What would it take to make you believe in a supernatural entity?

Amtmann

As per the thread title, what would it take to make you believe in, or acknowledge, the existence of - for want of a better term - a god, demon, or supernatural intelligence?

Turtwig

Tremelo wrote: »

As per the thread title, what would it take to make you believe in, or acknowledge, the existence of - for want of a better term - a god, or demon, or supernatural intelligence?

I believe in supernatural entities I just don't believe in a God.

Amtmann

The question is obviously directed at those who do not believe in supernatural entities.

Galvasean

An encounter with one that could be verified as not being a hoax so long as it could also be verified that I was of sound mind at the time.

Amtmann

Galvasean wrote: »

An encounter with one that could be verified as not being a hoax so long as it could also be verified that I was of sound mind at the time.

But how would you know that the encountered entity was of supernatural provenance, rather than just an extraordinarily advanced life form?

robindch

Tremelo wrote: »

[...] what would it take to make you believe in, or acknowledge, the existence of - for want of a better term - a god, demon, or supernatural intelligence?

Evidence?

Stereomaniac

I guess that's down to the person who has the experience really.

Galvasean

Tremelo wrote: »

But how would you know that the encountered entity was of supernatural provenance, rather than just an extraordinarily advanced life form?

I would take it's word for it... while grovelling for it's mercy :pac:

RichieC

Tremelo wrote: »

But how would you know that the encountered entity was of supernatural provenance, rather than just an extraordinarily advanced life form?

I don't see the difference.

If there's a god that's exactly what s/he'll be. not some sepia drenched boring arse Christian crap.

Amtmann

robindch wrote: »

Evidence?

But how would we evaluate evidence? If an encountered entity knew things about me that no one else could possibly know, for example, I would be more likely to ascribe telepathy or some mental ability to said entity, rather than seeming omniscience.

Similarly, in terms of any 'miracle' that seems to be performed by an encountered entity, I'd be likely to ascribe an unknown technological cause rather than supernaturalism.

Here's an example: if an entity restored a long-dead corpse to life, I would be more likely to believe that the entity had an unknown technological or medical ability than I would be to believe that it was a god or otherwise magical.

yawha

What do you mean by "supernatural"?

RichieC

Tremelo wrote: »

But how would we evaluate evidence? If an encountered entity knew things about me that no one else could possibly know, for example, I would be more likely to ascribe telepathy or some mental ability to said entity, rather than seeming omniscience.

No no, the first thing you think is "mental illness" - actually, probably not.. your doctor will, though.

Amtmann

RichieC wrote: »

I don't see the difference.

The difference is that a natural entity, regardless of how advanced it is, would be of this universe, and be composed of some combination of the chemical elements or measurable forms of energy.

A supernatural entity would - I suppose - not be.

RichieC

Tremelo wrote: »

The difference is that a natural entity, regardless of how advanced it is, would be of this universe, and be composed of some combination of the chemical elements or measurable forms of energy.

A supernatural entity would - I suppose - not be.

so basically your question has no answer?

Amtmann

RichieC wrote: »

No no, the first thing you think is "mental illness" - actually, probably not.. your doctor will, though.

For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that sound mindedness is a given.

Galvasean

Tremelo wrote: »

The difference is that a natural entity, regardless of how advanced it is, would be of this universe, and be composed of some combination of the chemical elements or measurable forms of energy.

A supernatural entity would - I suppose - not be.

Very well then, if those are the parameters then my initial post stands.

Amtmann

RichieC wrote: »

so basically your question has no answer?

You tell me. I asked the question, because I do not know the answer. The floor is open.

Stereomaniac

If we were to encounter a supernatural being, I think one would "just know." You know, "just know."

RichieC

Tremelo wrote: »

You tell me. I asked the question, because I do not know the answer. The floor is open.

well, there's no way of saying whether it's of supernatural origins or an advanced civilisation, they could easily use some telepathy unknown to us currently, or holograms. so I'd pretty much either think I'm going mad or there's some species from space, or maybe the debts of the sea trying to communicate.. Even if the classic Christian idea is true, it would still be an advanced race of beings. If ghosts were real, no longer supernatural.

