Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

24567…10

Comments

  • #32
    legspin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    The Rapture. I still wouldn't care though.


  • #33
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • #34
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,200 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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?


  • #38
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    irishh_bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    wanlabanchang
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 28 ✭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.


  • #43
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • #44
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    18AD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    €1,000,000


  • #49
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭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!


  • #51
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    ---- The only entity who has would have absolute surety and absolute knowledge is would be god, if any such entity existed.

    There, fixed your post.:):)


  • #53
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,523 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Jernal wrote: »
    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.

    I agree with that to an extent. My post outlining what it would take for me to believe in a supernatural entity is based on it being the most logical explanation for something. All that stuff we don't know about the material world would have to be discovered and discounted first, because if something truly amazing and spectacular happened which nobody could possibly explain, it'd be more logical to me that it is something which can be explained but we haven't discovered yet, than for it to be a supernatural entity which will always be impossible to explain because it is by definition, above the laws of nature.

    Actually, just thinking over it again, I suppose I still wouldn't really believe that it was a supernatural entity, I'd just think that it's the most logical explanation. I'm not quite sure that anything could ever make me really believe in a supernatural entity. If God himself appeared in front of me and told me amazing things and showed me this, that and the other.... I'd think I was going bugnutty bat**** crazy and would probably seek psychiatric help.


  • #54
    ronan45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭ronan45


    My mam Went to a Gypsy fortune teller in Spain. Just off the street, No way she could have known my mother,

    She was able to tell her how many kids she had their ages, names, and a raft of other facts. Now If that happened me I would think their is something out their for sure. Im agnostic myself!

    But then again I question why this woman wouldnt ring madelain mccanns parents and tell them where she was! Surely if god gave such a gift he would want it used sensibly? Then again if their is a god why would he be bothered having madelaine kidnapped in the first place lol :confused:


  • #55
    Amtmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How can I not? Can any omniscient entity not be god?

    What Ellis said in post #52.


  • #56
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    The underlying question is what would make you believe that there is such a thing as a supernatural realm of reality in which such an entity could exist. The nature of the possible entities that might or might not exist in that realm is secondary to whether the concept itself is coherent.

    If we assume nature to include all of the phenomena of the universe(s?), that exist and interact in accordance with laws that we are gradually finding out more about, including those phenomena associated with brain activity that cause thoughts and feelings and consciousness, then it is hard to imagine how you would quantify a phenomenon that exists outside of these circumstances.

    If something extraordinarily unexpected happens, that seems to defy the laws of nature, and we are satisfied that it is demonstrated to have happened beyond reasonable doubt, then it becomes an adjustment to what we know about nature. For example, primitive people would have considered electricity to be supernatural, and certainly would have considered our ability today to harness electricity for various uses to be supernatural, and today we know that electricity and our use of it is part of nature.

    Of course, once you allow yourself to believe in a supernatural realm that is not subject to such restrictions, you are then free to imagine any type of entities existing there, with any type of qualities and capabilities that you choose to attribute to them, because you have allowed yourself to break free of the laws of nature and let your imagination run free. You are also free to reject any specific entities that somebody else asserts to exist, because, as Christopher Hitchens so eloquently put it, that which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

    So the answer to your question (what would cause you to believe that supernatural entities exist) is either nothing, because everything is natural, or else anything, because you choose to believe in it.


  • #57
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I don't think I could ever believe in a supernatural entity. The furthest I can see myself going is believing that an entity is beyond my understanding of nature. That doesn't mean it's supernatural though. The problem comes down to the fact that neither I or anybody else has an absolute understanding of what can be natural and what can't. Until that problem (along with all the other problems associated with it) is solved, I don't see anything convincing me that there is a supernatural entity, even if a seemingly supernatural entity were to fly out one of my orifices.


  • #58
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Tremelo wrote: »
    What Ellis said in post #52.

    Oh right, I didn't realise that's what you meant.


  • #59
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How can I not? Can any omniscient entity not be god?
    No, it might be an omniscient saddleback caterpillar, or an omniscient toasted tomato sandwich, both of which are omniscient but do not have any of the other powers typically attributed to gods.


  • #60
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    ronan45 wrote: »
    My mam Went to a Gypsy fortune teller in Spain. Just off the street, No way she could have known my mother,

    She was able to tell her how many kids she had their ages, names, and a raft of other facts. Now If that happened me I would think their is something out their for sure. Im agnostic myself!

    But then again I question why this woman wouldnt ring madelain mccanns parents and tell them where she was! Surely if god gave such a gift he would want it used sensibly? Then again if their is a god why would he be bothered having madelaine kidnapped in the first place lol :confused:

    Did she charge your mother money? If she has no qualms using her powers to make money I wonder why she takes a few euros (Im guessing) rather than James Randi's million dollars.

    (Off topic and only if you're interested I found this poster great for when to use "There" "They're" and "Their" along with "affect" and "effect" which I still often get wrong http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    ronan45 wrote: »
    My mam Went to a Gypsy fortune teller in Spain. Just off the street, No way she could have known my mother,

    She was able to tell her how many kids she had their ages, names, and a raft of other facts. Now If that happened me I would think their is something out their for sure. Im agnostic myself!

    But then again I question why this woman wouldnt ring madelain mccanns parents and tell them where she was! Surely if god gave such a gift he would want it used sensibly? Then again if their is a god why would he be bothered having madelaine kidnapped in the first place lol :confused:

    Did she record the conversation?
    I would bet money that your mam told her the names etc, and not the other way round.
    If this woman could really see the future, surely the stock market is the place to go, not a stall in a holiday resort!


Advertisement