixtron must exist.

Human thresholds in cognitive limits does not implicate such sound true existence of some unseen entity. It is on a neutral level of balance, to say you never know till it's proven would a more valid statement.

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable.

After claiming that metaphysics proves the existence of the non-observable, now you try again.
You statement is completely nonsense. For example, that I cannot perceive pixtron does not mean pixtron must exist.

I think the problem lies in your inability to comprehend what I meant, and your example proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

What I said has nothing to do with pixtron, megatron, optimus prime or any other abstract fantasy you have in mind. What I said is an a priori inference derived from an indisputable axiom.

Let me help you a little here;
I said: The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable*.
Note: here "the non-observable" refer to "the metaphysics".

The fact that human has limited cognition shows that there are part of the universe that will forever be untouched by our understanding. What are these untouched/non-observable/metaphysical part? No one will ever know. But do they exist? Yes, they do - by the very definition! Your pixtron wet dream is but your imagination of what that realm suppose to contain. It is of course in no way mean that your imagination is true, but the fact that "that realm exist" is an absolute truth.

This is why I also stated before that the Vienna Circle were vehemently oppose to the metaphysical concept, not because the realm doesn't exist, but because any attempt to understand it will ends up in futility.

Do you comprehend me now?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The irony is using the 1913 definition is back than, by definitions of the time, people did rise from the dead--after drowning, after their heart stopped beating, after near comatose conditions such as severe hypothermia etc. Whether they are considered supernatural or not depends entirely on the context, knowledge, and religious beliefs of the observer.

Irrelevant, people believed the world was flat and people believed the sun went round the earth, So what there is much more to the meaning than simply that.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Leaving aside the non-sequitur examples given by your own dictionary, you have just presented a rather bogus claim. According to your logic, in order for those two examples to be validly labelled as supernatural - they must not exist in reality, because if they exist - they are then suddenly become preternatural. So, when someone say God is supernatural - what he really saying is God doesn't exist!

This in effect, completely changed the meaning of the word supernatural

Sorry no it doesn't, supernatural is something that is neither visible nor measurable. Unless god has changed his rules.

There are three basic terms: paranormal, supernatural, and preternatural.
Paranormal involves the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by existing scientific knowledge ie things exceeding or beyond the normal.
A better meaning would be beside normal (the etymological definition) which is more fitting and allows for a broader scope.

Supernatural doesn't appear to be separate from preternatural.
However the qualifier is, it is a direct reference to the divine.
It is mostly used to explain the intervention of a god. However now it is also used as a synonym for paranormal.

Preternatural is "that which is beyond the natural but is not strictly supernatural" - J Hardon (The modern Catholic dictionary. Doubleday. (1980)) http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/pdict.htm Sorry it wont allow a direct link to the word you can try if you don't believe me. http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
A preternatural event does not appear theoretically to be beyond human ability, knowledge given the evidence.
Preternatural, unfortunately, is positioned between the two extremes - the known laws of the natural world, and the alleged power of God. Anything in-between is preternatural.

The three are not dissimilar to each other, this is the way the terms have change over the years it kind of makes two of the three moot, unless of course you use there oldest and clearest definition and disregard the similarity's.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

into abstract concepts that does not and cannot exist in reality. But there's more, how can one claim that raising the dead is supernatural (even as a proposition)? What is the basis for you in making such claim?

I didn't you did, here.

Originally Posted by deathsrhapsody

If someone rise a dead person to life, that would classified as Supernatural.

And also supernatural has other meaning nowadays,
However has there never been anybody raised from the dead, especially three days after the event. there is no documented or physical evidence that it has ever happened, there have been people who have nearly died and been revived I think the longest anyone had there heart stopped was two and half hours, but that does depend on what your definition of dead is, a heart stopping doesn't mean everything else stopped, though lack of oxygen to the brain would really mess it up, the body could still be deemed alive. So no you cant raise the dead.

Edit: missing "n"

Sorry no it doesn't, supernatural is something that is neither visible nor measurable. Unless god has changed his rules.

Have you ever ponder to yourself what this sentence of yours suppose to mean? If Supernatural is neither visible nor measurable, than it fits perfectly with my definition;

abstract concepts that does not and cannot exist in reality


However has there never been anybody raised from the dead, especially three days after the event. there is no documented or physical evidence that it has ever happened, there have been people who have nearly died and been revived I think the longest anyone had there heart stopped was two and half hours, but that does depend on what your definition of dead is, a heart stopping doesn't mean everything else stopped, though lack of oxygen to the brain would really mess it up, the body could still be deemed alive. So no you cant raise the dead.

But that's not the point! The point is either two:
1. If the event took place, it cannot be labelled as Supernatural.
2. If the event never took place, it can be labelled as Supernatural.

