Does The Supernatural Exist?

[erdoch]

Rob's naturalist explanation of the supernatural is exactly in line with D&C 130:7-8: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

 

Nothing controversial about that - at least not to Mormons who know their scriptures. Contrary to traditional Christianity, we do not believe that God exists as totally separate and different from this physical universe. He is in the universe, just as our spirits are made of actual matter - that theoretically we one day could be able to detect through science. Now we obviously don't understand much of anything about spiritual matter - all that makes sense to me is that our spirits or intelligences have existed eternally and will continue to do so - but I have little clue as to how that interacts with the physical, especially with neuroscience and genetic research showing more and more how human behavior is rooted in biology. 

 

Rob, you wrote something I have a question about - 

"Even things such as ghost or paranormal activity shows signatures measurable by "science" that at times previous in the past was not possible."

 

Do you have verifiable information about this? Apart from the ghost TV shows has anything more academic or peer-reviewed been done on this? My understanding, based on googling around and only very briefly reading is that parapsychology was at its height in the 1970s - but is considered a pseudoscience by most mainstream scholars today - though there are studies that claim to have shown telepathy others dispute those studies (that's just from a surface reading, I haven't studied this in depth). While I believe science should at some point be able to detect spiritual matter and even explore the spiritual world further I have no hopes that we're anywhere near being at that level right now (but I also have no clue). Apart from people's near-death experiences (which are highly subjective and not easily testable as after-life evidence by the scientific method) - and of course personal spiritual experiences and the spiritual experiences of prophets and humans in general - I don't know of any even remotely "scientific' work or "signatures" suggesting evidence of paranormal activity. Any sources on this?

[Robert F. Smith]

You cannot assign an arbitrary definition to a term. This makes language pointless. The word has a definition. According to it's proper definition, any miraculous events are supernatural. Starting my car is not by any means supernatural. It is very easy to explain through natural laws. 

I don't know whether it is easy to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine attached to a modern automobile chassis, but the technical specs and engineering descriptions are certainly available.

 

However, for someone living in ancient times, or even in recent centuries, starting and driving an automobile would seem magical.  Not to mention all the modern technical devices we take for granted today, but which were only invented very recently.  What would even very intelligent people in ancient times have thought of a helicopter flying overhead, or a jet plane?  How could we adequately explain to them that an iPod or Tablet is not magical or supernatural?  Modern physics and astronomy make a great many things which were regarded as magical in the past quite normal and understandable now.  The notion of our putting men on the Moon, or of communicating voice, video, and data wirelessly through advanced electronics ought to give us pause before we debate these matters absent any sense of perspective.

 

Yes, words have definitions, and I cannot find any violation of the definitions you are suggesting.  Are you certain that you understand the relevant definitions?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob's naturalist explanation of the supernatural is exactly in line with D&C 130:7-8: "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

 

Nothing controversial about that - at least not to Mormons who know their scriptures. Contrary to traditional Christianity, we do not believe that God exists as totally separate and different from this physical universe. He is in the universe, just as our spirits are made of actual matter - that theoretically we one day could be able to detect through science. Now we obviously don't understand much of anything about spiritual matter - all that makes sense to me is that our spirits or intelligences have existed eternally and will continue to do so - but I have little clue as to how that interacts with the physical, especially with neuroscience and genetic research showing more and more how human behavior is rooted in biology. 

 

Rob, you wrote something I have a question about - 

"Even things such as ghost or paranormal activity shows signatures measurable by "science" that at times previous in the past was not possible."

 

Do you have verifiable information about this? Apart from the ghost TV shows has anything more academic or peer-reviewed been done on this? My understanding, based on googling around and only very briefly reading is that parapsychology was at its height in the 1970s - but is considered a pseudoscience by most mainstream scholars today - though there are studies that claim to have shown telepathy others dispute those studies (that's just from a surface reading, I haven't studied this in depth). While I believe science should at some point be able to detect spiritual matter and even explore the spiritual world further I have no hopes that we're anywhere near being at that level right now (but I also have no clue). Apart from people's near-death experiences (which are highly subjective and not easily testable as after-life evidence by the scientific method) - and of course personal spiritual experiences and the spiritual experiences of prophets and humans in general - I don't know of any even remotely "scientific' work or "signatures" suggesting evidence of paranormal activity. Any sources on this?

