The Supernatural: Why Believe It?

[Toothlessjoe]

If you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Zoklet), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.


For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration.

However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be logically determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.

Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.

Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that everything supernatural to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for it to make any sense whatsoever. Example: The Israelites enslaved by the Egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect; It was God's Mandate, from outside the material world.

Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies, ghosts, gods and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.

In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Joe! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.



So back to the threads namesake: Why literally believe in the supernatural?


I'm not arguing that moral and/or ethical philosophies can't be taken from such things--we've been writing stories with messages in them for a very long time (I personally like Crime and Punishment and Notes From Underground the best)-- but what reasons do you have for such strong, literal belief?

I understand this may fit another section better or that Greyfox will take offense and scrap it entirely, but what better place to ask this than the forum where the practitioners are!?

[Big Dick Daddy]

Die.

[Daily]

Die.

lol

[ArmsMerchant]

OP makes a few basic assumptions which are fallacious. First of all, nothing is "supernatural". Everything which is --sunsets, kittens, discarnate entities, UFOs, whatever--is part of nature, and hence natural.

And "belief" is not exactly appropriate in this context as it implies blind faith of a sort. Think about breakfast you had--say it was fried eggs--do you "believe" you had fried eggs, or do you "know" it. Those of us who have not blinded ourselves to what might be called --only slightly more accurately-- the "paranormal" do not "believe" anything--we had certain experiences, or we accept the word of others who had such experiences.

Kinda like France. I have never been there, so I cannot personally verify that such a place exists--but I "believe" there is indeed such a place.

I have said it before, I'll say it again--the less you believe and the more you know, the better off you are.

[The Jitterskull]

OP makes a few basic assumptions which are fallacious. First of all, nothing is "supernairual". Everything which is --sunsets, kittens, discarnate entities, UFOs, whatever--is part of nature, and hence natural.

And "belief" is not exactly appropriate in thsi contexm as it implies blind faith of a sort. Thiink about breakfast you had--say it was fried eggs--do you "believe" you had fried eggs, or do you "know" it. Those of us who have not blinded ourselves to what might be called --only slightly more accurately-- the "paranormal" do not "believe" anythning--we had certain experiences, or we accept the word of others who had such experiences.

Kinda like France. I have never been there, so I cannot personally verify that such a place exists--but I "believe" there is indeed such a place.

I have said it before, I'll say it again--the less you believe and the more you know, the better off you are.


Couldn't we say we've been to the other side though between lives? Though we can't remember it (imagine the mass suicide if we did), we have to return somewhere.

[Toothlessjoe]

OP makes a few basic assumptions which are fallacious. First of all, nothing is "supernairual". Everything which is --sunsets, kittens, discarnate entities, UFOs, whatever--is part of nature, and hence natural.

This is exactly what I mean. There is absolutely no proof that these things exist. It's not the job of a sane man to prove they don't because you make the bold claims that they do - the burden of proof is on you. Saying they are a part of nature when nature is synonymous with the word everything is a cop-out.

Using philosophical or spiritual musings is not tangible proof anymore than The NeverEnding Story and its fanclubs are proof for Fantasia being a place. Claiming that we don't have absolute knowledge of the universe or mathematics is also not proof because it doesn't refute nor establish either argument.


So again, why do you (as in those who do) literally believe in this stuff when it cannot be proven in any way, shape or form that is globally accepted in terms of logic?

Kinda like France. I have never been there, so I cannot personally verify that such a place exists--but I "believe" there is indeed such a place.

:facepalm:

Even most fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge) while realists concede that while these things are infallible there is room for human error to be made when using the systems.

You've never seen Obama in person I'm guessing, does this mean there is every chance that he may not be real, greyfox?

By introducing such philosophies to the equation you still don't validate this "supernatural world" (everything may be included under nature, but like stated above, isn't the point. This is a term to group a certain area of "nature") and in essence you just challenge more established axiomatic foundations without proof or merit.

[313]

i believe cuz i can bitch

[The Ressurected]

Nighside Eclipse, Dream of the Iris, and Greyfox are together over salt lake city in a cylindrical steam-filled craft. The craft shape shifts into a giant dildo in the sky, with a rainbow over a pyramid, symbolizing the gay new world order to take over the world by punking people to take their manhood so they can't fight back.

Greyfox is a 150 year old wizard who used to live underground, NE, and DOTI are effeminate looking plieadans, and they are with a reptillian named sananda that controls them, and they are the illuminati's way of controlling the internet.

[0omnidirectional]

Hmm where have I heard this before? :rolleyes:

"discarnate entities"

ehh, it's more of a you had to be there kind of experience.
You know, like DMT.

[Dream of the iris]

*sigh*

TL/DR


Blah blah blah, supernatural stuff is bullshit you all are batshit insane, am I getting it so far?

[Toothlessjoe]

*sigh*

TL/DR


Blah blah blah, supernatural stuff is bullshit you all are batshit insane, am I getting it so far?

No, not at all.

[OJSimpsonIsMyHero]

*sigh*

TL/DR


Blah blah blah, supernatural stuff is bullshit you all are batshit insane, am I getting it so far?

Quit FUCKING PRETENDING YOU ARE NOT AS BAD AS THEM! You homosexual plieadan!

[Dream of the iris]

Ha ha I was just messing :p

Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.

