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

Sarky

Northclare wrote: »

I heard a theory years ago that a lot of us have lost the ability to to see or feel the supernatural due to being too caught up in modern society.

A lot of us don't take short cuts by walking through fields, old boreens and country roads any more and a lot of these places have a history of ghosts and other unexplainable phenomenon which were seen by a lot of locals.

For me I would have share the experience with someone else to believe it.

A few people on this went off on a rant about what seemed to remind me of the spin talk intelligent idiots go on with.

Or maybe it's because every time we actually look at something, there's nothing supernatural to be found? Gods used to live on mountains. We climbed all the mountains, no sign of them. We were told they retreated to the skies. But when we figured out how to explore them and the worlds beyond, they'd already left without a trace. We were told they'd moved to some "other" place, another dimension. But we're in the middle of exploring those too, and so far no god. The only people who claim otherwise are turning out to be victims of their own imagination.

Year after year, discovery after discovery, it becomes increasingly clear that the supernatural is nowhere to be found. If god exists, he abandoned us about the time of the big bang. If he wants to get anything out of us, he'd netters admit he owes us all a few billion years of child support and a big damn apology for a start.

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

a lot of these places have a history of ghosts and other unexplainable phenomenon which were seen by a lot of locals.

And I think you'll find that a lot of the same locals used to drink often and heavily from a lot of fairly suspicious home brews.

Not to mention:

Mary: Mick, where were yah all evenin'?
Mick: I left de pub at sivin after just one beer an' started walkin' howam.
Mary: And why did it take fower hours to git heer?
Mick: Well, like, I wiz passing by de lake and dis ghost came up out of it and put a slaypin' spill on me and tis only tin minutes ago I woke up and rin strait back, quick as I could. Sure, begorrah, wommin, tis a miracle I woke at all!
Mary: Is dat a fact?
Mick: Yearrah, tis.

Northclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the god-claim mentioned earlier relates to the phenomenon of existence, which undoubtedly an aspect of reality.

Which means that it does relate to something, which means that we can empirically observe it, by observing the thing it relates to. Which would make god empirically observable, yadda yadda yadda, I said this already. You have to make a choice, either god does relate to something in reality, or reality itself, which means we can scientifically examine it by observing reality (your claim would still be flawed), or it doesn't relate to anything in reality and therefore has no relation or effect on us whatsoever.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I accept that logic is how we determine if a hypothesis is scientifically examinable. If the hypothesis makes no claim about any empirically-observable phenomenon then, logically, it cannot be scientifically examined.

It doesn’t follow from that, though, that the hypothesis is illogical.

Its illogical because its based on a demonstrably invalid assumption (as demonstrated by inserting literally anything else instead of god into the claim and getting the same result).

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it does not have any measurable effect on anything observable.

You do understand what is meant by observe in science right? It doesn't necessarily mean "look at", in fact nearly everything in science is observed by inference. We see an effect, and infer by the effect what is actually occurring. So if something cannot be in any way inferred to exist (because there is no measurable effect on anything in existence that can be attributed to it alone) then it might as well not exist, because it has no effect on existence.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’ve said it, but you haven’t demonstrated it. You just keep reasserting that, if it’s untestable, it’s illogical. I reject that. I see no reason why it should be so.

Consider the following:
1. Every member of set A has the property X
2. Q is a member of set A.
3. Therefore Q has the property X.

That’s untestable, since A, X and Q are undefined and, if defined, could well be defined as something not empirically observable (e.g. set A could be the set of all prime numbers). But it’s perfectly logical.

Its logical until you define it, and then you need to need to reassess it. The god claim fails this reassessment because part 1. is an invalid assumption to make.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And those “observations” are empirical, are they, and that makes maths into “science”?

You dont empirical observations in an abstract, human defined system such as maths.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maths is a science in exactly the sense that theology is a science; both are subsets of the science of philosophy. But to make these statements we have to appeal to a wide definition of science, embracing any disciplined and systematic way of investigating questions of a particular class, and not to the more restricted definition which embraces only investigations which proceed from empirical observations.

