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!