What's outside of logic? To me, it is perfectly logical to think that other dimensions exist and that our bodies simply house consciousness and that we control the mind, not the other way around. It is perfectly logical that other dimensions exist and that beings can infact dwell in those other dimensions. It is entirely logical that ET have and still do visit this Earth and I'd say if you look at the overwhelming evidence to support it, you'd agree.

You just have to raise your boundry of what's logical and what's not logical a notch ;)

[dedraic]

So again, why do you (as in those who do) literally believe in this stuff when it cannot be proven in any way, shape or form that is globally accepted in terms of logic?



Try Youtubing John Chang.

And for the record, I have NEVER had an energetic ritual fail. Twice, initially and years later when my interest resurfaced, I played around a bit just to see what happened. Of course it's all coincidence, but that matters little in the grand scheme of things.

I also believe there's likely a "physical" mechanism behind all of this.

Simply put, I believe because it is a lot more logical to simply accept these forces than to deny them in my experience. Of course, many of the claims I've seen are entirely bullshit and unfounded rambling of thirteen year olds playing God in their head, I'd go so far as to say most are of this quality.

There's a fine line to walk between the occult and sheer madness and delusion, and I really believe you'd have had to walk it to make any sense of most "supernatural" reports.

Or I could be an intelligent schizophrenic, slipping my way into madness through constant playing with mind-altering drugs, occultism, and science. Regardless, it's more a matter of worldview than anything.

[Dream of the iris]

Qi-Gong demo with John Chang. This is the video where he sets some newspaper on fire with his hands :eek:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es

[Eridani]

Qi-Gong demo with John Chang. This is the video where he sets some newspaper on fire with his hands :eek:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es

Thanks for posting that, very impressive.

[Slave of the Beast]

Qi-Gong demo with John Chang. This is the video where he sets some newspaper on fire with his hands :eek:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAB0dbc3Es

The colour of the fire and smoke reminds me of the kind I've seen produced by self-combusting potassium permanganate and glycerine mixtures. In any case these videos of people performing feats in uncontrolled environments really don't amount to much.

Here's me, for example, making a psi-wheel spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDfL1VFzh8c) using nothing but the power of my mind.

*cough*

[Nachismo]

Toothless Joe:

The paradox of cause and effect is solved by taking a unity conciousness perspective on things. I you want to see how this could be true check out some of Herme's writings. Carlos Casteneda's book series shows a unique perspective on the unknown, and dealing practically with it.

Hopefully most people's belief in the "super" natural serves a usefull purpose. It gives them an opportunity to explore an abstract form of technology that others don't realize, and thus gives them an "edge". Your beliefs form the framework of your existence.

[Mr.Happy]

Why would the existence of a supernatural being necessarily be outside the realms of cause and effect?

Such a being would be outside the realms of our current understanding of cause and effect. That's all. Your premise is flawed from the first sentence, bro.

[Syphilis]

Because Fox Mulder does?

[Syphilis]

But seriously, it's stupid to. You shouldn't 'believe' in anything, because that infers thinking that something exists when you have no supporting evidence.

[Mr.Happy]

You shouldn't 'believe' in anything, because that infers thinking that something exists when you have no supporting evidence.

I believe that there is a yellow lighter on my desk.

This belief is completely correct and substantiated by the evidence of my own senses.

You shouldn't have blind faith in anything.

[Toothlessjoe]

Why would the existence of a supernatural being necessarily be outside the realms of cause and effect?

Such a being would be outside the realms of our current understanding of cause and effect. That's all. Your premise is flawed from the first sentence, bro.

Are you saying you believe in flying unicorns, or at least defend their existence?

[Slave of the Beast]

Are you saying you believe in flying unicorns, or at least defend their existence?

Given that the contents of the Universe are largely unknown, the possible existence of such creatures, however unlikely it seems, cannot be discounted.

[Rizzo in a box]

You can not believe the supernatural, you can only be a part of it or witness it. There is nothing there to believe, the supernatural (or super-anything, that which transcends) is not interested in the opinions or theories of human kind at all. It is all a matter of power. Do you have the power to transcend gravity, magnetism, physics, law, your own psychology?

However I must compliment you, your intelligence is fairly exacting in this. Its true, you can not reason beyond cause and effect. Reason and logic are, thank god, not the sole rulers of the universe. See: emotions (that which moves us).

The only thing reason can do is reason itself out, unless put to a specific task. However, even putting it to a specific task will not really do anything in the long run because you can't get anything out of life. Even if you construct a perfect argument for/against something, so what? It does not change the base-status of reality.

Learn to imagine your life.

[Toothlessjoe]

Given that the contents of the Universe are largely unknown, the possible existence of such creatures, however unlikely it seems, cannot be discounted.

The possibilty that a dragon will fly out of my ass cannot be discounted either, but I'll bet you £50 it won't happen.

[Mr.Happy]

Are you saying you believe in flying unicorns, or at least defend their existence?

No (although I would defend the possibility of their existence). But a flying unicorn would in no way exist outside the law of cause and effect. In fact, if it or any other supernatural being were to actually exist, it would by definition exist without violating the law of cause and effect.

