Supernatural

[darrell]

1. First I'd like to define our term. How do we define the supernatural?

2. Second, what constitutes suffieicent evidence of the supernatural? For those who don't believe or question the supernatural exists, what would be sufficient evidence to support the existence of the supernatural?

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, as for "definitions", I just pulled these from dictionary.com, and though it isn't a complete list of what was on that link, these three best sum the word up.

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to god or a deity.
3. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.


Therefore, what I would find as "supernatural evidence" . . . . [just off the top of my head] would have to be something that wouldn't lend to "evidence getting". Now, if there was a ghostly figure that I personally saw, and was able to capture it on video, that would be somewhat evidential. If a person, who played the organ very well, but lost his arm in an accident [I know of this person], . . . if he had a spontaneous regeneration of his arm, that would be incredible evidence for a supernatural working.

I'm interested to see what other people would classify as "supernatural"!

 

[Strangelove]

1. First I'd like to define our term. How do we define the supernatural?

2. Second, what constitutes suffieicent evidence of the supernatural? For those who don't believe or question the supernatural exists, what would be sufficient evidence to support the existence of the supernatural?

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2. Scripture or my own eyes.

 

[handy]

If anyone believes in God, by definition he believes in the supernatural. Supernatural being, as already stated, anything above or beyond what is natural.

God, angels, demons, the heavenly creatures, God's miracles...all supernatural.

Now, if you are wanting to discuss ghosties and goblins and things that go bump in the night...supernatural yes, but real...not too sure about that. However, I do believe that there is far more in the spiritual realm that we mere humans cannot begin to fathom. I've personally experienced something that really cannot be explained adequately via the Scriptures and I don't think the Ghost Hunters (all due respect to Jason and Grant) would do a better job of explaining it either.

 

[Deavonreye]

Give Zak and his crew, from Ghost Adventurers, a try then!

 

[jasoncran]

that explains somethig about you dora.

 

[Evointrinsic]

I would have to agree with Deavon/dictionary.com on this one on the definitions.

as for what would suffice as evidence? This is a tricky one to answer. If we can test it and explain it, then obviously it would be within the natural realm.

honestly i'm not quite sure how we could ever test something supernatural!

A lot of incidences can be explained through causes from the natural world (such as virtually anything off of GhostHunters, Destination Truth, and so on).

I'm not saying there is no such thing as evidence for the supernatural, but what does exist as 'evidence' doesn't seem all that sound, or definite. There's a whole lot of assumptions going on which makes me very skeptical.

I would say that I have no idea what would constitute evidence for the supernatural at this point in time.

 

[darrell]

I would say that I have no idea what would constitute evidence for the supernatural at this point in time.

Well Evo, I’m glad I was able to give you something to think about.
<O:p</O:p
You’re right – it is tricky. In fact, now that I think about it, it was almost a trick question. In science, we seek to measure and quantify. But how do we measure using natural means anything that by definition is above or beyond the natural? It might be impossible…
<O:p</O:p
It also occurred to me that just because we can’t explain something within the natural laws, that doesn’t automatically make it supernatural. It could very well be a natural phenomenon that we just don’t understand yet. On the other hand, we can’t discount the possibility of the supernatural just because we know that many mysterious phenomena have natural causes.
<O:p</O:p
Tricky…
<O:p</O:p
Interesting, Strange said his “own eyes” would be sufficient evidence. However, Deavon said seeing for himself as well as a video recording would be only “somewhat evidential.” Deavon, my friend, you are a big-time doubter. That’s OK, I was once the same. Reminds me of another famous doubter.
<O:p</O:p
Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20: 24-29, NIV)<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
Thomas was one of the Apostles! He walked with Jesus for years, and he had to have witnessed many of His miracles. And yet when the others told him of the resurrected Lord, he would not believe until he saw for himself. Says something of our human nature. [I understand that atheists and agnostics don’t consider the Bible as evidence, and I didn’t quote here as evidence, but rather to comment on our human nature.]
<O:p</O:p
Dora, I also have experienced things, although I believe I can explain them within my Christian world view.
<O:p</O:p
So seeing for ourselves is sufficient evidence for some at least. But what if we don’t see for ourselves but others witness? How many witnesses would it take to be sufficient evidence?

 

[Evointrinsic]

How many witnesses would it take to be sufficient evidence?

it wouldn't matter how many witnesses there were, that doesn't explain what happened, only that something happened. it's hardly enough to go off of to give something that's reliable.

Take a magic show for example. Thousands of people see the same act and get pretty much the same effect from it. Did he really float? no, there's more information behind the actual event then what was seen.

The same can be related to incidences that weren't staged. Such as the windows on that one church where hundreds of people saw an image of Mary. later to show that it was just the sprinkler system.

History is well populated with mass sightings of particular things in which appear to be something but really lead to a different conclusion.

I'm not quite sure we can use witnesses as a reliable resource for 'evidence'.

Albeit it can lead to somewhere on occasion. and it most definitely can send us in the right direction towards an answer, but the answer itself in these situations are all quite off the charts with incorrect assumptions.

 

[Deavonreye]

Darrell, you are correct when you speak of "us not having the knowledge to see something 'supernatural' as an actual natural event". I agree with that. We [humans] are in no way absolute in our knowledge of the universe. We just haven't reached the technological level to test things that are considered "supernatural".

