If a supernatural phenomena occurred it would be indistguishable from natural phenomena by the observer, because of ignorance of what exactly supernature, if it exists, is.

I call this-- rather humorously-- Athen's Dictum. I predict this is bound to get someones panties in a bunch.

If its indistinguishable from nature then what is the point?

Okay, so Sylvia Brown really does have psychic powers but they are indistinguishable from cold reading. Which begs the question, what does it matter if she has psychic powers if they are so worthless that anyone could mimic her power with cold reading?

Put it another way, if I offered you super-strength that was limited to the natural human range of strength, would you buy it?

If so, have I got a deal for you!

I think the point is that even if supernature exists it would just be phenomena in nature that is unexplored or has not been examined. It is like MIchael Shermer's Last Law. An E.T. Would be indistinguishable from a god, especially if said E.T. Could create worlds. The same applies. Humans are ignorant of a vast majority of things that occur in the universe, especially on earth. But, since you seem to think your own intellect in vastly superior than others or you have insight into the great unknown that we do not, then by all means do explain to us these mysteries. Also, using psychic powers as an example does not hurt the above dictum. Why? Psychic powers can be shown to be fake. Supernature or unknown phenomena taken to be super nature could exist. You are using man made examples of what super nature is and that is your mistake. Forgive me but IAm not sure of the fallacy. Is it compositional or is it a category mistake?

Stop.

My first point addressed the indistinguishably of Supernatural Phenomenon from Natural Phenomenon. Which is exactly what he said, I don't know where you got this idea that he meant that it is indistinguishable from the "Unknown".

In which case, Science accepts that Supernatural Phenomenon could exist, many Atheists including myself agree that it is possible. The point is there is no evidence, so I'm sorry if you think I'm being an elitist prick or mentally masturbating.

We do not ascribe Supernatural Phenomenon to the Unknown, even tho we admit it is possible there must be evidence to support that jump.

Well, I don't know if your an elitist or a masturbator, I will concede you are a prick. Just kidding Matt. I think if we think of the book Flatland, it might actually make sense. We need to stretch the imagination. I think it is a good point.

How is it a good point? As I said in my first point so what? Its another non-argument because it tries to justify that the Supernatural doesn't need to meet its burden of proof.

I am sure you realize the grammatical mistake you made. It is an honest mistake. I think this is a very interesting idea you have posted. It is definitely original. Although, it does seem similar to Shermer's Last Law. I think you are right Athen in assuming that, if supernature existed, then we would not be able to consider it supernatural, because no one knows what supernature or supernatural phenomena--besides the stuff religionists claim as such-- is exactly. If we ever came across some supernature we would consider it unknown nature. You know there will be others denigrated your post, so I figured I would post something reassuring. I find it interesting how so many people can be proud of coming to the same conclusions as many before them. I read this message board often and I just shake my head at what I can only describe as the Lake Wobegon effect.

I think Athen's Dictum is interesting. Although, I think supernatural phenomena could be considered natural phenomena not yet known to exist. Supernature is of human invention.

Well supernatural can't really exist by definition wouldn't it?

If it occurs/exists in nature, it will be part of natural phenomena. Whether we think its possible or not.. or whatever idea of natural we have is irrelevant.

So if supernatural exists. It isn't supernatural, but natural. If it doesn't exist, it remains supernatural, but is irrelevant discussing pertaining to reality.

You are right. A thing cannot exist by definition alone. But, if something exists in an unknown dimension that we are ignorant of and it crosses over into our dimension and by chance we observe it, it might be considered supernatural. This thing could be a being that is natural but because it is so unlike anything we have experienced it would be indistinguishable from the supernatural until we get the answers to solve the problem. I think this is possible, considering current research in physics. Look at the research by theoretical physicist Lisa Randall.

I don't think you understood my post at all.

It doesn't matter if some 'thing' can come from another dimension or not. And it doesn't matter if we don't have explanation for it. If it interacts with our universe, it can't be supernatural. You can't violate the natural law of the universe, since the natural law is description of what's happening in this universe.

Say for instance, we found an object that defies gravity. It isn't supernatural because it exists. It breaks our current understanding of law of gravity, sure, but that will have to be redefined because now that doesn't describe our universe anymore.

If you're claiming that this thing... can cross universes and is supernatural because it can break our natural law in another universe... (for instance this thing will obey gravity, but float around and defy gravity in another universe) that's somewhat interesting, but again it has no real merit for discussing what goes on here, in our universe. Besides, it's still not supernatural in its own universe, since that's how that universe behaves. Where our natural law doesn't apply.

Supernatural is only worth talking about in world of warcraft.

Joke, you merely assume without any evidence that the physical laws cannot be violated. How much do you actually know about those laws and the universe to make that claim. The point is, think, that if new phenomena were to be observed it could be supernatural but mistaken for nature. It is hypothetical. No one is claiming it exists. So, get your panties out of a bind. By all means if you have some info on the cosmos that we do not have then please share. Do not put yourself into a position where you sound just as ridiculous as the religionists.

I don't ASSUME. The definition of physical law STATES it cannot be violated. That's why I don't need to know more about you about the universe to make that claim.