Example. If God were to exist, his mandate would be within the law of cause and effect. God's Will is that, say, he creates himself a delicious bowl of strawberries, seemingly from nowhere. His Will is the cause; the strawberries the effect. This would not necessarily violate any natural laws; it would just be impossible for us to explain given our current understanding of those laws.

Given that the workings of God are practically always postulated as being beyond human understanding anyway, this fits rather neatly.

[Toothlessjoe]

Given that the workings of God are practically always postulated as being beyond human understanding anyway, this fits rather neatly.

Yes, it's rather convenient, isn't it....

[Slave of the Beast]

Given that the contents of the Universe are largely unknown, the possible existence of such creatures, however unlikely it seems, cannot be discounted.

The possibilty that a dragon will fly out of my ass cannot be discounted either, but I'll bet you £50 it won't happen.

By comparing your rectal cavity to the vastness of space, Toothless, I can only assume that you've been engaging in some deeply unnatural practices.

[Mr.Happy]

Yes, it's rather convenient, isn't it....

I'm not defending the existence of God here; you know I'm not a believer. I'm pointing out that this 'violation of cause and effect' argument you've got going on here is nigh-on nonsensical.

EDIT: True, though; the 'beyond human understanding' has been infuriating rational, combative disbelievers for about two thousand years.

[Toothlessjoe]

I'm not defending the existence of God here; you know I'm not a believer. I'm pointing out that this 'violation of cause and effect' argument you've got going on here is nigh-on nonsensical.

It's nonsensical to soley trust in the thusfar proven system of cause and effect?

[Nero]

Wait, wait, wait. There's something I really don't understand.

Some things are determined by cause and effect, right? Like the the gear analogy. But why does that mean everything is? Why does it have to be a law?

I'm really not challenging you, my brain just can't hold it together. :)

[Rizzo in a box]

It's nonsensical to soley trust in the thusfar proven system of cause and effect?

As far as I know, Newtonian physics hasn't brought comfort to anyone, nor has it enriched their lives or given them insight into the depth of their beings. Sure, it gave us cool things like atomic bombs and microwaves but, hey...

I mean, it doesn't get more cause-and-effecty than "what goes up, must come down"

Whereas a Taoist or someone might say, "there is no down, no up, nothing moves, nothing rests."

It's all nonsensical, but it's to cause a shift in perspective.

[Mr.Happy]

It's nonsensical to soley trust in the thusfar proven system of cause and effect?

What?

A supernatural being would not need to exist beyond the laws of cause and effect. To rule out the existence of the supernatural based on what we know is possible and what we believe is impossible is folly; we don't have a complete understanding of what is possible. A thousand years ago, putting things in a box with no heat source and having them cook without any warmth would be considered supernatural; you'd probably be burnt at the stake for it. Carrying around a little box that can make the sound of an entire orchestra appear from thin air would be considered supernatural; you'd be lucky to get away without being stoned to death.

Now, the existence of a being who can manipulate matter at will is considered supernatural; if you could do such a thing, you'd... well, you'd probably become a celebrity. At least we live in more forgiving times.

But you cannot possibly claim that a hypothetical supernatural being cannot exist, or do what it is claimed to be capable of, until we know everything that is possible and impossible in our universe with absolute certainty, and if that hypothesized being is said to be able to do something which is impossible. Otherwise, it would be possible for it to cause whichever effects it likes. We cannot prove that a being with God's abilities is not a logical possibility.

...and by the time we reach that point, a civilization as developed as we are now would probably consider us Gods.

EDIT: As I see it, everything that is within the universe is governed by cause and effect. It's not even a law, it just... is. It's a property of a universe. Something that happens must have a reason to happen, and something that happens may cause other things to happen. The only thing which this may not apply to is the structure of the universe at the quantum level, but obviously that violation of C&E doesn't cause any problems with it once you get beyond that.

[Rizzo in a box]

...and by the time we reach that point, a civilization as developed as we are now would probably consider us Gods.

http://www.cybertraveltips.com/images/Ancient-Egypt-Pyramids.jpg

heheh. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1-40kZy33A)

[Akagi]

For a better argument of what the OP is trying to say, check out this critical thinking essay wrote by a late friend of mine:

Refuting Unfalsifiable Claims with Superior, Incompatible Explanations (http://web.archive.org/web/20071004230135/winace.andkon.com/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm)


So, how do we deal with heretofore unknown, but suspicious and possibly false claims? The answer is that a fine line between naiveté and dogmatism must be walked by every critical thinker. On the one hand, sheer insanity awaits if we remain undecided on every bizarre yet conveniently unfalsifiable claim we come across:

- Leprechauns? Well, they might exist, so it would be sheer folly not to follow a rainbow for a free chance at $$$.
- Garden demons? You better not go outside in the dark, just in case.
- Deities that desire your attention and will roast you on a paranormal spit rack if you don't give them any? Well, it couldn't hurt to burn a goat in their favor once in awhile.
- Ghosts that might spontaneously combust your innards if you get up at any time evenly divisible by 2 minutes? Well, no one can prove those false, so let's keep an open mind... and take painstaking care not to go to the restroom at the wrong moment.

On the other hand, some claims that ran counter to initial expectations and common sense have, indeed, been borne out. Assuming something is logically possible, meaning it isn't internally contradictory, where does one draw the line to declare it a likely fiction and, more importantly, false until shown otherwise?


