ILovePhilosophy.com

This whole topic is so superficial that anybody really concerned with the truth doesn't really know where to start.

The first question is: have you have got your words right?

Supernatural:
adjective
1. of, relating 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 a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
noun
4. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
5. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
6. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

Which of these definitions are meant?
If 1. there are enough inexplicable events in the world that are there, despite the fact we can't explain them. The fact that the ancients called the influences they couldn't understand daemons should be acknowledged in recognition of their ability to perceive these unseen influences.
If 2. there are far too numerous gods and deities to ignore. They are mostly believed in irrationally because reason doesn't fit. It is too easy to forget that CG Jung told us that mythical narratives guide us, even if we don't interpret dreams, and that it takes training to understand them. The Archetypes of our dreams become the figures in our tribal narratives or Gods in the dramatisation of our dreams.
If 3. well, that is just a play on words.
If 4. we still haven't understood how conscious life, such as we have, came to be out of colliding stars and the material that became the planets. Sophisticated Humans, on the face of it, seem pretty supernatural in comparison with what else nature has provided.
If 5. there is a lot of behaviour of ancient peoples that could be seen to try and attract someone 'up in the sky'. How did they get the idea?
If 6. it has been said by people doing things miraculously (inexplicably) to be a result of the direct influence of a deity. Perhaps someone should prove otherwise. Otherwise my answer to 1. should do.

The next question is what is meant by 'belief' since it is easy to say that I believe that these phenomena exist, whether or not the ancients were able to approach the subject scientifically. The whole of our existence is a mystery, and we haven't even been able to get a widespread knowledge of self, let alone the mysteries of life. Much of our everyday life is ruled by belief.

What is meant by an 'intelligent person'? Is it intelligent to treat everybody as knuckleheads, just because they don't understand what I'm talking about? Perhaps I'm the problem and I should make myself more clear! As far as I am concerned, most of humanity is intelligent, it is just a question of external influences, whether that intelligence was able to thrive. I would even say that only intelligent people can be religious, and perceive the world as it is.

I don't believe that religion is a game - except in the widest sense of the word.

Artimas wrote:I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

Bob wrote:This whole topic is so superficial that anybody really concerned with the truth doesn't really know where to start.

The first question is: have you have got your words right?

If you and I have to debate the meaning of well defined words, then we will not get anywhere.

Discussions and posters who cannot think analogically are doomed to get bogged down in definitions. That is why most philosophers say that the definition of word that might be suspect are done after a general chat.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Artimas wrote:I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

If it cannot be perceived then we could not speak about or of it because there is no experience to speak of. So how can we label something of which we try to talk about of which cannot be talked about?

Artimas wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Artimas wrote:I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

If it cannot be perceived then we could not speak about or of it because there is no experience to speak of. So how can we label something of which we try to talk about of which cannot be talked about?

But we can talk about it because we experience it all the time. There are natural things and there are super natural things.

The things Jules Verne talked about were not natural at that time . They were fiction. Ghosts are not natural yet we talk about them as they were. We create the line which separate natural and super natural things.

Greatest I am wrote:If you and I have to debate the meaning of well defined words, then we will not get anywhere.

Supernatural is not a well defined word, for example. This is a philosophy forum. Part of philosophical discussion is making sure we use words the same way in the specific dialogue.

Supernatural can, for example, mean something about ontology. It is events that, as you say, at one point, cannot be perceived.
But it can also mean, events that some people perceive but that others think they do not.

And people have been wrong before about what some people claimed to perceive. Both thinking they were right and then also thinking they were wrong.

So one can blithely go forward in a discussion using supernatural one way, the first, and thinking one is proving something, while other people mean something else by the term and so the conversation is useless.

Useless. Cross purposes.

To rule out the discussion of the meaning of terms in a philosophy forum is to be confused about where one is.

Discussions and posters who cannot think analogically are doomed to get bogged down in definitions. That is why most philosophers say that the definition of word that might be suspect are done after a general chat.