Dont have any sources but I do find some of the paranormal equipment rather useful.

[emarkp]

Could there be a possible explanation of miracles done through science?

No, there can not. We will always be dependent on God's grace for our existence. We cannot by experimentation arrive at God's power without His application of it. We cannot build a tower to heaven.

 

We may find that the powers of science are directly connected to the powers of God. In fact, we will find that all actions in the visible universe are miraculous because divine action was required for all of it to exist in the first place.

You're putting the cart before the horse. God gave us all truth, a subset of which can be found through scientific investigation. We cannot arrive at the superset by scientific investigation.

Unless you think we can indeed lift ourself up to be gods, without God's help. In which case you're wrong.

And drop the "may", "perhaps" and all the other baloney. Say what you believe straight up, stop with the endless quiestions, or stop pretending to have a conversation.

[emarkp]

And would it be too much to ask for people to trim down their quotes? Especially when quoting videos?

[thesometimesaint]

Not to be rude but mainstream science is so juvenile in its understanding of reality. You keep saying that science can't posit God or any godlike force. Let me just say this- we are the product of God- we are instruments of God- we are the tabernacle of God and as such possess godlike forces and powers, albeit very small or elementary as of yet. So, by your own definition we cannot be studied or be part of science. Thus as you ascertain, we also should not be within the realm of science. But the facts remain- we are within the realm of science and the power of God is manifest in all of nature which by design makes all of that which we test and observe to be nothing more, nor less, than God moving and acting with his godlike force- it is His very glory we are detecting, his very godlike force we are measuring and his design in nature we observe.

 

That is about as illogical nonsense as they come.

[cinepro]

I don't know whether it is easy to explain the workings of an internal combustion engine attached to a modern automobile chassis, but the technical specs and engineering descriptions are certainly available.

 

However, for someone living in ancient times, or even in recent centuries, starting and driving an automobile would seem magical.  Not to mention all the modern technical devices we take for granted today, but which were only invented very recently.  What would even very intelligent people in ancient times have thought of a helicopter flying overhead, or a jet plane?  How could we adequately explain to them that an iPod or Tablet is not magical or supernatural?  Modern physics and astronomy make a great many things which were regarded as magical in the past quite normal and understandable now.  The notion of our putting men on the Moon, or of communicating voice, video, and data wirelessly through advanced electronics ought to give us pause before we debate these matters absent any sense of perspective.

 

Yes, words have definitions, and I cannot find any violation of the definitions you are suggesting.  Are you certain that you understand the relevant definitions?

 

Whether or not something is "supernatural" isn't determined by the most ignorant among us.  All of those things may be amazing to those who don't understand them (including a baby or a peasant from 1312), but it is their repeatability and being subject to investigation that makes them "scientific". 

 

You may ultimately convince others that "priesthood power" operates totally on the same principles as everything else, but in the end that may not be a good thing, since most non-believers probably already agree with you.

Edited February 23, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

So what is the power of delivery? Is it magic? Could there be a possible explanation of miracles done through science? We perhaps wrongly assume that God uses some power that is outside of this world or outside of science. What happens when we find that the very powers of heaven- in all of its motions is indeed the power of the priesthood and the power of God? Does the motions then become nonscientific because I said "God" or "priesthood". I guess my point is that just because we do not understand Gods power and how he uses it in nowise proves that it is thus outside of science. We may find that the powers of science are directly connected to the powers of God. In fact, we will find that all actions in the visible universe are miraculous because divine action was required for all of it to exist in the first place.

 

Occam's razor, and a tautology.

 

Then why add in another factor? IE;  While it is entirely possible that when hydrogen + oxygen + heat + God = water. God is still the unnecessary factor.

[Rob Osborn]

That is about as illogical nonsense as they come.

You believe the scriptures are nonsense?