Except that theology doesn't examine the logical conclusions of the statements it makes and it doesn't experiment on its hypotheses (conjectures), so its not really anything like maths or science. We only need empirical observations for empirical systems. Maths is an abstract system, so we don't use empiricism, we still use logic, deduction and experimentation though.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All I’m saying is that we have to recognize the limitations in the forms of enquiry that we use. In particular, if “everything real is empirically observable” is a fundamental assumption of science, then you cannot claim that there is or ever can be any scientific demonstration or proof that everything real is empirically observable. And if you believe that “everything real is empirically observable” is in fact a truth, and not merely an assumption made for the purpose of constructing an internally coherent framework of enquiry, then your reasons for forming and holding that belief must necessarily be non-scientific. Which in turn means that you must accept that forming and holding beliefs for non-scientific reasons may be valid.

Its not unscientific reasoning to accept a fundamental assumption of science as you can't perform scientific reasoning without accepting. It is fundamental to scientific reasoning to accept the assumption, which is itself a perfectly valid scientific assumption to make, as it supported by available observational, empirical and logical evidence we have.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other thing that recognising assumptions should to is teach us a little humility on behalf of our favoured investigation technique. "Everything real is empirically observable" is not a scientific claim; it is unfalsifiable. Yet, far from protesting that the claim is illogical, meaningless, irrelevant, useless, self-refuting, etc, we employ the claim as a fundamental building block for our entire system of scientific enquiry and verification. We cannot do this, and then say that in general unfalsifiable claims are illogical, useless, and so forth.

Why not? We know that unfalsifiable claims are bad, but every system of knowledge requires one, so we make the one assumption that actually makes sense and then don't make any more because we know they are bad. It makes sense to say "Everything real is empirically observable" because if something wasn't empirically observable (ie had no effect on anything in existence, that could be used to uniquely infer its existence) then it might as well not exist for all the effect it has on existence and our human defined system for examining it. It simply doesn't matter if something exists but can in no way at all interact with anything else (assuming its possible for something to exist without interacting with anything at all). The other beauty of science is that every test and experiment tests the assumption anyway.

Still, if you can come up with another way to reliably examine stuff, without any assumptions, then I'll drop science like a ton of bricks.

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

I tried understanding everything from how the mind works to duality in a scientific way but I just couldn't digest it.

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists.
That theory is pure nonsense.

Northclare

Are some people in this discussion off their rocker because It's very one sided

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists. That theory is pure nonsense.

Do you've any replacements you'd like to suggest?

Sarky

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

Mysticism didn't get us to the moon, or cure smallpox. Its list of adventures is embarrassingly small, mostly related to a few bitter wars over who had the best imaginary friend and a couple of half-decent kung fu movies. Everything this species has achieved from the simple mechanics of a wheel to the sophistication of genetic engineering, has been achieved by people refusing to be satisfied with ghosts or gods or ancient curses as an answer. Mysticism has only ever held us back.

I tried understanding everything from how the mind works to duality in a scientific way but I just couldn't digest it.

This is not science's fault.

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists.
That theory is pure nonsense.

Nevertheless, a big bang is what all the evidence supports. The ending is rather uncertain, depending on whether a few things are true or not. Scientists are working on those, and an answer will eventually become apparent.

The beginning, however, is not up for debate. It doesn't matter if you don't like it, or don't understand it. That's how it went.

Mark Hamill

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

While you may find it more fun and adventurous, its not more insightful. And the level of fun and adventure has no bearing on whether you are accurate in whatever you come up with.

Northclare wrote: »

I tried understanding everything from how the mind works to duality in a scientific way but I just couldn't digest it.

So? Reality doesn't have to make sense to you, or me or anyone.

Northclare wrote: »

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists.
That theory is pure nonsense.

Based on what? Your inability to understand it?

Northclare

That's the kind of spinning I'm talking about this discussion just goes round in circles there isn't any consistency.

