A Philosophical Perspective on the Supernatural

[BadWolfskin]

Three points to ponder about: (bold for emphasis, no yelling intended)

First: Prove me, that you do exist.
Second: Your brain acts 250 milliseconds before you are aware that you want to carry out any action.
Third: What exactly do you perceive when you see something, or hear something?

You may want to read up on solipsism, radical constructivism and for starters on the Allegory of the Cave by Plato. (You might want to get started with the Metaphor of the Sun and the Analogy of the divided Line on which base the Allegory of the Cave needs to be interpreted.)

For your reasoning:

1. Something can not come from nothing.
- Exactly why?

2. I exist.
- See my first point.

3. Therefore, someone must have caused my existence.
- Perhaps it wasn't someone, but something that caused your existence, no?

4. Either I caused my existence or someone else caused my existence.
- Void, if you can't prove that you definitely were created by someone.

5. If I caused my existence, there is a designer; if someone else caused my existence, there is a designer.
- See above.

6. Therefore, there is a designer.
- Fallacy. (Yeah, I'm horribly blunt here, but I simply don't agree on the aforementioned points. )

There are two sentences in your post where I believe you are dead right. (At least the basic idea, there is much more to follow up these assumptions, which I will clarify when I elaborate my three points. I'll wait with this, it is way more rewarding to figure it out for yourself - I know it busted a couple of misconceptions for myself. Note: I don't want to be parenting, just getting excited about everyone who starts to tackle the really important questions^TM.)

"This means I doubt that what I perceive exists outside of myself. That doesn't mean I think or know other things don't exist, it means that I can't know that they do exist."
Really good start. If this genuinely came from your own pondering - kudos, I needed guidance for this.

[Demagog]

I got a phone call while I was reading your post, and apparently I'm needed elsewhere, so I'll respond in full later. I figured I'd give a quick explanation about my choice on using scepticism. Basically I had to write (with a group) a paper to send in to a journal for my philosophy class. Since we defended sceptical doubt (I'll post my paper in another thread if you like), I find taking that standpoint is a better starting place. The sentences you were referring to, I didn't come up with on my own, but they are my own words if that counts for anything :-p

[BadWolfskin]

It does! Own words normally mark that you understood something so good that you can reproduce the idea without the need of someone else. So - Yeah.

About that paper: I'd love to read it. The more you know the better you understand, they say. 

[Demagog]

I posted the essay in the main off-topic section.

Now to see if I can answer your questions...

1. Something can not come from nothing.
- Exactly why?

2. I exist.
- See my first point.

3. Therefore, someone must have caused my existence.
- Perhaps it wasn't someone, but something that caused your existence, no?

4. Either I caused my existence or someone else caused my existence.
- Void, if you can't prove that you definitely were created by someone.

5. If I caused my existence, there is a designer; if someone else caused my existence, there is a designer.
- See above.

6. Therefore, there is a designer.

1. I took that from a debate I saw between two theists and two atheists. It was one of the few things they agreed on, so I wanted to start there with whatever I could come up with. Basically, it's due to our current knowledge regarding cause and effect, specifically things such as the law of conservation of mass/energy. I am completely aware that "something can not come from nothing" is not provable with what we currently know, but everything we know does point in that direction (or I'm pretty sure it does anyway). Actually I don't think "something can not come from nothing" is compatible with scepticism, since the something(s) the statement applies to are things that you doubt exist.

2. I can't prove to you that I exist. If I could then I wouldn't be taking a sceptical stance. I can prove to myself that I exist (I think, therefore I am). I don't understand what you are getting at when you say the brain acts 250 milliseconds before you are aware you want to do something. Is there a question there? To answer your last question, I guess I'll explain my sceptical hypothesis. Descartes wrote that the only thing he can know for certain is that his mind exists. If this is accepted as true (but applied to oneself), one possibility is that the world is created by the mind (sort of like idealism). Since one can't make something happen just by thinking it, there must be two minds one possesses. One mind creates the world you see and we have no control over it, while the other (the conscious mind) perceives the illusions created by the first mind. If you need me to go into more detail I guess I could, but I think I explained it clearly enough. And I realize this hypothesis could be wrong, and that there are many other sceptical hypotheses out there, but I'd say each are equally probable, and there isn't really anyway to disprove or prove one.

3. When I originally wrote the stuff we are talking about, I wrote "something." I decided to change it though since my first proposition said "something can not come from nothing." If I said something could have caused my existence, I would have to explain where that something came from (and I applied that to my thoughts when I was looking for where I could be wrong, just in regards to myself and "someone"), thereby creating an entirely new problem and getting nowhere.

I think the other things you referred to are covered above.

And just so we're clear, I don't think my proposition is true; it was meant as a starting place for the topic, and I made it up as I went along.

[sahtar]

Demagog, are you sure that the supernatural can be found in a logical way? Why?
Supernatural, god or even infinity are all incomprihensible, and such, can they be accessed logically? Can anything be said about them for sure, at all? Furthermore, if the existence of a being is logical, does it mean that it necessarily exists?...