Sonics2k

I'll believe in God, or any other supernatural being, when I actually see it with my own eyes.

This is my opinion on all such matters.

Proof! Show me the real, 100%, real as a smack in the face proof! Not fairytales and old myths.

RichieC

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'll believe in God, or any other supernatural being, when I actually see it with my own eyes.

This is my opinion on all such matters.

Proof! Show me the real, 100%, real as a smack in the face proof! Not fairytales and old myths.

This to me isnt applicable.

I get hypnagogic hallucinations all the time when I'm lying down to sleep. I could easily ascribe these to a supernatural cause. in fact, I did for years. I actually thought my "soul" could swim out of my body in this mad world where everything was cool and I could fly. I can still do that only now I've read about SP.

seeing isn't enough.

Amtmann

Galvasean wrote: »

Very well then, if those are the parameters then my initial post stands.

So in order for you to accept that the entity was supernatural, you would need it (it, mind you, and not its acts) to be subjected to chemical and physical analysis. I think that this would also be my position, regardless of whatever seemingly magical acts it performed.

Sarky

He'd probably have to fundamentally alter my psychology so that I'm inclined to believe in magic. Merely existing wouldn't make me believe in it. I see my flatmates every day, but I don't believe in them.

ShooterSF

Tremelo wrote: »

But how would we evaluate evidence? If an encountered entity knew things about me that no one else could possibly know, for example, I would be more likely to ascribe telepathy or some mental ability to said entity, rather than seeming omniscience.

Let's not write off the discovery of telepathy! I'd consider that supernatural and needing proof of existence. I'd also find such a specimen just as fascinating as one that came from outside our universe (it might as well be)

yawha

Tremelo wrote: »

So in order for you to accept that the entity was supernatural, you would need it (it, mind you, and not its acts) to be subjected to chemical and physical analysis. I think that this would also be my position, regardless of whatever seemingly magical acts it performed.

What is "magical"?

We're brought up with this idea of "magic" instilled in us. We're not told that "magic" is real, but we're indirectly taught that it is an actual thing.

In reality, it's not. "Magic" is nothing. To say something is "magical" or "supernatural" means nothing.

krudler

a giant marshmallow man would do it

FlyingIrishMan

I wouldn't have to see it for myself.
But it would need to be backed up by several people, with proper video/photographic evidence.
Preferably non-religious people too, they'd be biased towards not believing in any supernatural stuff and that is exactly what I would want.

Peregrinus

Tremelo wrote: »

So in order for you to accept that the entity was supernatural, you would need it (it, mind you, and not its acts) to be subjected to chemical and physical analysis. I think that this would also be my position, regardless of whatever seemingly magical acts it performed.

What would the analysis have to show, in order to persuade you that the entity was supernatural?

I'm a bit hazy about the usefulness of applying the investigative techniques of natural science to a supernatural entity. Would we have any reason to think that the results of doing so would be in any way meaningful or useful?

Penn

In a way, if it's supernatural, it's almost impossible to 'test' as it isn't bound by what we perceive to be 'natural' (I was also include any being just with telepathy, as that isn't natural, but I presume you're talking more about a deity-type figure).

What would it take for me to believe in it? Something, some sort of event or the entity appearing somewhere. Numerous, verifiable eye-witness accounts with little to no contradictions between them. Analysis of these accounts and of the event and surroundings to conclude that the most logical explanation is that there is a supernatural entity.

"Once you rule out the impossible, whatever remains—however improbable—must be true." It's not impossible that there are some supernatural deities, it's just very highly improbable. If there is absolutely no possible better explanation for what happened, then it was probably a supernatural deity, and then I'd believe in supernatural deities until proven otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tremelo wrote: »

what would it take to make you believe in, or acknowledge, the existence of - for want of a better term - a god, demon, or supernatural intelligence?

The same thing it would take me to believe in anything else.

1) The speaker would have to define exactly what they are talking about.
2) The speaker would have to list the things that support the existence of what was mentioned in 1.
3) The speaker would have to explain exactly how the things listed in 2 support the existence/claim in 1.

Simple as that really but with things like gods and supernatural entities no one appears to be able to do 1, let alone 2 and 3. Try asking people what "spirit" is for example. They give meaningless non answers.