I doubt most philosophers say that, but then I don't think it is clear what they would mean if they did say that. Which makes me think it is even more unlikely most would say that.

But we can talk about it because we experience it all the time. There are natural things and there are super natural things.

The things Jules Verne talked about were not natural at that time . They were fiction. Ghosts are not natural yet we talk about them as they were. We create the line which separate natural and super natural things.

Can one experience without perceiving?

It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were. If there is no perceiving of it or experiencing through perceiving it then there can be no discussion that holds logical merit. If something was experienced or perceived that seems odd then that is not super natural by the apparent definition that was stated above. Nature and reality is odd, for sure.

Greatest I am wrote:

Bob wrote:This whole topic is so superficial that anybody really concerned with the truth doesn't really know where to start.

The first question is: have you have got your words right?

If you and I have to debate the meaning of well defined words, then we will not get anywhere.

Discussions and posters who cannot think analogically are doomed to get bogged down in definitions. That is why most philosophers say that the definition of word that might be suspect are done after a general chat.

Regards
DL

An easy way out of becoming clear in what we mean. Clarity enhances any discussion rather than getting bogged down. It is sad that your arguments do not allow for experiences that can only be explained by metaphor, allegory, analogy or myth. Many scriptures describe how an experience felt for lack of words. Your whole approach cancels these out without consideration. I know of many people who have had experiences that have guided them in life, but which they cannot explain. Very often it has been life changing.

In addition to this, your use of the word supernatural is so unclear that the question of belief in it cannot be addressed. It is the same when in Britain people are asked whether they believe in Brexit - what does that word entail? What are we talking about?

Bob wrote:In addition to this, your use of the word supernatural is so unclear that the question of belief in it cannot be addressed.

Yes, this is important. Two meanings get mixed together, often - one is that supernatural means stuff that does not follow the laws of the universe, is transcendent. The other is that it is stuff not yet verified through science. The latter of course could be natural. One could believe in wood spirits and psychic phenomena and ghosts and deities, but consider these natural. If one never teases out which of these meanings, you just get people talking past each other. And often the skeptics think they have proven something by saying that you cannot know supernatural things, since they cannot be experienced, since they are transcendent. Which is just sophistry based on framing the issue with one definition of 'supernatural.' Which is precisely what greatest does.

Artima wrote:

Can one experience without perceiving?

It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were.

How are you using the word "perceiving" ~~observing, looking at or perhaps we can even use the term "subjective thinking?

Perhaps a better word to use in your quote instead of perceive in this case is to understand. Some might perceive or see something which to them would be considered to be "supernatural" in nature, as for example, a beautiful light pillar, but at the same time they do not understand that it is a natural phenomenon. Anything which we do not understand or have knowledge of, because this world is so beautifully awesome, can be experienced as having God's or the gods' hand[s] in it.

Perhaps one of the answers to your question is IMAGINATION. Can we, in actuality, perceive God? Yet we discuss what we have no "real" idea of to no end. I may be wrong in this though.

Artimas wrote:Can one experience without perceiving?

It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were.

It was stated by some. IOW if someone says superhatural things cannot be perceived and ghosts are superatural things, then we can rule out ghosts, they are just framing the issue in a random way as if it is a proof. Perhaps ghosts end up in the category supernatual merely because they are not confirmed by science but are perceived by some.

Artimas wrote:

But we can talk about it because we experience it all the time. There are natural things and there are super natural things.

The things Jules Verne talked about were not natural at that time . They were fiction. Ghosts are not natural yet we talk about them as they were. We create the line which separate natural and super natural things.

Can one experience without perceiving?

It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were. If there is no perceiving of it or experiencing through perceiving it then there can be no discussion that holds logical merit. If something was experienced or perceived that seems odd then that is not super natural by the apparent definition that was stated above. Nature and reality is odd, for sure.

The same knife separates the Natural from the Supernatural as that which separates Theism from atheism : faith.
The mytais supernatural events described in the bible can be either ascribed to truthful reporting, or fake observation.