It's a good read.

In the rest of this essay, I will discuss just that: a set of methods that, together, is arguably the most potent and feared bane of paranormalists, conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists, religious leaders, and other proponents of refutation-proof claims. That methodology being the subject of this article, appeal to superior yet mutually exclusive explanations.

This tool is perhaps the most valuable in the skeptic's entire arsenal. Coupled with the available data and a reasonably effective 'baloney detector', it allows one to mount an unexpectedly powerful, frontal attack on claims ordinarily unfalsifiable with contradictory evidence alone.

[Toothlessjoe]

Given the recent attention paranormal has had lately, I'd like to bump this thread not as a jab at the forum, but because I think it's the most appropriate place and I enjoyed reading over it again, and I'd like others to join in.

If you don't think it belongs here, please MOVE it to another forum, not simply close it.

ta.

[Marijuanasaurus]

I am a God

(and you can too)

[Actor]

The observable universe is not the totality of existence. There are higher dimensions and other universes/realities that we cannot perceive.

[Marijuanasaurus]

The observable universe is not the totality of existence. There are higher dimensions and other universes/realities that we cannot perceive.

Toothless Joe is like a puppy dog right now.

He lives eats breathes, and licks your face, and does general puppy stuff, but he has no recognition of higher thinking or higher beings. He just complies to his master, the God who wrote the laws of physics of the dimension he lives in, and he abides.
You see its easy to manage people when you keep them in the dark. I am the shepherd and you are my flock, i lead you wherever it is we need to go, but you do not question where it is or cannot even perceive it.

life is funny like that.

[Sargeras0000]

The observable universe is not the totality of existence. There are higher dimensions and other universes/realities that we cannot perceive.

Your post smacks of ignorance. Specifically, that of the meanings of 'dimension' and 'universe'.

[Actor]

Your post smacks of ignorance. Specifically, that of the meanings of 'dimension' and 'universe'.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2m492q0.jpg

[Sargeras0000]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2m492q0.jpg

I am please to be not understand your posting. Are you make clarify?

[ASinnersPrayer]

Logic like beauty can be solely in the eye of the beholder, honestly what someone else see's as logical others won't...

Besides I believe in what I've seen, skeptics still can't give "logical" answer to some of my experiences.

[Ambient]

Super is a shortening of the word supperior, which may come from the word supreme. Natural comes from the word nature... nature is that which is operating automatically. Hence the "supernatural" is a phenomenon of a superior (supreme) quality that is operating automatically and autonomously. This implies there is an infferior nature. Alternativley this can be "manifest" and "non manifest" energy... alternativly again living and non-living.

For instance then, in terms of microcosm, human being is "supernatural" in context with an ameba which is "infernatural".

[ArmsMerchant]

I am please to be not understand your posting. Are you make clarify?

It means "I am a troll, and I just got infracted."

[Sargeras0000]

Super is a shortening of the word supperior, which may come from the word supreme.

Not quite:

super-
from L. adverb and preposition super "above, over, on the top (of), beyond, besides, in addition to," from PIE base *uper "over" (cf. Skt. upari, Avestan upairi "over, above, beyond," Gk. hyper, O.E. ofer "over," Goth. ufaro "over, across," Gaul. ver-, O.Ir. for), comparative of base *upo "under."

[Clayman]

I believe in the supernatural because I have a chronic fear of the moon and if I don't believe there is some old man in the sky that looks like a gray haired Rob Zombie then I fear that the moon will fall on top of me.

[Rizzo in a box]

I believe in the supernatural because I have a chronic fear of the moon and if I don't believe there is some old man in the sky that looks like a gray haired Rob Zombie then I fear that the moon will fall on top of me.

"Men are food for the moon."

- Gurdijeff

[Sargeras0000]

I believe in the supernatural because I have a chronic fear of the moon and if I don't believe there is some old man in the sky that looks like a gray haired Rob Zombie then I fear that the moon will fall on top of me.

When I was a child, I was terrified of the moon.

[Ambient]

Not quite:

I appreciate you making citation and reference, but you should also use your intelligence. Superrior is a similar word to super... most of the words in the quote above can be applied to both super and superrior, they have similar connotation!

My point was not debunked at all, as far as I can see you clarified it lawl.

[Sargeras0000]

I appreciate you making citation and reference, but you should also use your intelligence. Superrior is a similar word to super... most of the words in the quote above can be applied to both super and superrior, they have similar connotation!

My point was not debunked at all, as far as I can see you clarified it lawl.

It's a similar word, but you got the order wrong. 'Superior' comes from 'super', not the other way around.

[Ambient]

It's a similar word, but you got the order wrong. 'Superior' comes from 'super', not the other way around.

Again, this does seldom to nothing that alters the message of my original post. Quit nit-picking, and address the message or leave it be., please. I prefer meaningful and sincere discussion over your phonetic~semantic games.

[Sargeras0000]

Again, this does seldom to nothing that alters the message of my original post. Quit nit-picking, and address the message or leave it be., please. I prefer meaningful and sincere discussion over your phonetic~semantic games.

The message is wrong:

Super is a shortening of the word supperior, which may come from the word supreme. Natural comes from the word nature... nature is that which is operating automatically. Hence the "supernatural" is a phenomenon of a superior (supreme) quality that is operating automatically and autonomously. This implies there is an infferior nature. Alternativley this can be "manifest" and "non manifest" energy... alternativly again living and non-living.