[Rob Osborn]

No, there can not. We will always be dependent on God's grace for our existence. We cannot by experimentation arrive at God's power without His application of it. We cannot build a tower to heaven.

 

You're putting the cart before the horse. God gave us all truth, a subset of which can be found through scientific investigation. We cannot arrive at the superset by scientific investigation.

Unless you think we can indeed lift ourself up to be gods, without God's help. In which case you're wrong.

And drop the "may", "perhaps" and all the other baloney. Say what you believe straight up, stop with the endless quiestions, or stop pretending to have a conversation.

I am trying to have a conversation I am not pretending at all. I am only questioning an ever increasing godless society who want to dismiss God and all forms of his works from the creation.

[thesometimesaint]

You believe the scriptures are nonsense?

 

No, I believe your interpretation of them is fallacious.

[Rob Osborn]

No, I believe your interpretation of them is fallacious.

I only believe that God uses real and natural measures to bring about all his purposes and works. So, do you think it fallacious that God uses natural means to bring about his works? Do you think he instead uses magic?

[Robert F. Smith]

Whether or not something is "supernatural" isn't determined by the most ignorant among us.  All of those things may be amazing to those who don't understand them (including a baby or a peasant from 1312), but it is their repeatability and being subject to investigation that makes them "scientific".

I specified "even the very intelligent" among those in awe of advanced technical capability.  Of course, ignorance is a relative matter given a confrontation with such amazing sights as I have suggested, a matter which seems to have escaped you, cinepro, in speaking of the very different matter of the experimental method and repeatability in science.  Indeed, a non sequituur. 

 

You may ultimately convince others that "priesthood power" operates totally on the same principles as everything else, but in the end that may not be a good thing, since most non-believers probably already agree with you.

I don't completetly follow you here, so maybe I can pose the issue more pointedly, and get your response:

 

Carl Sagan's classic statement comes to mind:

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." -- http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62905-and-now-for-your-moment-of-zen/ .

 

If Rob Osborn is arguing that Sagan is correct, and (in addition) that God is part of the cosmos, and that science is indeed governed by the principles of natural, repeatable law on a universal scale, are you agreeing with him that there is a confluence there for both atheists (humanists) and Mormons?  And that that is a good thing?  Is such a notion viable?

Edited February 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Nonsense. No man can do what he did without the power of God.  No degree of scientific exploration will accomplish it.  We cannot do what Jesus did without his grace and power.  That cannot come about by scientific investigation, but by revelation and gifts of the spirit.

You are assuming, without evidence, that revelation and gifts of the Spirit do not come via mastery of natural law.

[The Nehor]

 

Not to be rude but mainstream science is so juvenile in its understanding of reality. You keep saying that science can't posit God or any godlike force. Let me just say this- we are the product of God- we are instruments of God- we are the tabernacle of God and as such possess godlike forces and powers, albeit very small or elementary as of yet. So, by your own definition we cannot be studied or be part of science. Thus as you ascertain, we also should not be within the realm of science. But the facts remain- we are within the realm of science and the power of God is manifest in all of nature which by design makes all of that which we test and observe to be nothing more, nor less, than God moving and acting with his godlike force- it is His very glory we are detecting, his very godlike force we are measuring and his design in nature we observe.

 

Translation: Science is juvenile and easy to understand.

 

So what is the power of delivery? Is it magic? Could there be a possible explanation of miracles done through science? We perhaps wrongly assume that God uses some power that is outside of this world or outside of science. What happens when we find that the very powers of heaven- in all of its motions is indeed the power of the priesthood and the power of God? Does the motions then become nonscientific because I said "God" or "priesthood". I guess my point is that just because we do not understand Gods power and how he uses it in nowise proves that it is thus outside of science. We may find that the powers of science are directly connected to the powers of God. In fact, we will find that all actions in the visible universe are miraculous because divine action was required for all of it to exist in the first place.

 

Translation of the subtext: I haven't the slightest idea of what science is 

 

Dont have any sources but I do find some of the paranormal equipment rather useful.

 

Translation: Also, I am a Ghostbuster. Don't cross the streams.