This once again imply that Supernatural is nothing more but an abstract concept, and what's worst; it's an abstract concept that cannot exist in reality! For if it exist, it cannot be labelled as Supernatural any longer!

But the absurdity of your interpretation does not ends there. No one can't raise the dead does not mean;
a. It can't be done.
b. It can't be done in a natural manner.

Since Supernatural itself is an abstract concept, one can always made an abstract concept that is naturally feasible, and this concept will not fall under the definition of Supernatural. So what is Supernatural suppose to mean now?

Using your logic, Supernatural can be defined as pointless unnatural abstract concept. Pointless because it cannot leave the realm of the abstract, otherwise it cease to exist.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Have you ever ponder to yourself what this sentence of yours suppose to mean? If Supernatural is neither visible nor measurable, than it fits perfectly with my definition;

Then you must have changed the goalposts, Because this is what you said

Originally Posted by deathsrhapsody

In short, the supernatural are nothing more but unexplained natural phenomena. And to emphasize this point, I challenge you to provide just one example of supernatural phenomena that does not fall under my definition - even hypothetically.

Hence why I said in the first place,

Originally Posted by me

I think your confusing "Supernatural" with "Preternatural".

Else this bouncing back and forth has been a complete waste of time. (well it has anyway, as you don't seem to get it, you are far too blinkered)

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

But that's not the point! The point is either two:
1. If the event took place, it cannot be labelled as Supernatural.
2. If the event never took place, it can be labelled as Supernatural.

But it is the point as number one is a non-sequitur as I said before if they

Originally Posted by me

had one iota of evidence that they had happened albeit directly or indirectly, then you would be right they would be preternatural, but as it stands they must remain supernatural.

Was that to hard to understand.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

This once again imply that Supernatural is nothing more but an abstract concept, and what's worst; it's an abstract concept that cannot exist in reality! For if it exist, it cannot be labelled as Supernatural any longer!

Yes exactly. If it effects the natural it cannot be deemed supernatural, now can it.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

But the absurdity of your interpretation does not ends there. No one can't raise the dead does not mean;
a. It can't be done.
b. It can't be done in a natural manner.

Maybe so, but that's just special pleading.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Since Supernatural itself is an abstract concept, one can always made an abstract concept that is naturally feasible, and this concept will not fall under the definition of Supernatural. So what is Supernatural suppose to mean now? Using your logic, Supernatural can be defined as pointless unnatural abstract concept. Pointless because it cannot leave the realm of the abstract, otherwise it cease to exist.

Well duh! it doesn't exist now, it is only a word to explain a god/gods inability to effect the natural, but be imagined as all powerful.

To be succinct;

Your definition of Supernatural, while it sounded all fine and dandy, not only makes no sense but also devoid of any real meaning - at all. In short, it's an empty word.

At least my definition is in line with the modern definition which makes it interchangeable with preternatural, and most importantly - makes more sense.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable.

After claiming that metaphysics proves the existence of the non-observable, now you try again.
You statement is completely nonsense. For example, that I cannot perceive pixtron does not mean pixtron must exist.

I think the problem lies in your inability to comprehend what I meant, and your example proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

What I said has nothing to do with pixtron, megatron, optimus prime or any other abstract fantasy you have in mind. What I said is an a priori inference derived from an indisputable axiom.

Let me help you a little here;
I said: The limitation of human cognition proves the existence of the non-observable*.
Note: here "the non-observable" refer to "the metaphysics".

The fact that human has limited cognition shows that there are part of the universe that will forever be untouched by our understanding. What are these untouched/non-observable/metaphysical part? No one will ever know. But do they exist? Yes, they do - by the very definition! Your pixtron wet dream is but your imagination of what that realm suppose to contain. It is of course in no way mean that your imagination is true, but the fact that "that realm exist" is an absolute truth.

This is why I also stated before that the Vienna Circle were vehemently oppose to the metaphysical concept, not because the realm doesn't exist, but because any attempt to understand it will ends up in futility.

Do you comprehend me now?

I doubt the universe will forever be untouched by our understanding. Our time is coming, we will get there.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

At least my definition is in line with the modern definition which makes it interchangeable with preternatural, and most importantly - makes more sense.

Rotflmao! If your posts in this thread are anything to go by, then yes it does fit in nicely with your two opposing definitions.(Sarcasm)

One can't make an argument, let alone opposition - with a meaningless word.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

Sorry no it doesn't, supernatural is something that is neither visible nor measurable. Unless god has changed his rules.

Rubbish. Supernatural events, if they, or were they to occur would be potentially observable, but they would break the rules by which the universe operates. That's what makes them supernatural.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

If Supernatural is neither visible nor measurable, than it fits perfectly with my definition;

abstract concepts that does not and cannot exist in reality

This is a weird definition beraing no correlation with any I have ever seen before. Is English your native language? Perhaps the problems lies in a subtle translation effect.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

So no you cant raise the dead.