For instance then, in terms of microcosm, human being is "supernatural" in context with an ameba which is "infernatural".

Nature does not mean 'that which is operating automatically'. It means 'that which exists in the universe'. From this, supernatural means 'that which is beyond the universe'. This implies nothing whatsoever about the ordinality of natural and supernatural phenomena.

[Ambient]

Nature does not mean 'that which is operating automatically'. It means 'that which exists in the universe'. From this, supernatural means 'that which is beyond the universe'. This implies nothing whatsoever about the ordinality of natural and supernatural phenomena.

Now we are just geting into semantics, giving two different meanings for the same word. Nature can mean "that which exists within the universe" but you should note this is not nessacarily in contradiction with "that which is operating automatically", infact I would assighn both definitions to nature... they are not mutually exclusive.

Im not up to date with physics, but im guessing there is controversy about where the universe is bordered and what borders it; and whether infact there is a "border". Well lets say for example at some point in history we thought there was only our solar system. Then some years later we discover there are multiple galaxies... that are "beyond the [current] universe". Just as what lies beyond America (i.e. Canada) share a relativley similar nature, what lies beyond our current understanding of "universal geography" is by and large of a relativley similar nature.

Now I know the common usage or connotation of this word "supernatural" means "superflious too (laws of) ordinary nature" or "noncorporeal". But from what I gather, you have the intelligence (especially seeing as I gave a purport) to gather that I was meaning there is stratification within nature; dynamic nature not static nature. Nature is multifarious, it is not one thing... as I outlined superrior and inferrior nature.

So actually neither of the words for this concept of divinity or spirit or ether or noncorporeal entity (i.e. Elohim/Yaweh/Allah). What you would be looking for is "extranatural" or "externatural"; actually externatural would be it.

What I speak of is something "inter-natural", whereas you speak of something "exter-natural".

I can play your plastic semantic pantomime game aswell mate.

[Sargeras0000]

Now we are just geting into semantics, giving two different meanings for the same word. Nature can mean "that which exists within the universe" but you should note this is not nessacarily in contradiction with "that which is operating automatically", infact I would assighn both definitions to nature... they are not mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive, true, but defining 'natural' as 'that which is operating automatically' goes quite against the accepted connotation as well as most accepted denotations. Furthermore, when speaking in terms of the universe, what wouldn't operate automatically?

Im not up to date with physics, but im guessing there is controversy about where the universe is bordered and what borders it; and whether infact there is a "border". Well lets say for example at some point in history we thought there was only our solar system. Then some years later we discover there are multiple galaxies... that are "beyond the [current] universe". Just as what lies beyond America (i.e. Canada) share a relativley similar nature, what lies beyond our current understanding of "universal geography" is by and large of a relativley similar nature.

There isn't really a controversy. It is generally accepted that the universe has border.

Now I know the common usage or connotation of this word "supernatural" means "superflious too (laws of) ordinary nature" or "noncorporeal". But from what I gather, you have the intelligence (especially seeing as I gave a purport) to gather that I was meaning there is stratification within nature; dynamic nature not static nature. Nature is multifarious, it is not one thing... as I outlined superrior and inferrior nature.

What you mean is rather irrelevant. Attempting to assign stratification to a term which contains it neither in terms of connotation nor in denotation is quite a bit more 'plastic' than my semantic quibbling.

[Ambient]

A)Furthermore, when speaking in terms of the universe, what wouldn't operate automatically?



b)There isn't really a controversy. It is generally accepted that the universe has border.



c)Attempting to assign stratification to a term which contains it neither in terms of connotation nor in denotation is quite a bit more 'plastic' than my semantic quibbling.

A) Thought.

B)It would seem so, though I would be making an educated and unverified guess.

C) Attempting to assighn the term "supernatural" as part of stratified reality; part of.

[Sargeras0000]

Attempting to assighn the term "supernatural" as part of stratified reality; part of.

You are attempting to demonstrate a stratified reality, in support of your definition of 'supernatural', with your definition of 'supernatural'. This is circular.

Why is reality stratified?

EDIT: And thought does operate automatically. It is a result of the neurons in your brain reacting to stimuli.

[Ambient]

You are attempting to demonstrate a stratified reality, in support of your definition of 'supernatural', with your definition of 'supernatural'. This is circular.

Why is reality stratified?

EDIT: And thought does operate automatically. It is a result of the neurons in your brain reacting to stimuli.

Reality is stratified into two fundamental types of entity, these are "living" entity (such as you and I) and "non-living" entity (such as a rock). "Living" entity is of a superrior nature to "non-living" entity, which is of an inferrior nature.

[Sargeras0000]

Reality is stratified into two fundamental types of entity, these are "living" entity (such as you and I) and "non-living" entity (such as a rock). "Living" entity is of a superrior nature to "non-living" entity, which is of an inferrior nature.

Ah. Vitalism.

Do you have any evidence to support this distinction above the many others which may be easily made? Do you have any evidence that "living" nature is superior to "non-living" nature?

[Firemind]

Apparently I missed my ballot, because I don't believe in 'the supernatural' If any thing I understand/believe is supernatural it is the repetition of time/existence.