[thesometimesaint]

I only believe that God uses real and natural measures to bring about all his purposes and works. So, do you think it fallacious that God uses natural means to bring about his works? Do you think he instead uses magic?

 

I've already stated my beliefs about God. That I have no problem with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world. I have no idea as to what you mean by magic. Other than any intelligent being sufficiently technologically advanced would appear to us to be magical. But biological systems are not magical, and any attempt to impute any God or Godlike force as a necessary component in them is an Argument from Ignorance. IE; I don't know what it is, so it must be ... or Intelligently designed.

Edited February 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

I specified "even the very intelligent" among those in awe of advanced technical capability.  Of course, ignorance is a relative matter given a confrontation with such amazing sights as I have suggested, a matter which seems to have escaped you, cinepro, in speaking of the very different matter of the experimental method and repeatability in science.  Indeed, a non sequituur. 

 

I don't completetly follow you here, so maybe I can pose the issue more pointedly, and get your response:

 

Carl Sagan's classic statement comes to mind:

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." -- http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62905-and-now-for-your-moment-of-zen/ .

 

If Rob Osborn is arguing that Sagan is correct, and (in addition) that God is part of the cosmos, and that science is indeed governed by the principles of natural, repeatable law on a universal scale, are you agreeing with him that there is a confluence there for both atheists (humanists) and Mormons?  And that that is a good thing?  Is such a notion viable?

Darn tootin' it's a viable notion! 

 

Unfortunately Sagan should have taken a few philosophy classes and stated it this way:  "For all practical purposes, our knowledge of the Cosmos is all that we can know is, or ever was, or ever will be"

 

Yes that's a tautology but a very instructive one.  It tells us that what we THINK is the "Cosmos" is only what we think we know about it.  And what we think we know about it is a completely human invention, because after all, it is only what we think.

 

For all practical purposes, the Cosmos is a human invention.  Of course for us, it is pretty convenient that we posit that God is indeed human as well, so indeed humanism becomes theology.

[emarkp]

You are assuming, without evidence, that revelation and gifts of the Spirit do not come via mastery of natural law.

Simon Magus, is that you?

[Robert F. Smith]

Simon Magus, is that you?

Simon Magus may have been doing what the Great Houdini and David Copperfield have done, and that is an amazing technical achievement -- with a lot of wonderful showmanship -- but it is all fakery, as you well  know.  Are you saying that God is a fake?  Or are you saying that He cannot have used awesome technical ability to accomplish his aims?

[Robert F. Smith]

That is about as illogical nonsense as they come.

Was it illogical nonsense for the great Sorcerer Sir Isaac Newton to have declared near life's end? 

 

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” 

 

“What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.” 

 

See Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer (Basic Books, 1999).

You lack humility and a sense of perspective.

[Rob Osborn]

I've already stated my beliefs about God. That I have no problem with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world. I have no idea as to what you mean by magic. Other than any intelligent being sufficiently technologically advanced would appear to us to be magical. But biological systems are not magical, and any attempt to impute any God or Godlike force as a necessary component in them is an Argument from Ignorance. IE; I don't know what it is, so it must be ... or Intelligently designed.

I am not arguing for any "godlike force" as you are using it. My definition of "godlike force" is purely natural within the bounds of science. Its you who keep bringing up God who has some magical power.

[Gray]

If the supernatural existed, how could we possibly know it? The only reasonable answer to that question must be "I don't know"

 

Not that a follow-up with some speculation would be unreasonable.  

[Rob Osborn]

The problem with the supernatural is that there could never be a rational explanation for it or how it works. God isnt like that.

[thesometimesaint]

Was it illogical nonsense for the great Sorcerer Sir Isaac Newton to have declared near life's end? 

 

“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” 

 

“What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean.” 

 

See Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer (Basic Books, 1999).

You lack humility and a sense of perspective.

Sir Issac Newton for all of his great accomplishments never figured out Perturbation Theory(The glue that holds our solar system together). He put into the realm of God. But we still used him to send our space probes to outside our solar system.

SEE

 

No it was just an admission that he didn't know everything. Something every scientist is uncomfortable with. If you're comfortable with your ignorance then you aren't a scientist. That's why we ask questions.

