I know a number of people who imagine the supernstural as 'possible'. Others think they have experienced it. However it is a known fact that not a single individual has openly demonstrated anything with any conection to the supernatural
That depends on a lot of things. First, the individual's definition of 'supernatural'. After all with the constant advancement of scientific and meta-physics/quantum physics, the line is ever shifting. Not to mention individual preference for where they draw the line themselves.
it also depends on what evidence one is willing to accept when presented. Like any conversation it takes two perspectives. the perspective of the one giving evidence, and the perspective of the one receiving the evidence. As an easy example, fundamental/hardcore Creationists. You can display every piece of physical, quantified, scientific evidence there is as evidence of evolution/natural earth development and they will choose to reject those proofs without consideration because in their perspective, the proofs are invalid false and fabricated.
If someone questioning the supernatural is unable to account for alternate perspective and logical chains of ideas, then there will never be an accord. And of course the same holds true when the believer also refuses to recognize the logic evidence and assumptions of the skeptic. In the end, if either party is going to gain anything from the conversation, then both must be equally open to entertaining the ideas of the other. That whole agree to disagree thing. If you can not follow a conversation with that attitude from the outset, then neither participant will learn anything new.
By way of example, to offer a counter point to your claim there is no evidence of supernatural evidence, in historical documents and even modern science there are numerous cases written and accounted through credible sources of miracles, spontaneous healings, unusual events, spontaneous remissions, and the power of the placebo effect (IE healing through belief they are being healed alone). However I can cite any source I want about it, but it is still up to you to investigate those citings and entertain their validity.
As well, for those who like to cite claims of 'burden of proof,' the critical thing to remember is that this burden goes both ways. Once evidence is given, if one wishes to refute the evidence (IE; Claim it as insufficient or erroneous) it must also contain proof as to why.
Actually I practice magick myself. I have been practicing for a long time as well. I was just pointing out an important aspect of the art. People have said you don't have to prove anything to anyone. And science is somewhat a form of magick by the way.
Spirit75 Not all creationists reject the theory of evolution.
Re: Exposing the 'supernatural'. By: Nekoshema / Novice
Post # 6 May 13, 2017
well this is similar to going 'no one's photographed God therefore religion is fake' you can't really force someone to stop believing. i've dealt with spirits my whole life so to me i know they're real. i also know that the majority of 'hauntings' and 'supernatural' occurrences can be explained, so i am a skeptic in that regard. like i'll watch a ghost hunting show and spend half of the episode yelling at the tv what they should do [investigator 'omg what was that noise?!' me 'the house settling?']
Ok fine so I also do consult necromancy at times especially after the passing of my brother and I know it is real though I can't prove it to anyone in any way. But all (or atleast all the ones I've watched) 'ghost hunting' shows are fake anyway.
I can't believe you mentioned those debates. I watch them all the time. Even on YouTube. Epic. It is the kind of staff that pushes the human mind to the limits.
I suppose I adapted to the inability to show or give proof by learning to recognize it as more of an experiential/subjective truth rather than a scientific one. I look at it as a Philosophical discussion so I look for logical explanation and relationships over scientific evidence or proofs.
Of course when I can find scientific theories, phenomena, or physics that draw parallels or lend validity I certainly use those as well. Such parallels can often provide insight through comparison.
As for those debates, some of them are indeed very intriguing. Though I always remember the one person who failed quite badly at presenting his case compared to Bill Nye. My favorite was Nye mentioning that there are trees in this world, living right now, that are older than the 7000 year age of the earth as presented by creationist faith. I think the man just wasn't quite as prepared for the debate as Nye was, because he had no counter at all ready for that sort of a statement.
Very embarrassing when a religious individual thinks that the god of their religion is responsible for creation. Combine that with a literal interpretation of their creation myth and an ignorance on evolution you get a disaster. The creationist should be informed on evolution and focusing the arguments on first cause. But that's for onother thread.
Agreed. Back on to the topic of the supernatural. ^_^
I am wondering if some sort of consensus can be agreed to for what would define something -as- supernatural to begin with. For example, for purposes of the discussion, is it defined as any phenomena that occurs without/outside of normal scientific explanation?
That is usually the definition I use, and is probably the crux to the situation in my opinion. As it becomes by definition something rendered outside of the ability to use science to explain it. At least in my current level of scientific understanding. Quantum physics, probability, and such is a little outside my scope of understanding so I imagine there is a slim possibility proofs and evidence may exist in that field. But I am unable to utilize it myself.
Other than that, at least there are documented accounts that can be picked apart. As far as recent events, I think the Indiana demon house is a favorite for interest. I dug up a Huffington post article;
It includes embedded links with key phrases that lets you explore sources and related/previous articles. One of the first ones is to a USA-today article that looks to go into decent depth. Some have those annoying magazine site ads though.