[slm33d]

Die faggot.
Tj you're a bitch.


The supernatural does exist and I know what tj is on about but he's still a faggot.

[Nolte]

The Supernatural: Why Believe It?

I believe that we are still in the dark ages of science.

There is still much to be explained, and I honestly think that some of it will be explained at some point in my/our lifetime.

I actually look forward to hearing some of the answers.

[Ambient]

I believe that we are still in the dark ages of science.

We are in the dark ages or you are?

Biology maybe, but physics is the most advanced of all of natural science.

If there is any designation of science that is lacking in development or establishment, I would say it is certain social sciences, particularly spiritual science (Anthroposophy).

[Lman1578]

First off. Im not crazy

But ive experienced the paranormal. Spirits/Ghosts.

First time was when i was 16 staying at a family friends house. Started hearing strange noises, things would move, footsteps, doors open, during the night. Everyone was asleep and i had a clear view of the floor above me as it was a split level house and the stairwell was directly in front of me. footsteps began on the floor ontop so directly above, then moved the the floor split above me. These then began to come down the stairs directly in front. Then some medal bar moved beside me and fell on the floor. Waking up my little brother. I became incredibly cold especially at my legs, even though i had full amount of blankets on. I swear i could feel some energy but i was scared to move. I pulled the blanket over my head but then i felt a breath on my face. I calmed myself down and plugged my ears so i couldnt hear these noises. After a while i fell asleep but woke up to the floors creaking above me and the sounds of someone shuffling around. Figuring someone was up and wanting some human interaction i got up to go to the bathroom. No one was there. Its not just a house creaking, these are movements, pressure noises.

Well turns out the house was ndeed haunted and i found out the following day. My sister had nannied there for over a year, and would leave her tv on every night so she couldnt hear these noises. Lots of things happened like they would have cubbards open and the contents fall out. Closets open and items fall out, and in the same day when opening the dishwasher plates flew out and smashed on the floor. It was never violent so they never felt threatened, but they would hear the front door open and someone walk around but nobody. A girl died in the house before they moved in and her room was in the basement, where i slept.

Another incident was when i first moved in to my parents country hobby farm house. The previous owners died and the house was on market for about a year. Anyway when we first moved in, in the basement still were items of the previous owner, and his actual ashes. His daughter would come the following week to collect his items. Anyhow the first night my dogs were petrified of going down stairs, i couldnt even drag them. They arnt fearful dogs just something spooked them. Then i would hear noises and footsteps, but it was an old house so i partially disregarded them. Then a few days later a couple cruisers rolled up to our house. We had no idea what was going on, they said we had repeatedly called 911. No one had. The number apparently came from our fax machine. Then while the cops were there inside our house they told us it was dialing 911 again and the fax machine was off! Weird night. This never happened before or after the daughter collected his belongings it never happened since. Maybe it wasnt paranormal but shit was weird for that week, there was definitely a presence.

Well i believe that spirits exists. I also believe there are demons. The thought of that terrifies me, but i think there is enough evidence to back it up. But if there are demons, then does that mean god exists? I dont know what to think. Ive had other experiences but those were the most prominent.

On a side note i am addicted to the show Supernatural.

[Toothlessjoe]

I feel with the new rules and regulations in place, this old thread deserves a bump because the discussion that can be generated under such provisions will be very interesting.

[Figure-8]

"Men are food for the moon."

- Gurdijeff

What do you think this is in reference to?

I think it might have something to do with the idea of lunacy/insanity, and how the moon represents are large source of this, with it's effect, whether direct or indirect.

I also think it represents something of an essence of conspiracy and darksidedness or shadow quality of man, and how their fears and assumptions can eat them up.

I also thinks it is in reference to the beyond and our connection to nature or the greater good, manifested as the chance behind all of our celestial synchronizations which allow for our life here..

[T.K. Baha]

The paranormal is a product of an overactive imagination and lack of logical reasoning.

[Toothlessjoe]

The paranormal is a product of an overactive imagination and lack of logical reasoning.

I'd probably throw some basic mental health issues in there too and bingo.

[Figure-8]

The paranormal is a product of an overactive imagination and lack of logical reasoning.

The non-paranormal is a product of an under active imagination, and an over exertion of logical reasoning on the nature of the emotional experience, which is fundamentally based upon a different set of laws, than the physical.

I'd probably throw some basic mental health issues in there too and bingo.

Throw in some basic mental health issues in there, and you get rapings, war, killing, chemical additives (cigarette tobacco too!), mcdonalds, racism, self-hate, delusion (killing the self! simple!, not fairies and demons, that's what's obviously lacking, and thus why everyone's thinking they need to kill themselves! Duh!), etc etc.

All very simple if you look at in the proper light, the light of the WHOLE world, rather than just what you feel and experience!

[Toothlessjoe]

The non-paranormal is a product of an under active imagination, and an over exertion of logical reasoning on the nature of the emotional experience, which is fundamentally based upon a different set of laws, than the physical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Are you saying gravity exists because I am or that too many are unimaginative? This hardly seems a problem because gravity governs all kinds of things within and outside this planet that make life possible.

How do you explain rocket ships?

Sometimes I think you were dropped off by a rocket ship.