 

I'm the most humble person I know just ask me.

More seriously; I know so very little about God, and so very little about science it is hubristic in the extreme for me to conflate the two.

Edited February 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[subgenius]

Brought up and debated recently on several other posts is how to define the "supernatural" and if science can or cannot detect something or force (such as God) deemed to be seemingly outside of scientific means,

My position is that the supernatural doesn't exist. By saying this I don't disbelieve in God nor do I disbelieve in a God of miracles. To properly understand the supernatural we need look no further than defining terms. Many in scientific fields use the word supernatural as being some type of phenomenon outside of the laws of science. thus they can easily dismiss God and all his workings from science and stick to purely naturalistic explanations for everything.

But this doesn't solve the problem becuase its just a cheap way of saying that science can't detect that which is magic. My philosophy on the matter is that no such magic exists and no powers beyond the scientifically explainable exists. In saying this I agree fully that we do not know all the laws and principles of science. We can thus break down all things that happen in the universe in 2 sets of knowledge- 1. Things that happen of which we know about and can predict, or happen so frequently we accept it naturally and- 2. Things we have yet to find out about or cannot predict or are rare occurrences in the universe.

Many will automatically state the word "supernatural" in any case that deals with God or deals with anything of spiritual in nature. But this is in reality just another way of saying that we have certain things we have yet to know about and can predict. Suppose a man from 2,000 years ago was to invent a time machine and travel to our day and watch all of our actions. He would thus conclude us to be supernatural beings performing many supernatural acts. This because he has no way to possibly fathom or know about the workings of all the laws in science.

Then you also have this enigma we call "intelligence" of the which science has yet to even begin to define or understand. Even though we havent found ways to predict with accuracy the mechanism of intelligence it happens so often in all life forms with such high frequency that we call it a natural action and definately not supernatural. But suppose for a moment that all the rocks in the known galaxie could think and wonder and in all their searching they saw nothing but rocks upon more rocks and then suddenly for no apparent reason this rare occurrence of life on this planet. Would we thus be "supernatural" to all the other rocks? It brings up an interesting aspect and proper perspective ina relative sense with how we look at the things we cannot explain but yet also incorrectly chalk some things up as being unexplainable. Its just a view of perspectives.

And this is why I believe that the supernatural does not exist. The glory of God is intelligence. In other words this literally means the glory of God is knowledge of truth and order. Gods glory in part is a perfect knowledge and perfect use of truth and order all done within laws measurable and detectable in science. God himself we are told has a body of order just as yours and mine only his has been perfected. He also has a higher understanding of language and communication ability that allows him to more perfectly control the elements. Agreed this is an area where our technology in science hasn't been able to yet know or detect, so true it also is that the enigma of visions in our minds really do happen but yet is not detectable or knowable to our technology.

Thus I do not picture a God who has some magic power running around the universe outside of the laws and order of which he is part of. I fully understand that mainstream science wants a natural explanation for everything. Their only fault however is that they do not understand the fact that the supernatural can't exist- its literally outside of existence. This must mean then that if God does exist- and He truly may for we haven't as of yet disproven his existence, then he must exist inside of the laws and order of detectable science even if we do not yet possess the technology to ascertain this reality at this point. It also means that the miracles God performs are done inside of natural laws- laws that have order and are scientific in every way. The difference is however that He has a perfect understanding and we do not.

Thus it somewhat bothers me when someone within science says science isn't about the supernatural and as such anything relating to God is not science but instead religion. They are right about one thing for sure- science, nor anything for that matter, can detect the undetectable supernatural because it doesn't exist. I find it thus intriguing that they can say something like God can truly exist, just not inside of the laws of science. My appeal to them is this- If God does exist but outside of the laws of science, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to perform any action within our laws?

If God is supernatural then wouldnt it hold true that all his word and actions- even all his creations also be supernatural?

1. The supernatural is the only logical way to explain our ability to "choose otherwise".

2. God being supernatural does not necessitate that His creations and actions also be as such - His ability to transcend the sort of "law" you describe is precisely what is being meant by supernatural.