But it can be that both kinds of descriptions are merely different ways of apprehending And understanding of such events.
Remember this one thing in favor of the later, God reveals Himself only to those He deems worthy÷

Meno_ wrote:

Artimas wrote:

But we can talk about it because we experience it all the time. There are natural things and there are super natural things.

The things Jules Verne talked about were not natural at that time . They were fiction. Ghosts are not natural yet we talk about them as they were. We create the line which separate natural and super natural things.

Can one experience without perceiving?

It was stated that supernatural is something we cannot perceive and if it cannot be perceived then I am curious on how it can be discussed as if it were. If there is no perceiving of it or experiencing through perceiving it then there can be no discussion that holds logical merit. If something was experienced or perceived that seems odd then that is not super natural by the apparent definition that was stated above. Nature and reality is odd, for sure.

The same knife separates the Natural from the Supernatural as that which separates Theism from atheism : faith.
The mytais supernatural events described in the bible can be either ascribed to truthful reporting, or fake observation.

But it can be that both kinds of descriptions are merely different ways of apprehending And understanding of such events.
Remember this one thing in favor of the later, God reveals Himself only to those He deems worthy÷

I agree with what you're stating here, I am just confused because it was stated that supernatural is meaning it can't be perceived. So if we can't perceive it then there is no observation that can be made, even in the Bible, at least not by humans at this time or before in terms of evolution/ability.

If it reveals itself and is perceived then it is not supernatural? Is supernatural always growing like wisdom and questions and answers? is it only what we miss to perceive in a present moment or is it forever not able to be perceived?

Artimas wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Artimas wrote:I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

If it cannot be perceived then we could not speak about or of it because there is no experience to speak of. So how can we label something of which we try to talk about of which cannot be talked about?

Say again?????

It made me laugh though to see you trying to come up with an example of that which cannot be perceived or named or even talked about.

He walks up to the mike and says, let's talk about -----------------------------

Regards
DL

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:If you and I have to debate the meaning of well defined words, then we will not get anywhere.

Supernatural is not a well defined word, for example. This is a philosophy forum. Part of philosophical discussion is making sure we use words the same way in the specific dialogue.

Supernatural can, for example, mean something about ontology. It is events that, as you say, at one point, cannot be perceived.
But it can also mean, events that some people perceive but that others think they do not.

And people have been wrong before about what some people claimed to perceive. Both thinking they were right and then also thinking they were wrong.

So one can blithely go forward in a discussion using supernatural one way, the first, and thinking one is proving something, while other people mean something else by the term and so the conversation is useless.

Useless. Cross purposes.

To rule out the discussion of the meaning of terms in a philosophy forum is to be confused about where one is.

Discussions and posters who cannot think analogically are doomed to get bogged down in definitions. That is why most philosophers say that the definition of word that might be suspect are done after a general chat.

I doubt most philosophers say that, but then I don't think it is clear what they would mean if they did say that. Which makes me think it is even more unlikely most would say that.

The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.

Regards
DL

Bob wrote:[ your arguments do not allow for experiences that can only be explained by metaphor, allegory, analogy or myth. Many scriptures describe how an experience felt for lack of words. Your whole approach cancels these out without consideration. I know of many people who have had experiences that have guided them in life, but which they cannot explain. Very often it has been life changing.

In addition to this, your use of the word supernatural is so unclear that the question of belief in it cannot be addressed. It is the same when in Britain people are asked whether they believe in Brexit - what does that word entail? What are we talking about?

Everyone knows it begins with control of ones border.

Here I am, an esoteric ecumenist and naturalist who thrives on analogous thinking and you see me as hindering it.

Think again.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

Depends on what one means by supernatural. It depends on the belief in question and how it formed. Did one acquire the belief simply because someone said it, but one has no experiential or consequential phenomena otherwise? That could certainly be problematic. Though, obviously, intelligent people can have problems or make mistakes or be mislead, so the framing of the thread and this question is unnecessarily insulting and binary (read: confused).

