Does the Supernatural exist?

It may be something of a semantic argument, but when something is conceived with the specific purpose of explaining everything, you can't argue that something can be beyond it. Even if two parts are somehow disconnected, they still fall under the science bracket. A much more interesting argument would be to consider the question of whether it is possible that there are two, or more, completely distinct aspects of science? I suspect the answer is 'no' but I'd find it a lot harder to be confident of that than I would of the answer to the question of whether anything can not have a scientific explanation.

Conceptually, perhaps not, but in reality, you certainly can - coz intending to do something ain't the same as achieving it.

In what sense? As in untestable hypothesises compared with Popperistic experiment, for example? Those discplines certainly have contrasting aspects to them.

Something i find intriguing about the discipline of science is the scientists themselves. It seems that people with certain 'mindsets' are regularly drawn to science [and are undoubtably further molded by it]. In some ways that may be limiting the potential 'bredth' of understanding that science is capable of attaining. Stuff like that anyway, it intrigues me .

Your confidence that science can, in all practicality, explain everything does strike me as slightly ironic - coz surely there isn't enough evidence to back up such a claim

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

As in if it is possible to start at one point in the scientific field and work through various relevant discoveries etc to every other point. 'This ties in with this which in relevant here, which applies in this case, which...' etc etc. Sort of like that Kevin Bacon game.


I suppose not. And I am positive that it will never explain everything, but I have faith in its potential to, save for a few axioms that ultimately we will have to accept. Perhaps the point of science is to discover these fundamentals that one just has to get used to? Afterall, you can always ask 'why?' and eventually you won't be able to go any further; the same is true in mathematics. However, I doubt very much that ghosts are one of these truths. Religions already have their explanations of everything, which may be why so many people choose to follow them.

I saw a book fly off a shelf seemingly on it's own, and that wasn't a one time deal, it happened a few times, as well as hearing someone upstairs when there was't anyone but myself at home...was definitely not "I sensed a presence." it was more like "oh holy crap, that glass just jumped off the desk!" A little girl had died in the house back in the 1900's, so thats who we thought was doing it.

Heh, huge task

I think science is obviously fractured down 'disciplinary' lines, for a start, but they're increasingly merging - and have influenced each other anyway.

I was kinda taken with this little 'cross-discipline' 'theory of everything' recently...

Here's a taster of the huge mash of issues this guy is tackling, and how he's trying to draw a line through them...

And here's a trippy factoid that he throws in, which kind of feels at home on this thread ...

Jolly good . I think it's only realistic to admit that science isn't a 'cure all', or an 'all seeing eye'.

Ay, faith. That's the spirit

I think the way it tests those boundaries, and reveals them (or changes them) by doing so, is one its greatest assets.

Science certainly delves into doubt in a way which often makes it a 'counter-balance' for religion. I think it's this constant questioning that sometimes drives science-minds into over-stating the facts and discoveries that have been made. But there's no denying what it has achieved. It's worthy of a bit of worship

Fly as in 'hurl itself'? Or fly as in drop off the shelf?

I'd definitely be impressed by the first one

(Was it always the same book incidently?)

yeah, what he said. heh.

in more detail with my own mind working here, i feel there is no way to fixedly define "supernatural" ... because some people mean, "anything yet to be supported by science and absolute fact across the board, like the fact the world is definitely round and that our bodies are made of a large amount of water." others mean, "anything outside of what we know which could be fact eventually but hasn't been verified by science or research across the board."

ie, to claim the world was round was heresy and the concept was "supernatural" to a world convinced by "fact" that the world was flat. eventually this was disproven. so what was deemed "fact" then was actually wrong. where does the supernatural lie in that conundrum and how does it apply to what we're thinking of as "supernatural" today?

ie, we don't believe, generally, in ghosts now. in 20 years, that may change. we don't have proof, generally, in living beings on other planets existing in our time and presence. in 50 years, that may change. we may be only using 10% of our brains now, and in 30 years discover how to use an additional 25% that allows us to discover telikinetic powers, the power to see through things, the power to predict the future, etc. these things seem supernatural now, but may become fact and reality later. we can liken these "abilities" to a person's talent to sing amazingly, dance incredibly, discover new mathematical theories.

and i concur re: the religion vs. supernatural thing. religion IS supernatural. it cannot be proven by absolute fact, and exists only becaues of absolute faith, which is not tangible and measurable.

the same people who dreamed up variations on christianity and other denominations dreamed up the existence of witches. if one is "true," to the groups who follow the faith, why isn't the other?

__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.

Not the same book every time, no, but it did hurl itself off the shelf. If it just fell, I wouldn't say "Oh, My house is haunted," I'd say "wow, what crap shelving."

Heheh

Hmm, that does sound peculiar. Don't know if it means a young ghost girl was having a strop, but still, very peculiar

Oo, didn't see this before...

And others mean the stuff that can't ever be classified by science. It's a stretchy, intangible word

I agree with the whole thrust of this para, but thought i should point out that the '10%' stat is a bit misleading. As i understand it, we're only using certain areas of our brain at any given moment (say, the 'walking, talking, chewing and perusing bits', for example. Immediately shifting into the 'hopping, swearing and glowering bits' after we step in some dog **** ). Overall tho, we seem to use the whole blessed lump. Just not all at once.

That's not to say that we use it to 'full effect' tho. (Intriguing examples abound of how we can get 'further' potentials out of our minds-n-bodies - such as meditation techniques, for example).

So, as you were

Then what it comes down to Sleezy is that you are putting 100 percent of your faith in the idea that a supernatural does not exist without the proof that it does not. Pretty much the same way a Chrisitan is poked fun at for saying they have faith though on the opposite side of the spectrum. Is this what you mean?

His whole post was quite clearly stating that that is precisely not what he meant.

Before i started studying English i did two years of physics, so that will lead me quite fast to a strong NO . However, i can imagine that there are actually things that are unexplainable at this time and which seem supernatural, but i believe if those things are real they're explainable through physics, we're just not there yet. There's still such an enormously long way to go.

__________________
It's just a ride...