But that's not the point! The point is either two:
1. If the event took place, it cannot be labelled as Supernatural.
2. If the event never took place, it can be labelled as Supernatural..

completely wrong. If the dead were to be truly raised, in defiance of all natural laws, that would be supernatural. (The clue is in the word. )

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

One can't make an argument, let alone opposition - with a meaningless word.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

And now we have two contradictory understanding of the same exact word;

Implied from pavlos comments, we can see that supernatural events cannot exist in reality, otherwise - it would be labelled as preternatural.

But Ophiolite is more direct here (mistaking pavlos comment with mine?) by stating that "Supernatural events, if they, or were they to occur would be potentially observable, but they would break the rules by which the universe operates."

One would beg to question here; what does "rules by which the universe operates" really means? If one is able to answer this, than one would finally realize that the word "Supernatural" really is devoid of any real meaning.

deathrhapsody wrote:

The fact that human has limited cognition shows that there are part of the universe that will forever be untouched by our understanding.

How do you know that human cognition is limited?

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

The fact that human has limited cognition shows that there are part of the universe that will forever be untouched by our understanding.

How do you know that human cognition is limited?

Hume's Problem of Induction.
Gettier Problem.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

And now we have two contradictory understanding of the same exact word;

Your reading comprehension must be at fault, or you just being ignorant. Yes Ophiolite took my sentence as yours but merited you did not quote it. However I also qualified it with this.

Originally Posted by me

Sorry no it doesn't, supernatural is something that is neither visible nor measurable. Unless god has changed his rules.

There are three basic terms: paranormal, supernatural, and preternatural.
Paranormal involves the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by existing scientific knowledge ie things exceeding or beyond the normal.
A better meaning would be beside normal (the etymological definition) which is more fitting and allows for a broader scope.

Supernatural doesn't appear to be separate from preternatural.
However the qualifier is, it is a direct reference to the divine.
It is mostly used to explain the intervention of a god. However now it is also used as a synonym for paranormal.

Preternatural is "that which is beyond the natural but is not strictly supernatural" - J Hardon (The modern Catholic dictionary. Doubleday. (1980)) http://www.therealpresence.org/dictionary/pdict.htm Sorry it wont allow a direct link to the word you can try if you don't believe me. http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
A preternatural event does not appear theoretically to be beyond human ability, knowledge given the evidence.
Preternatural, unfortunately, is positioned between the two extremes - the known laws of the natural world, and the alleged power of God. Anything in-between is preternatural.

The three are not dissimilar to each other, this is the way the terms have change over the years it kind of makes two of the three moot, unless of course you use there oldest and clearest definition and disregard the similarity's.

Now whether Ophiolite still believes it is rubbish once he's read the qualifier then, we cant say it's contradictory can we, furthermore If you take a good look at what Ophiolite said you find he is actually agreeing, as he says and I quote "Supernatural events, if they, or were they to occur would be potentially observable, but they would break the rules by which the universe operates. That's what makes them supernatural." My emphasis.

Originally Posted by deathsrhapsody

Implied from pavlos comments, we can see that supernatural events cannot exist in reality, otherwise - it would be labelled as preternatural.
But Ophiolite is more direct here (mistaking pavlos comment with mine?) by stating that "Supernatural events, if they, or were they to occur would be potentially observable, but they would break the rules by which the universe operates."

Which is what Ophiolite stated. You even quote it yourself. No he didn't use preternatural, quite true.

Originally Posted by deathsprhapsody

One would beg to question here; what does "rules by which the universe operates" really means?

I would presume, that which is known, Don't you think.

Originally Posted by deathsrhapsody

If one is able to answer this, than one would finally realize that the word "Supernatural" really is devoid of any real meaning.

Well yes as it really means mainly that which is divine, and without evidence the divine is clearly devoid of any real meaning. Note my qualifier above.

So, the qualifier for "Supernatural" which is a meaningless word, is another meaningless word ("Divine") - both, in order to retain their meanings, can not exist in reality. In conclusion, your definition still stand as it is:

Supernatural is abstract concept that does not and cannot exist in reality (clear-cut definition when all the sophistry has been removed).

I'm more intrigued with Ophiolite's reply right now, because he clearly does not share your meaningless definition, since he said it directly that:
a. Supernatural can occur in reality and are potentially observable.
b. If happens, they would break the rules by which the universe operates.
c. (b.) is the qualifier that makes a phenomena a supernatural phenomena.

The obvious question now are:
1. What is "the rules by which the universe operates" suppose to mean?
2. How do we recognize a phenomena as breaking the rules by which the universe operates?