Can anyone even see where I'm coming from I'm cornered here help LOL

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

there isn't any consistency.

On one side, there is.

Northclare wrote: »

Can anyone even see where I'm coming from

/suggests you figure out where you're coming from yourself first, then let us know

oldrnwisr

Northclare wrote: »

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists.
That theory is pure nonsense.

Care to share why? It seems from your meagre postings that this conclusion is only drawn from your inability to comprehend physics. As Tim Minchin would say: "Does the idea that there may be knowledge frighten you? Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-****ing-pedia might englighten you frighten you? Does the notion that there might not be a supernatural so blow your hippy noodle that you'd rather just stand in the fog of your inability to google?

Also, you might want to read this and revise what you have posted above.

The Big Crunch

You'll note the words "one possible scenario".


And while we're on the subject of your posting content, you might want to avoid building your arguments on logical fallacies if you want to make a serious contribution to this or any discussion.

FYI

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

Appeal to Emotion

Northclare wrote: »

I tried understanding everything from how the mind works to duality in a scientific way but I just couldn't digest it.

Argument from ignorance

Northclare wrote: »

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

Appeal to consequences of a belief

Northclare wrote: »

It's been scientifically proven by Dr Zakir Naik I would like to see some of you non believers stand up in front of ten thousand people and debate with him.

He would be far too intelligent for the non believers I'm a Christian but agree with his debates with non believers about the existence of God.

Appeal to authority

On a side note, a man who spends his time arguing that Islam is the one true religion and yet hasn't managed to change your Christian beliefs is perhaps not the best example of a persuasive debater. Also you might want to be careful about using the words I've highlighted in bold, especially on a forum like this.

Pwpane

Peregrinus, to me, for something to be called God, it must be a someone and not something like a force, however intangible it might be. God must have a consciousness and be aware of the universe that is brought into existence. Otherwise, the 'ground for existence' is an 'it' and should not be called 'God'.

The statement 'something is the reason for existence' is different to 'God is the reason for existence'.

If one chooses to believe that God is the reason and not 'something' (as there is no evidence to show which, as well as no evidence to show either in the first place), then how does one deduce the characteristics of that God? Is it by reverse reasoning such as I remember from years ago: that God is the source of beauty and goodness etc?

And what is the step from thinking that a Being brought us into or holds us in existence, to thinking that (a) we can interact with this Being and (b) that there is benefit in living in accordance with our thinking about Him?

Northclare

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

We are told the universe started with a big bang and will end in a big crunch by scientists.
That theory is pure nonsense.

Care to share why? It seems from your meagre postings that this conclusion is only drawn from your inability to comprehend physics. As Tim Minchin would say: "Does the idea that there may be knowledge frighten you? Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-****ing-pedia might englighten you frighten you? Does the notion that there might not be a supernatural so blow your hippy noodle that you'd rather just stand in the fog of your inability to google?

Also, you might want to read this and revise what you have posted above.

The Big Crunch

You'll note the words "one possible scenario".


And while we're on the subject of your posting content, you might want to avoid building your arguments on logical fallacies if you want to make a serious contribution to this or any discussion.

FYI

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

Appeal to Emotion

Northclare wrote: »

I tried understanding everything from how the mind works to duality in a scientific way but I just couldn't digest it.

Argument from ignorance

Northclare wrote: »

Why are some of ye hell bent on the fact there isn't any God and yet those who do believe seem to be more content with their lives.

Appeal to consequences of a belief

Northclare wrote: »

It's been scientifically proven by Dr Zakir Naik I would like to see some of you non believers stand up in front of ten thousand people and debate with him.

He would be far too intelligent for the non believers I'm a Christian but agree with his debates with non believers about the existence of God.

Appeal to authority

On a side note, a man who spends his time arguing that Islam is the one true religion and yet hasn't managed to change your Christian beliefs is perhaps not the best example of a persuasive debater. Also you might want to be careful about using the words I've highlighted in bold, especially on a forum like this.