I know that no one is claiming that supernatural exists, its still a dumb hypothetical. My point is that if it exists, not just can it be mistaken for natural, but it IS natural. Because its existence rules out that it can be supernatural.

So read my earlier post. Everything you addressed I've already answered... TWICE.

You assume it cannot act with in the universe. You have no way in knowing otherwise. I doubt you have a firm grasp on what is permissible in the universe, considering you only know what scientists explain to you. Why do you claim to know or understand things that you assume must be true?

I didn't say it can't act with in our universe. My reply was based on 'even if it did act in our universe', so you misread my reply.

Hello everyone, I have been reading the posts and I think people are taking this way too seriously. I am not claiming supernature exists. I am an agnostic atheist, so that is my position. What I am trying to say is that our knowledge and understanding of the universe is limited. People get to hung up on the traditional meaning or examples of supernature. First, supernature, if it exists would only be the cause of unknown phenomena that is manifested in the physical world. Supernature, if it exists could exist apart from nature unless it is contingent some how. But I doubt that. The supernature caused physical phenomena would be seen as nature and not supernature. This is only hypothetical and not to be taken as an actual claim. If there is fault with it then so be it. By all means come up with your idea but do not dog me because you like to play it safe and use knowledge gained by others to make yourself seem intelligent.

I defined supernatural as something that violates our physical law. You define supernatural as a phenomena caused by unknown source.

Your definition of supernatural suffers from the same pointlessness of deist's "god is nature" or "god is love".

To which, my reply is "so what". And I guess our discussion ends here.

Joec, you need to go get an education. Your replies do not make any sense regarding what is being discussed. You seem to have a cognitive bias that keeps you from thinking outside your nice little and narrow box.

you clearly lack reading comprehension.

And I'm not pulling this insult out of my ass like you, since you've already demonstrated before that you suck at it.

Athen Allen Lee said, "If a supernatural phenomena occurred it would be indistguishable from natural phenomena by the observer, because of ignorance of what exactly supernature, if it exists, is.

I call this-- rather humorously-- Athen's Dictum. I predict this is bound to get someones panties in a bunch."

Why don't call it senseless? What got my panties in a bunch was the fact that you should have written "someone's panties" and you misspelled "indistinguishable" while making condescending remarks.

Cause and effect is the most common method of finding the explanation of an event. It entails finding something that caused it. However, there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to the branch of science called quantum physics. These are effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally. Not only can we distinguish something that has a cause from supernatural, but also has any supernatural event been 'proven' or observed? No!

A. C. Brayling said, " Supernature or unknown phenomena taken to be super nature could exist. You are using man made examples of what super nature is and that is your mistake. Forgive me but IAm not sure of the fallacy. Is it compositional or is it a category mistake?"

Supernature is authoritative pseudoscience in every sense of the word. It falsely presents the appearance of science. The metaphysical validates the supernatural. This is how you convince people that a lie is true. One supernatural report is strengthened by copycat reports. However, if the first report was false they are all false.

We wouldn't be able to distinguish an ET from a God. There is nothing new in that one either; there are religions with that concept, old and new.

Dee Maynard said, "Well, I don't know if your an elitist or a masturbator, I will concede you are a prick. Just kidding Matt. I think if we think of the book Flatland, it might actually make sense. We need to stretch the imagination. I think it is a good point."

Sphereland was written nearly a century after Flatland. It is about explorers proving the world is round, and the theory of higher dimensions. There are scientific theories about dimensions of time and space; none of them require anything supernatural, and the theories are graspable. However, Flatland is still not able to grasp the concepts. Sounds like the flat earth crowd and the anti-evolutionists. However, this has nothing to do with anything supernatural.

No matter what spin anyone tries to put on supernatural bullshit it is not imaginative or intelligent, and it sure is not science. It's like the group consciousness of monkeys reported by Watson in Lifetide. The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon it does not exist.

H. L. Dean said, "You know there will be others denigrated your post, so I figured I would post something reassuring. I find it interesting how so many people can be proud of coming to the same conclusions as many before them. I read this message board often and I just shake my head at what I can only describe as the Lake Wobegon effect."

Dean needs to go back and read the replies on this topic again. The supporters of Athen far outnumber the Matt supporters.

The idea that belief in the supernatural answers questions encourages us not to look for them. Fans of myths ignore plausible explanations to claim that it is supernatural, never mind the fact that this will never be the solution to any problem. Pseudoscientists loathe the scientific method.

There are people who claim that Egyptians could not have built the pyramids because we have not yet figured out how it was done. Extraterrestrials must have built them 'cause humans just don't have the smarts. That's how you ignore explanations. You invent a supernatural power.

Complacency in the face of nonsense simply allows the nonsense to grow. A supernatural explanation is the same as the "God of the gaps" theory. There is a difference in science and fantasy. It's pseudoscience.

Our ignorance of all the little forces inherent in nature itself is a basic part of quantum reality not Supernature. Nature has the capacity for spontaneity. This does not mean that anything supernatural is going on, or that it is beyond comprehension. Some things just happen, but spontaneity does not violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. It is not a supernatural event.