Take the debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt for example. Butt was asked what "spirit" is and that is exactly where he pulled the answer from. He defined it by a list of things it was not. Which is about as useful as saying "An apple is defined as... not a car and not a house".

Naz_st

Some kinds of evidence would be more persuasive than others. For example, doing things that it would be difficult or impossible to explain by natural means. e.g.
1) Heal an amputee instantly (or better yet, all amputees all over the world)
2) Move one of the celestial bodies slightly further away for a day, then move it back (e.g. the moon, whose position we can accurately verify)
3) Instantly move matter (e.g. a person) from one side of the earth to the other, or better yet to the nearest inhabitable planet within another solar system
4) Annhiliate (blink completely out of existance) a large object (e.g. Jupiter or one of its moons). Wait until the gravity distortations are verified and then bring it back exactly where it was.

Etc

All of this would obviously have to be seen by a substantial proportion of the planets population, not just me!

legspin

The Rapture. I still wouldn't care though.

Amtmann

Penn wrote: »

(I was also include any being just with telepathy, as that isn't natural, but I presume you're talking more about a deity-type figure).

I would not. Telepathy isn't necessarily beyond the bounds of possibility for a natural entity, given that it involves - essentially - interpreting the file structure of a brain, possibly by the reading of 'brain waves'. Already IBM have built a machine that, when you put it on top of your head and simply 'think' a certain action (such as changing a TV channel), the machine does it for you.

If an entity manifested telepathic abilities, I would probably ascribe the phenomenon to some unknown, but natural, biological ability of said entity. I would be unlikely to call it supernatural. Again, supernatural simply means something that is outside nature.

magicbastarder

if we found that the universe contained a god, then you could argue that the laws of the universe allow for the existence of gods, so gods are not supernatural.

Amtmann

magicbastarder wrote: »

if we found that the universe contained a god, then you could argue that the laws of the universe allow for the existence of gods, so gods are not supernatural.

Yes, in which case 'god' would be a product of evolution, a natural phenomenon, and unworthy of worship.

However, the abrahamic faiths all claim that god created the universe. Therefore, it would follow that he exists outside and independently of it, and in that sense is supernatural.

Dades

The evidence would have to be epic.

Any single localised event can be faked using drugs, hypnosis or just plain trickery. That's why we have so many miracles from so many religions.

The planets are always a good example. Re-aligning them, or moving the moon about in the sky. The sun rising in the west... A voice heard by everybody on the planet at the same time in their language giving a message on the question of Life The Universe and Everything. You get the picture.

The evidence would also need to be followed by some sort of explanation as to WTF is going on.

yawha wrote: »

What do you mean by "supernatural"?

This however is a very relevant question, and a potential can of worms.

Supernatural to me is something, intangible, unexplained by nature, and generally someone's made up nonsense. So once you have the appearance of an entity by way of some manner as above, they automatically drop out of the supernatural realm and into reality.

Amtmann

Here's what I think it would take for me to believe in a supernatural entity:

I would need to see the being bestriding the universe, popping planets like they were skittles, puffing smoke dragons out of nebulae, turning stars into posies, and picking up black holes, coloring them blue, and flinging them around like frisbies, all without the slightest hindrance or effort. Furthermore, these phenomena would need to be observable and confirmable.

Anything less than that, and I would not believe that there was a 'god' at work; the natural universe is weird enough that anything described in human myth or legend has a potentially - if outlandish - natural explanation.

Phenomena described in my second paragraph above would be beyond the abilities of any natural entity, because they mock the laws of physics.

How about that?

kylith

Probably nothing. Even were a God to appear in the sky and create nebulae from scratch for our viewing pleasure it would be doing so within the laws of physics and on nature; therefore would be a Natural entity, not Supernatural.

To actually get me to believe in something for which there is zero evidence of proof would probably take a severe head injury.

Turtwig

Firstly apologies for my initial response. It's just I wanted to point out that atheists can believe in the supernatural. As it's a REALLY annoying assumption people make about atheists and I just felt this thread was feeding to that misconception. So with that said, here's my answer to your question.