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities. The ancients did not seem to think the supernatural was a reality. https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

The ancients? Some did not think the supernatural - depending still on the definition of that term did not. Many did. I believed I mentioned before that practices can lead to experiences that many people think confirm. IOW if one read this one would think the only way to come to a belief is to listen to/read others, iow to be convinced via language.

I think that those who believe in supernatural entities are being taken advantage of by fraudulent preachers who recognize our propensity of over imagination, which we all have, as shown in the Princess Alice experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

The Alice experiment shows that children can be convinced someone is there who is not. This doesn't cover the various ways people come to believe in supernatural entities - however that term is being defined.

Is belief or faith in the supernatural a worthy idea for us or is it a tool used by lying preachers intent on fleecing sheeple?

This is incorrectly binary, since many people arrive at their beliefs in supernatural entities without the presence of preachers, sometimes despite what the preachers tell them it is ok to notice/experience. It also assumes that the preachers are lying, as rule, rather than that they are genuine believers, which is obviously the case, and, in fact your own arguments indicate that that is likely, since they were once children.

If there is no supernatural god, should we not seek a human leader or spiritual guide instead of idolizing imaginary supernatural gods that are demonstrably less moral than humans?

1) if there is no God it does not automatically follow that one should seek a human leader or spiritual guide.

Greatest I am wrote:The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.

OK, I went to the OP. I don't think the word 'supernatural' has any meaning in the OP.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.

OK, I went to the OP. I don't think the word 'supernatural' has any meaning in the OP.

Karpel Tunnel, So, you are not necessarily saying that the word "supernatural" has no meaning in the OP since obviously it does to GIA and would it not also to others as the focal point of the discussion?

You are just using that statement as a tool perhaps to get back on track?

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:The bottom line is that if you or I do not trust that if either of us gets bogged down in our chat on the main issues of the O.P., due to having strayed to far out of range of our definitions, we will let the other know it.

OK, I went to the OP. I don't think the word 'supernatural' has any meaning in the OP.

Karpel Tunnel, So, you are not necessarily saying that the word "supernatural" has no meaning in the OP since obviously it does to GIA and would it not also to others as the focal point of the discussion?

You are just using that statement as a tool perhaps to get back on track?

I don't think it has a clear meaning or a consistant one. I suppose I might be trying to get things back on track. Or on track. And since the title of the thread implicitly insults anyone who believes in something supernatural, I think it would likely be useful to know what he means. Obviously he includes the idea of deities, but the term usually counts for more.

Greatest I Am wrote:

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

You meant me personally? Do you really see those words as coming out of my mouth?

Apotheosis (from Greek ἀποθέωσις from ἀποθεόω/ἀποθεῶ, apotheoo/apotheo "to deify"; in Latin deificatio "making divine"; also called divinization and deification) is the glorification of a subject to divine level and, most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre.

In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. In art, the term refers to the treatment of any subject (a figure, group, locale, motif, convention or melody) in a particularly grand or exalted manner.

The term "I Am" to me simply means that I have affirmed my existence, along with every part and parcel of my being, which by the way is still in the process of evolving, becoming and coming to know myself. I am, in a sense, always in the process of "growing up". I am sometimes reminded by Life that I have not as yet grown up and perhaps never will be. I am not such a fixed entity.

Why would I prefer to think of myself as a god - or in this case, a goddess. I rather enjoy being a human being.

I believed that your username referred to God but are you saying that you have reached apotheosis?

AD wrote:

Karpel Tunnel, So, you are not necessarily saying that the word "supernatural" has no meaning in the OP since obviously it does to GIA and would it not also to others as the focal point of the discussion?

You are just using that statement as a tool perhaps to get back on track?

KT wrote:

I don't think it has a clear meaning or a consistant one. I suppose I might be trying to get things back on track. Or on track. And since the title of the thread implicitly insults anyone who believes in something supernatural, I think it would likely be useful to know what he means. Obviously he includes the idea of deities, but the term usually counts for more.