[Figure-8]

The non-paranormal is a product of an under active imagination, and an over exertion of logical reasoning on the nature of the emotional experience, which is fundamentally based upon a different set of laws, than the physical.

Are you saying gravity exists because I am or that too many are unimaginative?

Would would gravity exist because of this?

In other words, what makes you think that falls into the realm of the "non-paranormal".

For instance, what is the cause of gravity, and can you define where it stems from, and what initially causes it?


This hardly seems a problem because gravity governs all kinds of things within and outside this planet that make life possible.

Now, how does one defeat gravity?


How do you explain rocket ships?

As working with gravity, and against it, at the same time.

Note: It is up to the "guider" of the vehicle" to determine it's "trajectory" and "aim".



Sometimes I think you were dropped off by a rocket ship.

Haven't used them in a looooooooooooooong "time".

XD

[LiquidIce]

Logic like beauty can be solely in the eye of the beholder, honestly what someone else see's as logical others won't...

Besides I believe in what I've seen, skeptics still can't give "logical" answer to some of my experiences.

Wow, this is the most retarded thing I've read this day.

From posting here for some time now and from reading other people's testimonies about their experiences I came to one conclusion - they are just that, experiences. I wonder, however, if I chanced upon one the users of Paranormal in everyday life and somehow ninja-style injected him with some LSD, would he attribute his visions to the Paranormal or would he think "omg, someone drugged me?!"?

Me, being a skeptic, believes that the mind is capable of fooling the senses. Finding patterns is a survival trait, but this also means that we will find patterns where nothing exists. Two dots and a crooked line. :). This would also play nicely with our ability to recognize faces - thus finding faces (ghosts/spirits/etc) is even easier than finding other supernatural phenomena because we are wired to recognize and memorize faces, it's in our genes.

I've had my little share of would-be paranormal experiences such as hallucinations, OOBE, LD, sleep paralysis as well as dabbling in xaos magick and pendulums. However, every one of those things makes better sense when attributed to our own minds and bodies than it does when attributed to the supernatural. Why? First of all, it's the easier explanation. Second, studies have shown that the human mind is very susceptible to illusion.

[Figure-8]

It shows the mind is very capable of creating that illusion as well, which is a power in itself.

[Toothlessjoe]

For instance, what is the cause of gravity, and can you define where it stems from, and what initially causes it?

"Gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects."

:facepalm:

[Figure-8]

I would like you to explain, in your own terms, how you experience the nature of gravity, and how you then apply your knowledge, your explanation, to that very moment.

That way, it reflects on itself, and your actual nature of being, instead of someone else's article. Thanks!


What's more so, is that this is entirely irrelevant in my eye, as I left a specific message for you to catch in my previous post.

[Toothlessjoe]

I don;'t wish to converse with you because you're a fucking moron. All you do is ask for people to describe their experience of something, and how that relates to them, that's not a cohesive counterpoint for anything.

Please, stop de-railing my thread with your babble.

[Figure-8]

Why?

[sepht]

If you believe in the validity of logic and its correlation to the real world (and you better; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to use Zoklet), you absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of a supernatural being or beings. Why? Because the existence of a supernatural being presupposes something outside of the law of cause and effect. And if anything--absolutely anything--lies beyond cause and effect, then cause and effect itself ceases to be a reliable observation.


For instance: suppose you are turning a gear, which is in turn attached to the teeth of another gear. Now obviously, the law of cause and effect will say that such-and-such gear will turn the such-and-such teeth of such-and-such gear when you apply kinetic energy to either of them, provided that they are in a logical configuration.

However, let's consider this: something is outside of the law of cause and effect. Even better, let's consider the popular idea that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent intelligence that lies beyond cause and effect, able to change it at will. If this were the case, then the action and reaction of those gears is no longer predictable. And not only those gears; nothing can be logically determined if anything exists outside of cause and effect. If something exists outside of cause and effect, then cause and effect becomes unreliable; which means, when you boil it down to ones and zeros, that logic itself is entirely unreliable.

Which means that you don't have machines. You don't have computers. You don't have life.

Of course, I'm sure that someone can come in and say: "What if that which lies beyond cause and effect decides not to interrupt the process?" That's all fine and dandy, except that everything supernatural to date depends upon something outside of cause and effect in order for it to make any sense whatsoever. Example: The Israelites enslaved by the Egyptians? It wasn't cause and effect; It was God's Mandate, from outside the material world.

Not only that tiny little fact, however, shows the fault in the "outside of cause and effect" argument. In order to justify such a statement, one must assume supreme knowledge of said supernatural being or beings. In essence, one must assume him/herself to be the supernatural being. Yet this, however much one might wish it into being, cannot possibly be the case. We ourselves are entirely bound by cause and effect in the material world, and if such a supernatural land of fairies, ghosts, gods and gremlins existed, we would never be able to comprehend it. We are bound to the world in which we exist, and that world is very plainly a law of cause and effect. Even if one could presume to know the nature of supernatural beings, he or she now has the burden of proof--for which there is none, nor will there ever be.

In addition, some agnostics may argue: "But Joe! Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't there!" And my response: of course it doesn't mean that, but it does little to change my argument. My argument is that the validity of logic's entirety depends upon cause and effect, and anything beyond cause and effect introduces a variable that can't be predicted or factored into any cohesive argument. I could easily say that some people will be able to read this post, unless ghosts stop them from doing so! Such is the fault inherent in the agnostic argument: by introducing variables outside of logic, the process of logic itself becomes fruitless.