Readers should by now realize that both "Supernatural", and "Divine" are nothing more but unfalsifiable abstract concepts, therefore can never exist in reality. In this instance, as the 1913's dictionary had pointed out; "the resurrection of the dead is supernatural", we can see the historical context where people always assign unexplained phenomena that goes beyond their understanding of nature (natural law being nothing more but our observations of nature's pattern) as supernatural. People used to say that many sickness were the results of Satan or divine punishment, but as our knowledge advance - we cannot label them as supernatural anymore. If one day, we see people risen from the death, we can not justifiably call the phenomena as supernatural either, for our ignorance of nature (due to our limited cognition) does not mean a phenomena is supernatural. All in all, this brings us back to the underlying truth of the definition; that is - the Supernatural is nothing more but unexplainable natural phenomena.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

I'm more intrigued with Ophiolite's reply right now, because he clearly does not share your meaningless definition, since he said it directly that:
a. Supernatural can occur in reality and are potentially observable.

You leave me no alternative to conclude you are a Troll. 1, You've posting incorrect information, 2, asking blatantly stupid questions, or 3, other foolishness.
Ophiolite did not say can occur he said "IF" (1)

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

b. If happens, they would break the rules by which the universe operates.
c. (b.) is the qualifier that makes a phenomena a supernatural phenomena.
The obvious question now are:
1. What is "the rules by which the universe operates" suppose to mean?

(2)

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

2. How do we recognize a phenomena as breaking the rules by which the universe operates?
Readers should by now realize that both "Supernatural", and "Divine" are nothing more but unfalsifiable abstract concepts, therefore can never exist in reality. In this instance, as the 1913's dictionary had pointed out; "the resurrection of the dead is supernatural", we can see the historical context where people always assign unexplained phenomena that goes beyond their understanding of nature (natural law being nothing more but our observations of nature's pattern) as supernatural. People used to say that many sickness were the results of Satan or divine punishment, but as our knowledge advance - we cannot label them as supernatural anymore. If one day, we see people risen from the death, we can not justifiably call the phenomena as supernatural either, for our ignorance of nature (due to our limited cognition) does not mean a phenomena is supernatural. All in all, this brings us back to the underlying truth of the definition; that is - the Supernatural is nothing more but unexplainable natural phenomena.

(3) I'm certainly not going to continue feeding the Troll.

As an addition to my previous post, readers might question; just because we can no longer able to label any phenomena as supernatural, does not mean that the supernatural does not and cannot exist, thus my claim in regard to the relationship between this word and reality is false.

To understand this, we need to look back at the definition of Supernatural itself. We will use the 1913 definition here;

Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature


Try to comprehend the meaning of this statement. What does "nature" means? What does "beyond" or "exceeding" means? Within context of this thread, the 1913's dictionary define "nature" as:

1. The existing system of things; the world of matter, or of matter and mind; the creation; the universe.
7. Physical constitution or existence; the vital powers; the natural life.

Simply put it; nature is the universe itself and the law which govern it. In this instance, I will refine the 1913's dictionary definition of the "universe";

U"ni*verse (?), n. [L. universum, from universus universal; unus one + vertere, versum, to turn, that is, turned into one, combined into one whole; cf. F. univers. See One, and Verse.] All created things viewed as constituting one system or whole; the whole body of things, or of phenomena; the of the Greeks, the mundus of the Latins; the world; creation.

By simply (philosophically) defining "the whole body of things, or of phenomena" - the universe as "everything that exist". Everything that exist, be it physical or metaphysical, including all the laws that govern it, are part of the universe.


Consequently, does the phrase "Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature" has any real meaning now? As an analogy here - paraphrasing Hawking, the meaningless question; "What lies north of the North Pole?".

deathrhapsody wrote:

Prasit wrote

How do you know that human cognition is limited?

Hume's Problem of Induction
Gettier Problem

Hume's - See: A Wittgensteinian Answer to the “Problem” of Induction
Gettier's - Not relevant

Originally Posted by prasit

deathrhapsody wrote:

Prasit wrote

How do you know that human cognition is limited?

Hume's Problem of Induction
Gettier Problem

Hume's - See: A Wittgensteinian Answer to the “Problem” of Induction
Gettier's - Not relevant

Wittgensteinian Answer only seek to justify Induction, but does not answer the underlying problem that "knowledge" is unattainable which is shown in Gettier Problem. This shows how our cognition is limited.

Granted that it is true (which I doubt), the limit cognition is still not the reason of existence of something beyond that limit.

There is a room with no windows and closed door. You can't see what is inside (limit cognition). Does it prove that there must be something inside the room?

The existence of the room itself proves that there is something inside that room, for space cannot be constructed out of nothingness.

Originally Posted by deathrhapsody

The existence of the room itself proves that there is something inside that room, for space cannot be constructed out of nothingness.

If "space" was constructed of something, then nothing else could fit into it.
I think I'm gonna go puke now.