Pretty much nothing will. Consider just about any optical illusion. Even though you know it is not real your brain will always perceive things the same way no matter how often you tell yourself otherwise. Our brain constructs our reality for us and in the process it produces a tonne of glitches which it later compensates for via other processes which themselves lead to glitches. So even if I saw a ghost, or glowing angel or whatever I wouldn't believe it until someone can definitely rule out my brain isn't just constructing it. Perhaps if 7 billion people all experienced the same thing at once would that be enough? I don't think so, but then this discussion would become philosophical and boring. Personal experience and our senses only get us so far. Science may be empirical in nature, but what makes it the force it is today is the networks by which it operates. Even then though how are we know if anything we observe is actually right or wrong? In my opinion we can't know and that's the beauty of science it just works in a way similar to the process of natural selection.

tl;dr There is probably nothing that could ever convince me of the existence of the supernatural. I don't like assumptions and knowing the way my brain constructs the reality around me I accept that any anomaly I encounter will most probably end up being a glitch of a superbly complex organ.

Turtwig

Penn wrote: »

In a way, if it's supernatural, it's almost impossible to 'test' as it isn't bound by what we perceive to be 'natural' (I was also include any being just with telepathy, as that isn't natural, but I presume you're talking more about a deity-type figure).

What would it take for me to believe in it? Something, some sort of event or the entity appearing somewhere. Numerous, verifiable eye-witness accounts with little to no contradictions between them. Analysis of these accounts and of the event and surroundings to conclude that the most logical explanation is that there is a supernatural entity.

"Once you rule out the impossible, whatever remains—however improbable—must be true." It's not impossible that there are some supernatural deities, it's just very highly improbable. If there is absolutely no possible better explanation for what happened, then it was probably a supernatural deity, and then I'd believe in supernatural deities until proven otherwise.

I disagree but Sam Vimes said it better than I possibly could.

It's not enough to just eliminate material clauses and then move onto supernatural ones because we don't know everything about the material world. The process of elimination isn't good enough in this case because we can't eliminate everything. You have to explicitly show that something is supernatural before you can confidently say that it is. Otherwise you're in "I don't know so it must be god" territory.

irishh_bob

i think thier might be something on the other side , that something might be joining the stars or going to another part of the universe , i dont know , i just dont subscribe to the bible , christian , conventional religous version of god as a personal guardian and loving father

wanlabanchang

I'd worship anything that took us out of this recession.

Oh and If Ireland somehow managed to win the Euro 2012 I,d be fairly convinced that the big fella is actually upstairs.

Amtmann

Peregrinus wrote: »

What would the analysis have to show, in order to persuade you that the entity was supernatural?

I'm a bit hazy about the usefulness of applying the investigative techniques of natural science to a supernatural entity. Would we have any reason to think that the results of doing so would be in any way meaningful or useful?

Well, if the entity had no measurable energy, substance, or chemistry, yet could do work the like of which I describe here, then I would probably be persuaded that it existed independently of nature and was therefore supernatural, or a 'god'. I'd still be more receptive to possible scientific explanations than I would be to claims that it was a god, though.

Undergod

As far as I'm concerned, "supernatural" cannot exist.
If we're talking about things that are usually considered to be supernatural, such as gods or ghosts, well some kind of evidence of them interacting with phenomena in a way that is measurably and substantially different from the normal behaviour of those events.

sbsquarepants

Sarky wrote: »

He'd probably have to fundamentally alter my psychology so that I'm inclined to believe in magic. Merely existing wouldn't make me believe in it. I see my flatmates every day, but I don't believe in them.

What do you believe they are?

yawha wrote: »

What is "magical"?

We're brought up with this idea of "magic" instilled in us. We're not told that "magic" is real, but we're indirectly taught that it is an actual thing.

In reality, it's not. "Magic" is nothing. To say something is "magical" or "supernatural" means nothing.

This is where i stand, if it's here, being looked at by me, it's in nature and not outside of it.