So back to the threads namesake: Why literally believe in the supernatural?


I'm not arguing that moral and/or ethical philosophies can't be taken from such things--we've been writing stories with messages in them for a very long time (I personally like Crime and Punishment and Notes From Underground the best)-- but what reasons do you have for such strong, literal belief?

I understand this may fit another section better or that Greyfox will take offense and scrap it entirely, but what better place to ask this than the forum where the practitioners are!?

If you apply kinetic energy to a wheel, what are the chances of someone coming up behind you and shooting you in the back of the head? The universe is not as simple as cause and effect. There is also an element of random chance, possibly other dimensions converging into this one to make anomalies in logic that seem supernatural.
A while ago people believed that the earth was flat. Now people are certain that the earth is round. Maybe the earth doesn't even exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[ArmsMerchant]

I feel with the new rules and regulations in place, this old thread deserves a bump because I am an annoying, pretentious, and ultimately pathetic attention whore.

Fixed.

[LiquidIce]

There's one thing about experience that bothers me:
It's subjective. It's subjective to the point that a person cannot trust oneself completely. Example: http://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/phantom-third-arm-appears-on-the-chest/ .

What about that ate?

[Figure-8]

It is subjective to the point where you can only trust yourself, or your own illusions, to give way to the truth. How you find that truth is up to you, whether you determine it literally and directly, or ultimately pull it from reality all around you.

[justanotherweirdo]

What's the use of the term supernatural? It probably originates from reinaissance times when people revived scientific knowledge, and belief in god was compartmentalised into an existance beyond nature because god couldn't be observed naturalistically. Am I right? I can understand why god would be relegated to a supernatural existance but why ghosts and angels and psychic phenomena? Isn't it more likely that all that stuff would have a spatio-temporal existance? I don't think anything can be supernatural, because no two things which are truly separate can interact. If there's a supernatural realm or being, it can't have any affect on us, it can't even have any knowledge of us. Wouldn't other multi-verses come pretty close to being supernatural?

[Figure-8]

The use of terms is to define something so that it can be translated into language and given to another, verbally.

When the brain continues thinking these terms are then the actual reality, they have lost connection with reality, and ultimately formed non-connected, false-selves. The selves then communicate using this language that is only relative to the external world, and an abstract way of looking at it at that.

For me, the origin of the term is how one relates to the experience of the supernatural, to what is relative and "natural".

I'm not sure "God" was the original, your view, or others, but it is a very large source of "supernatural" experience and conceptualization yes. Mind-you, conceptualization in the same useless language that is only for communicating what is capable of being communicated and witnessed externally.

I remember reading of something of an earlier time, maybe Rome or something around that, I can't really remember at this hour, but it described how the thought-stream of the people in the day would ultimately come to the conclusion that any information from the subconscious was considered the "voice of god" itself.

This would mean, if a person was in a fight or fire, and saved themselves by reacting instantly, without calculation, in deciding what needed to be done, they attributed this experience to a communion with God.

In this way, ego became, god separated, and began moving through the layers of the mind in to various aspects of the self and nature. In reality, nothing changed, just the perspective of the individuals placement of their self-awareness and understanding.

I truly believe God is the source of knowledge and emotion, and everything will ultimately become emotionally connected with and known, intellectually, at this point, there is no supernatural simply life, no God, simply you and your nature. Yet, there may always be that which we attributed as the "beyond" by claiming and defining "supernatural" and "God".

We just may not always call it, or label it. That may not always be relative to our experience.

God can always be observed naturally, there is nothing beyond about knowing you are aware. Although it may seem interesting, what's really beyond would be not knowing, or not being aware. Although this is complex, because most people today are not aware of much that is going on, yet this is an illusion because they tune into the "world" or what they think it is comprised of, very heavily, researching, following, learning, and reading alike. At this point, they've simply absorbed the illusion that has been laid for them, so now they suffer the illusion of being aware, when they are really not aware. In this way, they know awareness, but they don't know they know it. And they know awareness, but they are truly not aware of it. Thus is the nature of thinking you have defined something, when you have only labeled it, and limited it, and thus ended your ability to learn or finish learning. That's beyond the fact that because everything keeps expanding, experience-wise, you'll probably never stop experiencing more, new "beyond", "Gods", or "supernatural" elements of life, you will likely stop thinking in this manner, though. Such is the nature of an evolutionary leap.

Although you will take what's most important for your 'survival' during the next stage of your existence with you from the current. It would be interesting to try and deduct what this is and then observe and expand on it.

You are correct in that the other multi-verses, are the beginning of the "supernatural" in terms of "other realities" other "dimensions, or other existences. These are the scientific variables that are expressed as a likelihood. This is mind, very simple.

What's beyond that is the experiences that people attribute to the God element, how it correlates with psychic energy and activity (just think of telepathic communing with God), the relationship of ghosts and demons and the experiencers of these elements, to the "God" element, and all in between. You are truly correct when you state no two things which are truly separate can interact. Nothing is separate, and all of these things are reported, often without a sign of connection or meaning, although it's there.

It is spatially-temporally definable, although it may be through you that it finds meaning. Including your subjective experience.