Is it possible to prove the existence of supernatural entities? - eviltoast

Let’s say that it’s scientifically proven that ghosts exist. Would they then stop being supernatural and become natural, thus making it impossible to ever have proof of the supernatural?

  • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I think this makes gravity supernatural, we believe it but don’t understand it, it’s above (super) our understaning of nature. I’m not sure if this it what am axiom refers to, building all our theories on an unknown foundation. So I think ghosts could remain supernatural, we know they exsist, but their exitense is above our natural understanding. I mean, if I define supernatual as meaning above nature.

    • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Supernatural means things that are beyond nature (I.e. don’t obey our known understand of nature).

      If ghosts are proven to exist in nature, then they become part of nature, thus are no longer supernatural.

      We might not have a definitive explanation for gravity, but it is definitively within our understanding of nature - we can observe it, test it, and predict its effects far into the future.

      • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Super- means above, like superimposed. Our lack of understanding means we don’t know why it exists. It’s above our understanding, even if we know it exists.

        • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Supermatural IS things beyond our understanding of nature, phenomena that cannot be explained by science.

          If we could scientifically prove ghosts exist, the phenomena associated with them are no longer inexplicable to science, they would no longer beyond our understanding of nature, ergo they’d no longer be supernatural - just natural

          • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’ll compare to the concept of human culture being called superorganic, which is an old cultural anthropology concept which can provide a model for critical thinking. We don’t understand culture, yet we define it, record it, measure it. Hard to predict, I’ll admit. Refering to it as superorganic implies it exists at a higher complexity than we understand. Gravity and many other observational phenomena also exist at a higher compexity than we understand. Thus although you may not like to refer to such things as supernatural, it’s not wrong, it’s an opinion.

            • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Last I was aware, the idea of human culture being “superorganic” referred to the idea of our culture itself acting as an organism above the individuals that compose it, i.e. a superorganism.

              The concept being based on emergent behaviour observed in colony forming insects (I.e. ants, bees, etc.) to act as an apparent single larger organism.

              That isn’t the same as the concept of the supernatural, where it refers to things beyond our understanding of nature.

              Not knowing the exact cause of a natural phenomena doesn’t mean that we don’t understand how it fits into nature - if it exists, then it can be understood, ergo not supernatural.

              It’s not that I don’t like it, it’s that you give such a vague definition as to what qualifies as supernatural that damn near anything you feel like could qualify.

                • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Your source doesn’t specifically say the word “superorganism”, but that is what the idea of the superorganic points to - a higher level superorganism, the same as a bee hive, a termite nest, or an ant colony…

                  It doesn’t refer to any ability/inability to understand culture, which was my main point.

                  Yeah, because they believe in ghosts, they don’t know they’re real…

                  If you can’t definitively, scientifically prove ghosts exist, then there is no way to understand how they work in nature, ergo they’re supernatural. I don’t think it’s that vague…

                  We don’t know the exact cause of life on earth, doesn’t mean all life on Earth (including you) is supernatural.

                  • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Of couse it doesn’t say superorganism, that’s just plain wrong. My source is also any intro anthro textbook. It’s over your head it seems.

    • Worx@lemmynsfw.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Gravity can be scientifically proven to exist though, unlike ghosts (so far, at least). We can do repeatable experiments to show that gravity has a predicable effect time after time, even if we don’t know why or how

      • lemmy689@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Assuming ghosts have been proven to exist, like op stated, but without knowing why, like gravity. Above our understanding of nature, supernatural, given the prefix super- means above.