Naz_st wrote: »

Some kinds of evidence would be more persuasive than others. For example, doing things that it would be difficult or impossible to explain by natural means. e.g.
1) Heal an amputee instantly (or better yet, all amputees all over the world)
2) Move one of the celestial bodies slightly further away for a day, then move it back (e.g. the moon, whose position we can accurately verify)
3) Instantly move matter (e.g. a person) from one side of the earth to the other, or better yet to the nearest inhabitable planet within another solar system
4) Annhiliate (blink completely out of existance) a large object (e.g. Jupiter or one of its moons). Wait until the gravity distortations are verified and then bring it back exactly where it was.

Etc

All of this would obviously have to be seen by a substantial proportion of the planets population, not just me!

All these things are theoreticaly possible with technology, if it was advanced enough, no need for magic.

Tremelo wrote: »

Well, if the entity had no measurable energy, substance, or chemistry, yet could do work the like of which I describe here, then I would probably be persuaded that it existed independently of nature and was therefore supernatural, or a 'god'. I'd still be more receptive to possible scientific explanations than I would be to claims that it was a god, though.

Measurable by whom or by what? By you with your puny comparative stone age technolgy?
If i went back 5000 years with my trusty ipod and portable speakers it would seem like magic to them. I can make music appear from nowhere - woooo maaan!
They couldn't detect the infra red beam travelling from my remote control for example, that doesn't mean it's in any way supernatural - it just looks that way from their tech un savvy point of view.

Mark Hamill

Tremelo wrote: »

Well, if the entity had no measurable energy, substance, or chemistry, yet could do work the like of which I describe here, then I would probably be persuaded that it existed independently of nature and was therefore supernatural, or a 'god'. I'd still be more receptive to possible scientific explanations than I would be to claims that it was a god, though.

But how could you know that it didn't have some naturalistic understanding or interaction with nature that mankind has never considered or experienced? You cant. Unless you are god. And such is the conundrum of examining the evidence for the supernatural:
In order to truly determine if something was truly supernatural, you would need a) absolute surety that you were of sound mind and body (likewise that you tools were perfectly functioning) and b) full knowledge of every possible naturalistic process at all possible anywhere and everywhere in the universe at that time. The only entity who has absolute surety and absolute knowledge is god.

Amtmann

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But how could you know that it didn't have some naturalistic understanding or interaction with nature that mankind has never considered or experienced? You cant. Unless you are god. And such is the conundrum of examining the evidence for the supernatural:
In order to truly determine if something was truly supernatural, you would need a) absolute surety that you were of sound mind and body (likewise that you tools were perfectly functioning) and b) full knowledge of every possible naturalistic process at all possible anywhere and everywhere in the universe at that time. The only entity who has absolute surety and absolute knowledge is god.

I agreed with the broad thrust of your post, apart from your last sentence. I don't see how you can possibly assert that.

18AD

€1,000,000

robindch

Tremelo wrote: »

But how would we evaluate evidence?

If you're saying that the entity should be supernatural, then doing something that isn't obviously natural is a good start -- for example, if the entity were able to make my classic one-design boat fast enough to win a race against a modern edition of the same design would be fun, or if Daniel O'Donnell were to sing a song that didn't make me want to take up a frag cannon and go deal with him myself. There are less droll examples.

I'll evaluate the likelihood that the event concerned is not actually supernatural myself, or at least, try to.

But in general, once you begin to posit the existence of supernatural entities, then one is necessarily forced to admit doubt concerning the evidence of one's own senses too.

So you can never be 100% sure, even if you thought were 100% sure. Unless you believe that an assertion that one is 100% sure is a sufficiently delusional statement to make, that it implies the existence of an entity sufficiently supernatural to be able to alter one's perceptions, beliefs and thought processes to assert that it's a reasonable intellectual position in the first place.

Ellis Dee

Tremelo wrote: »

As per the thread title, what would it take to make you believe in, or acknowledge, the existence of - for want of a better term - a god, demon, or supernatural intelligence?

Verifiable proof.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I won't be holding my breath.:)


Sky Fairy calling Philogos, Sky Fairy calling Philologos: Come in Philologos. Now's your chance!

Mark Hamill

Tremelo wrote: »

I agreed with the broad thrust of your post, apart from your last sentence. I don't see how you can possibly assert that.

How can I not? Can any omniscient entity not be god?