As far as the title of the thread goes, I am not so sure that it does necessarily insult someone who does believe in something supernatural. I re-read the title more than a few times and allowed it to simmer in me but I did not perceive it in that way. There is just a question being asked and simply because the word "intelligent" is used it just does not seem like there is ground enough to think of it as an insult. As Jung said, truth needs the concern of many voices.

I think it would likely be useful to know what he means

I may be wrong here but I kind of think that most in here would know what he meant by the word supernatural since he seemed to only speak of deities for the most part. But I agree that he could have been much more specific and included everything in a list that could be perceived as being supernatural or above the natural . He might have extended that to all categories but his mindset is predominately about God or gods.

You yourself like to think way out of the box and pack away a great many things for your trip.

Say again?????

It made me laugh though to see you trying to come up with an example of that which cannot be perceived or named or even talked about.

He walks up to the mike and says, let's talk about

If it cannot be perceived, then it cannot be talked about, the barrier is language via imagery. If there is no imagery then there can be no language to define or paint said imagery or lack of.

Even what appears to be the imagination is still perceiving. And if supernatural can't be perceived then it is not comprehensible and not able to be put into words of language. Hence, no discussion of it.

Artimas wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Artimas wrote:I think we should settle it as perception is the thing that is super-natural or gives appearance of such to other things in observation or thought.

The supernatural, by it's description, cannot be perceived.

If it could and was real, then there could be another layer of supernatural behind it that it would not perceive any better than we perceive ours.

Think matrix and fractal math.

God over god is as old as Gnostic Christianity and Hollywood has used that theme many times.

Regards
DL

If it cannot be perceived then we could not speak about or of it because there is no experience to speak of. So how can we label something of which we try to talk about of which cannot be talked about?

There is nothing that cannot be perceived, even if only analogically, by our minds.

Let me know when you can name such an concept.

Regards
DL

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

Depends on what one means by supernatural. It depends on the belief in question and how it formed. Did one acquire the belief simply because someone said it, but one has no experiential or consequential phenomena otherwise? That could certainly be problematic. Though, obviously, intelligent people can have problems or make mistakes or be mislead, so the framing of the thread and this question is unnecessarily insulting and binary (read: confused).

Nothing that I know of, other than personal renderings or hear say, has ever been produced or provide to show the existence of a supernatural realm or entities. The ancients did not seem to think the supernatural was a reality. https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

The ancients? Some did not think the supernatural - depending still on the definition of that term did not. Many did. I believed I mentioned before that practices can lead to experiences that many people think confirm. IOW if one read this one would think the only way to come to a belief is to listen to/read others, iow to be convinced via language.

I think that those who believe in supernatural entities are being taken advantage of by fraudulent preachers who recognize our propensity of over imagination, which we all have, as shown in the Princess Alice experiments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWx_uVDh4Cw

The Alice experiment shows that children can be convinced someone is there who is not. This doesn't cover the various ways people come to believe in supernatural entities - however that term is being defined.

Is belief or faith in the supernatural a worthy idea for us or is it a tool used by lying preachers intent on fleecing sheeple?

This is incorrectly binary, since many people arrive at their beliefs in supernatural entities without the presence of preachers, sometimes despite what the preachers tell them it is ok to notice/experience. It also assumes that the preachers are lying, as rule, rather than that they are genuine believers, which is obviously the case, and, in fact your own arguments indicate that that is likely, since they were once children.

If there is no supernatural god, should we not seek a human leader or spiritual guide instead of idolizing imaginary supernatural gods that are demonstrably less moral than humans?

1) if there is no God it does not automatically follow that one should seek a human leader or spiritual guide.

Yes it does. We seek the fittest as a part of our ongoing evolution. Our ideal of a person is a person. Our ideal god is a personified something.

It is an obvious fact that the preachers of supernatural gods are liars. Just talk to them and confirm that for yourself.

Regards
DL