I have heard the "Doubting Thomas" story all my life. I might be the same. ;)

 

[handy]

Then we have to throw into the mix something that is natural and observable, and yet supernaturally caused by God...like a wind that parts the waters of the Red Sea, or a volcano that erupts and rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. Atheists can and do look at these events and state that a superstitious people mistook a wholly natural occurrence and attributed them, in their ignorance, to an angry God. Believers can and do look at these events and state that God caused the wind and the volcano to work His will.

Eye witness accounts are only as good as the knowledge and understanding of the witness...and humans are not very knowledgeable or understanding of the supernatural. Many people have witnessed demons possessing people (supernatural event) and yet, now we understand that not all who were demon possessed were in fact under the possession of a supernatural being, but just suffered mental or neurological illness. But, we Christians do believe in demons and their power to possess, Jesus Himself spoke of it...so sometimes demon possession was indeed the issue. However, how can we know for sure...when neurological illness and demon possession can be so simila?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

1. First I'd like to define our term. How do we define the supernatural?

2. Second, what constitutes suffieicent evidence of the supernatural? For those who don't believe or question the supernatural exists, what would be sufficient evidence to support the existence of the supernatural?

A supernatural event (a miracle) would involve something that happens that is in violation of the laws of nature. For me to believe something was a miracle, I would have to see something happen or be told by a reliable source about something that occured that was a violation of natural laws.

 

[handy]

A supernatural event (a miracle) would involve something that happens that is in violation of the laws of nature. For me to believe something was a miracle, I would have to see something happen or be told by a reliable source about something that occured that was a violation of natural laws.

But what about the parting of the Red Sea or the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah...things that were not in violation of the natural laws, but were miraculous in that God commanded them to take place.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

But what about the parting of the Red Sea or the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah...things that were not in violation of the natural laws, but were miraculous in that God commanded them to take place.

I read about that in your post after I posted and I thought, "Dang, it, why wasn't I a thoughout as Handy!"
I can definately buy those events as miracles because of the direct intervention of GOD. The issue becomes proving or verifying that GOD indeed did intervene. That makes me think that everything that involves supernatural intervention does not have to be miraculous. Good point.

 

[Alabaster]

Everything that involves God intervening supernaturally IS miraculous, by virtue of the very root of the word, miracle', which means that it evokes wonder in us.

 

[darrell]

So eyewitness accounts alone aren’t sufficient evidence because all we see is that something happened – we see the effect. If the effect isn’t enough, we need to look at the cause. I like Dora’s example of the parting of the red sea: an effect created by a natural force – the wind. One can argue that the wind was simply a force of nature. The other possibility is that the supernatural God controlled the wind (by definition He is above the natural so would be able to control the natural). When we look at the circumstances surrounding the account, the timing – the waters parted just as the Hebrews needed to cross, and then as soon as they were safely across the wind stopped and all the Egyptians were drowned – it’s incredibly unlikely it could have been a coincidence and simply attribute it to natural forces. That’s a whole lot of coincidence! It’s much more supportive of a supernatural force as the cause. (BTW, archaeologists have found chariot wheels and human and horse bones in the <ST1:pRed Sea</ST1:p. This is supportive evidence of the Biblical account).
<O:p</O:p
Evo, I’m not sure which window you’re referring to as there have been several. Yes the cause of the phenomenon was natural – water seeping between the panes of glass. But that doesn’t explain the effect – the window in <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

Clearwater</st1:City>, <st1:State w:st="on">FL</st1:State></ST1:p looked amazingly like other images of the Virgin Mary.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Evo, I’m not sure which window you’re referring to as there have been several. Yes the cause of the phenomenon was natural – water seeping between the panes of glass. But that doesn’t explain the effect – the window in <st1>:p<st1:city w:st=" border=" 0="" alt="">Clearwater</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">FL</st1:state></st1>:p looked amazingly like other images of the Virgin Mary.

I don't recall the precise location of it, but Clearwater,Fl sounds like the right place.

And it was due to the sprinkler system I believe. It happened all over the building because of it, but there was one that looked more so like a recognizable shape than the rest.

People naturally pick out faces and humanoid figures. We can see it everywhere. I can see it on the stucco of my roof too. Because we have this ability, we tend to see things as signs more so than simple biology.

The face on mars was released to the public by nasa as a joke, but people took it and expanded it into an idea more than what it was, which was simple coincident.

if you take a look at it without shadows, it's just another mountain.

 

[darrell]

View attachment 1769
A very famous image of the Virgin Mary.
View attachment 1768
Building in Clearwater, Florida. Twelve seperate panes of glass were involved. The effect was caused by water leaking between the panes. It could be just a coincidence that water ran behind these 12 panes in such a way that they formed an image similar enough that our human mind recognizes it as familiar. Or it could have been supernaturally influenced. Either is a reasonable possibility.

 

[jasoncran]

hardwater, florida , yup that makes sense

 

[Evointrinsic]

no, it's not that both are reasonably possible. One has evidence that it was indeed from sprinklers and chemical reactions, the other is speculation.

The same event can be related to Elvis sightings on various inanimate objects too.

People see what they want to see. Is it coincidence that there's a potato chip out there that just so happens to look like elvis? or is it a sign that elvis is trying to reach out to his fans from the afterlife through junk food?