Another load of Spin.

kylith

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

You know, I really couldn't disagree more. I think that it's so amazing that our very existance is a happy cosmic accident. We are the result of the explosions of stars; cosmic dust walking around and figuring out how the universe works bit by bit.

We are nothing more than clever monkeys, and I find that much more fun, adventurous and insightful than the idea that some bloke, who apparently thinks I'm a second class citizen because I have a vagina, has my entire life and afterlife planned out for me, and is happy to see me exist in torment forever just because he couldn't be bothered to pop in every now and then and say hi.

The Mad Hatter

"I can't deal this so I'll dismiss it."

joseph brand

How can anyone dismiss the supernatural?

Derek Acorah is living proof, as seen in this clip on Harry Hill's Tv Burp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwjzugCVStI&feature=related

Isn't it great that Harry is on childrens tv showing these imposters and charlatans for what they are? My 6 year old son loves watching Harry Hill. Although my wife isn't happy, as it conflicts with her sh1tty soaps.

kylith

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

"I can't deal this so I'll dismiss it."

"I can't understand this. Therefore no-one can understand it. Therefore it's all made up."

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

Another load of Spin.

No. oldrnwisr has, very patiently I thought, explained where your thinking is going wrong in fairly simple terms.

If you'd like to engage in debate in this forum, then by all means, rebut oldrnwisr's points, but simply dismissing them with that kind of handwave does nothing for your credibility.

And it's not all that polite either.

Northclare

kylith wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

It's more fun and adventurous and insightful looking at the world in a mystical way.

You know, I really couldn't disagree more. I think that it's so amazing that our very existance is a happy cosmic accident. We are the result of the explosions of stars; cosmic dust walking around and figuring out how the universe works bit by bit.

We are nothing more than clever monkeys, and I find that much more fun, adventurous and insightful than the idea that some bloke, who apparently thinks I'm a second class citizen because I have a vagina, has my entire life and afterlife planned out for me, and is happy to see me exist in torment forever just because he couldn't be bothered to pop in every now and then and say hi.

Who said anything about second class citizens, body parts, planning peopled lives or living in torment forever that's way off the scale.

Northclare

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

Another load of Spin.

No. oldrnwisr has, very patiently I thought, explained where your thinking is going wrong in fairly simple terms.

If you'd like to engage in debate in this forum, then by all means, rebut oldrnwisr's points, but simply dismissing them with that kind of handwave does nothing for your credibility.

And it's not all that polite either.

When I get access to a pc or lap top ill
Rebut oldrnwisr's points is that ok with you as its hard enough typing on a smartphone ill be more clear from a propper computer maybe I'm not coming across very clear when I'm up against people with high IQ levels and long words etc.

I'm sure someone else will copy and paste this too and ramble about it

robindch

Northclare wrote: »

When I get access to a pc or lap top ill
Rebut oldrnwisr's points

We look forward to it

Northclare

robindch wrote: »

Northclare wrote: »

When I get access to a pc or lap top ill
Rebut oldrnwisr's points

We look forward to it

So will I LOL and ill tell you all how I can prove the world is flat and the air we breathe is liquid

the_syco

Amtmann wrote: »

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

Why should there be a difference between a supernatural being, and an extraordinarily advanced life form? Perhaps your god is an alien?

Undergod

the_syco wrote: »

Why should there be a difference between a supernatural being, and an extraordinarily advanced life form? Perhaps your god is an alien?

If God is an advanced alien lifeform, then it's still natural.

Dades

Undergod wrote: »

If God is an advanced alien lifeform, then it's still natural.

And therefore not a "god", in my book...

Dilemma. :pac:

Undergod

Well that only supports what I'm saying really. The word "supernatural" is meaningless.

Replace "God" for this argument with "immortal superintelligence that created sentient lifeforms and rewards worship". All of its actions are still governed by physics etc. It's not omniscient or omnipotent (as God is usually described in monotheistic religions) but satisfies some of the other requirements. It's still bound by natural laws; it is not supernatrual.

joseph brand

Undergod wrote: »

Well that only supports what I'm saying really. The word "supernatural" is meaningless.

