The Supernatural Does Not Exist.
Supernatural means “above” or “beyond nature” and as such something supernatural could do things that violate the laws of nature (such as create and destroyed energy). There is a problem with that idea though.
Anything that exists within the universe is part of the universe and as part of the universe it has to obey the laws of this universe. Now if something can do things that seem to us to be supernatural, it is not, it can not violate the laws of nature thus the laws of nature must allow for it to do what is seemingly supernatural even if we don’t know how its possible.
© 2009 All rights reserved
Categories: Agnosticism, Atheism, Belief, Demons, Exorcism, Faith Healing, I.D./Creationism, Magic, Miracle, Paranormal, Prayer, Pseudoscience, Religion, Supernatural, Witchcraft
god, gods, Supernatural
Hello, great post ! well if you delve into the string theory, then we are in a whole new ballgame here and that also I guess, obeys the laws of the universe and does not violate them.
Your post says “The supernatural does not exist”. How do you know this is true?
Why can’t the supernatural exist outside the constraints/laws of our universe? After all, it is “supernatural”.
I agree that everything that exists in this universe is subject to the laws of the universe. It has to, otherwise we would be living in a universe that is similar to that in “Alice in Wonderland”, where things occur according to no rhyme or reason. However, the supernatural, by definition, is a total different reality. Because it does not exist in our universe, it is logical to assume that it has another set of laws that govern it. Contrarily, some might say that believing in a supernatural universe is illogical in itself. But now we’re getting into faith vs. science, and that is a whole other ball of wax. So, in short, there really is nothing incorrect in what you have written, but I believe there is another universe out there, one that we really don’t know, that exists and sometimes touches our very own.
Sam I Am: Because anything in the universe has to obey the physics of the universe. If something that to us seemed supernatural existed, it would not be supernatural, it would still obey the physics of the universe even if we don’t understand how the physics of the universe could allow for the seeming supernatural.
Believer: That still wouldn’t be supernatural as it would still be natural in that universe.
It would be considered supernatural to us because we are judging, observing, postulating and theorizing everything from the perspective of our universe and our understanding of it. From a religious perspective, the term “supernatural” basically means anything that comes from the divine and seemingly appears to violate our understanding of natural laws. Things that occur that are not divine yet appear to be in violation of our physical laws is known as preternatural. I do not claim that I have seen an example of supernatural or preternatural. But an example of each is:
1. The miracles of Fatima in 1917 in Portugal (Catholic) is an example of supernatural; and
2. Any action by a malignant spirit that violates our natural laws is an example of preternatural.
Yes, these examples are religious in nature, and prove nothing. But it was religion itself that created the term supernatural in the first place and it is in that context that I am making my point.
I forgot about the comment reply thing *bangs head on desk*
Another universe with differing physics, things of course would different and maybe imposable in our universe but its within the physics of that universe thus natural.
As for the miracles of Fatima sorry, didn’t happen (or atleast as reported)
That’s fine if you think Fatima didn’t happen. That’s not the point. The point is that you’re misapplying a definition to suit the needs of the setting. The terms supernatural and natural are defined in respect to our universe and our understanding of it. That’s all I’m saying.
Nested replays don’t work well with this theme. Crap I liked this one.Changed theme.Super natural: above nature. I’m saying nothing is above or beyond nature
Dude, I’m sorry but I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about. By definiton, supernatural is “relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature”. Even with this, you are automatically ruling out any possibilty that the supernatural exists.
Again I ask:
How do you know it doesn’t exist?
Read the post. Supernatural means above or beyond nature (super-natural) But if something seemingly “supernatural” exists, it is not super natural, it does not violate the physics of the universe even if our understanding of physics tell us the universe would not allow such a thing, it would just mean our understanding of physics is flawed or incomplete.
Dude, I got the deiniton for supernatural out of the dictionary,so I know what it means. How can you sit there and say that if something violates the laws of physics then physics is flawed. So if a person is able to fly in the air and defy the law of gravity, that’s not supernatural?
Basically you’re saying that Physics are wrong. That is a pretty bold move my friend, especially when you have no evidence to support your claim.
Wow, you took what I said to a completely different direction.
What I said was if something exists that violates the laws of physics as we understand them then our currant understanding of physics is ether flawed or incomplete.
Our currant understanding of physics is incomplete, past understandings of physics have been flawed and we don’t know what future evidence will tell us. Science is a self correcting proses that uses the best currently available evidence, if in the future new evidence is found that tell us that a theory currently supported by evidence is flawed and that future evidence is better than the currant evidence, the scientists will attompt to correct the flaw in the new theroy
I would like to point out that in your post about truth, you say, and I quote
“You can never know the truth”
However, you are saying that “the supernatural does not exist”
Hello!
This is a claim about truth. You are caliming something to be true. But wait, you said,you can’t know the truth.
Nice way to contradict yourself there, bud.
Comment reply; forgot about it.
Its a opinion, I never claimed it to be the truth.
Your opinion about about things is a truth claim. Your opinion is that the supernatural does not exist, therefore, it is true that you believe the supernatural does not exist.
Try looking up the definition of “opinion”.
I don’t care what else you say about this, the fact is that you contradict yourself, yet somehow, you can’t see this contradiction, or maybe you don’t want to see this contradiction.
Anyhow, I’m finished with this blog also. I feel there is nothing more I can say. If you don’t understand, then it’s because you don’t want to understand. I would like to point out that I can sit here and point out all these contradictions in your statements but you are unable to point out any in mine, yet you still sit here and argue that you are right about these things.
An opinion is not a claim about truth, it is a conclusion based on thought and/or observation. I did not contradict my self.
Your problems is you look at everything in a black and white manner, its ether true or not true. The universe does not always work this way and the human mind rarely does. I am a human being limited to my experiences and my thoughts however flawed those may be. I’m not omniscient and I am intellectually honest with my self and others.
This is the last post I will submit for this thread. Your definition does not apply because no one agrees with it. In order for a word to exist and have meaning, people need to use it and understand it when it is heard. If you tell people that the word “supernatural” doesn’t exist, they will most likely take it with a grain of salt. Yes, the word “supernatural” does exist because people have assigned a meaning to it and understanding is achieved when they hear it. Alas, your reasoning on this issue is illogical.
You think I mean the word?
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how the fuck did the big bang occour? Evolution is NOT science. Science is a proven fact, evolution is a theory and not proven.
Wow Jim The Fail, you fail epically. You fail evolution which mean you fail biology, you fail cosmology, physics and you fail science epically. And not only that, the post you commented on has nothing to do with evolution, the big bang or anything in science at all.
What makes it an epic fail is, the information is available to any one who is interested (I have posts on these here). The fact that you say “its just a theory” not only shows that you are no interested in science but you are not even interested in what the evidence is and what a theory means in science (the fact that gravity is still a theory, the theory of relativity is still a theory, germ theory is still a theory should tell you that “theory” in science does not mean the same thing as “theory” in everyday use).