Replace "God" for this argument with "immortal superintelligence that created sentient lifeforms and rewards worship". All of its actions are still governed by physics etc. It's not omniscient or omnipotent (as God is usually described in monotheistic religions) but satisfies some of the other requirements. It's still bound by natural laws; it is not supernatrual.

The 'all-knowing', 'all-powerful', 'creator of everything', needs to be worshipped? To feel loved. Ah come on.

If you don't worship him, he'll throw a hissy-fit and put you in the really hot dungeon, . . . with all those chains, . . and eh big chested sluts.

Why doesn't he create his own money and stop asking for handouts donations?

Northclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While you may find it more fun and adventurous, its not more insightful. And the level of fun and adventure has no bearing on whether you are accurate in whatever you come up with.

Are you accurate in whatever you come up with have you any bearing on that ?


So? Reality doesn't have to make sense to you, or me or anyone.

It makes sense to who it makes sense to you have no control of peoples thoughts or opinions only your own.


Based on what? Your inability to understand it?

We all have our own ways of understanding things and my way of understanding it is that it doesnt go with the way I think so therfore
I dont have to understand if thats my choice.

Northclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A theory? What evidence did they present to support it?

Their own evidence maybe you should google those theorys and you will find out.


You mean those places where there are no lights when it gets dark, you could be alone for miles around and there are shadows and small but surprisingly loud wild animals just out of sight?

What you are saying makes common sense but you dont think the way people who are into the fact that there could be spiritual or supernatural entitys out there.
You look at it the way you do and I look at it another way if we cant discuss these things with an open mind on common ground then there isnt much point in discussing it is there.

You mean back in the past, before people knew how our minds play tricks on us at the drop of a hat?

So we all have to be careful when we drop a hat we might walk into walls trying to follow something that can walk through walls.

You mean you would only believe it if you convinced someone of it, or if they told you a similar experience they had? What do you mean?

What I mean is if I was standing there with someone else at the same
time and we both seen the same thing in the same place then it might be believable or else thats another discussion about people seeing things which are not really there.
The emperors new clothes comes to mind.


Who? The people you told you ghost stories went off on a rant about it? This makes them intelligent idiots? What's an intelligent idiot?

Ill leave that up to yourself to figure out

Mark Hamill

You need to put quote tags around each separate part of my post that you are responding to (or at least bold your additions). I nearly didn't see what you wrote.

Northclare wrote: »

Are you accurate in whatever you come up with have you any bearing on that ?

Some things I have been accurate with, those I keep, some things have not been accurate, so I alter or abandon them. The scientific method is a good way to determine what is and isn't accurate.

Northclare wrote: »

It makes sense to who it makes sense to you have no control of peoples thoughts or opinions only your own.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense, it only has to accurately describe reality.

Northclare wrote: »

We all have our own ways of understanding things and my way of understanding it is that it doesnt go with the way I think so therfore
I dont have to understand if thats my choice.

You understand that you don't understand it so therefore you don't have to understand it? But this still means you get to call what you don't understand a load of **** (Yeah, I saw your post before you altered it).

Northclare

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You need to put quote tags around each separate part of my post that you are responding to (or at least bold your additions). I nearly didn't see what you wrote.

Northclare wrote: »

Are you accurate in whatever you come up with have you any bearing on that ?

Some things I have been accurate with, those I keep, some things have not been accurate, so I alter or abandon them. The scientific method is a good way to determine what is and isn't accurate.

Northclare wrote: »

It makes sense to who it makes sense to you have no control of peoples thoughts or opinions only your own.

It doesn't matter if it makes sense, it only has to accurately describe reality.

Northclare wrote: »

We all have our own ways of understanding things and my way of understanding it is that it doesnt go with the way I think so therfore
I dont have to understand if thats my choice.

You understand that you don't understand it so therefore you don't have to understand it? But this still means you get to call what you don't understand a load of **** (Yeah, I saw your post before you altered it).

You made that one up Mark I never put anything of the sort up that's fairly low man