But if we elaborate/follow your way of deduction:
- nothing must come out of nothing,
- something must come out of/cause something,
- some entity/es exist/s,
- so some entity/es must exist infinitely, because the first three rules only allows existencte.

This logic does not say that there must be a first designer. What it says is that there must be infinite existence.
It can simply be the matter, which the world consists of, creating it's own rules through interactions. And since definite divine intervention doesn't happen very often, to put it in a euphemistic way, isn't it more logical to assume this? So, if we use your logic in this scheme, your parents caused your existence, theirs were caused by theirs, and so on, in the infinite interactions of things. Infinite designers.

Let's go further. I said, "something must come out of/cause something". Can the designer/supernatural/god be something, as I mean it? I mean, the something I know, which causes something, is limited. That's why I can refer to it, and that's why it can cause another(!) something. Can the designer be limited? If yes, can it be designed by another designer, etc? Infinite designers 2. We are in the dark here, no necessities. If no, it defies understanding and logic. So it's utterly useless to talk about the designer/supernatural/god logically.

[BadWolfskin]

I posted the essay in the main off-topic section.

Thanks for the essay!

Now to see if I can answer your questions...
1. I took that from a debate I saw between two theists and two atheists. It was one of the few things they agreed on, so I wanted to start there with whatever I could come up with. Basically, it's due to our current knowledge regarding cause and effect, specifically things such as the law of conservation of mass/energy. I am completely aware that "something can not come from nothing" is not provable with what we currently know, but everything we know does point in that direction (or I'm pretty sure it does anyway). Actually I don't think "something can not come from nothing" is compatible with scepticism, since the something(s) the statement applies to are things that you doubt exist.

Ok, let's stick to that one then.

2. I can't prove to you that I exist. If I could then I wouldn't be taking a sceptical stance. I can prove to myself that I exist (I think, therefore I am).

To elaborate this: I was pretty sure you knew you can't prove your existence to anybody else. But this fact alone is the base for another sceptical theory: solipsism. Which is why I suggested to read up on it. What Descartes wrote aims in this direction.
But for me (especially to accept this as the next logical step) this isn't enough. If you can only find truth in the existence of your own mind - you wouldn't even need to argue with me. You even wouldn't need to utter a theory - because just you were there. But solipsism ultimately leads to madness, at least that's my opinion. But as I am no fan of any designer/god/entity, I could accept and follow you on the abstract level - but I won't. I believe strongly that any kind of thought in this direction is dangerous. It leads to the assumption that someone else is ultimately responsible.

I don't understand what you are getting at when you say the brain acts 250 milliseconds before you are aware you want to do something. Is there a question there?

Well, yes there is a question. It goes: If your brain does this even before you become aware of it - do you have a free will? ("this" translates to: neurons fire to move the arm, but 250 ms before you even become aware of the fact that you want to move it.)

To answer your last question, I guess I'll explain my sceptical hypothesis. Descartes wrote that the only thing he can know for certain is that his mind exists. If this is accepted as true (but applied to oneself), one possibility is that the world is created by the mind (sort of like idealism). Since one can't make something happen just by thinking it, there must be two minds one possesses. One mind creates the world you see and we have no control over it, while the other (the conscious mind) perceives the illusions created by the first mind. If you need me to go into more detail I guess I could, but I think I explained it clearly enough. And I realize this hypothesis could be wrong, and that there are many other sceptical hypotheses out there, but I'd say each are equally probable, and there isn't really anyway to disprove or prove one.

True - to prove any of them is more than just difficult. But that is why I offered another theory. To me it is the most important revelation about ourselves. It was developed by different people, but stems from psychology. It is called Radical Constructivism (attention here: there are different constructivist theories out there, this is the one I am referring to) and aims to explain how we human beings perceive reality and what exactly our interaction is all about. I`ve read stuff from Ferdinand de Saussure (linguistics) and even his widely acknowledged system-theory of speech fits in perfectly. Same goes for the work about Intersubjectivity by Jessica Benjamin. I do believe that Radical Constructivism doesn't need to be proven - it is actually pretty logical. There is criticism to it, but as far as I am concerned there is still work to be done on that theory. 

3. When I originally wrote the stuff we are talking about, I wrote "something." I decided to change it though since my first proposition said "something can not come from nothing." If I said something could have caused my existence, I would have to explain where that something came from (and I applied that to my thoughts when I was looking for where I could be wrong, just in regards to myself and "someone"), thereby creating an entirely new problem and getting nowhere.

Check, this explains it, thank you. So "something2" would be right.

I think the other things you referred to are covered above.

And just so we're clear, I don't think my proposition is true; it was meant as a starting place for the topic, and I made it up as I went along.

Okay, I get that. In return: I don't just want to criticise, but I want to exchange. I strongly believe that this is the only way to expand knowledge besides of loooong observations and extrapolations. But the latter is something we all (should) do by default from the time of consciousness on.

You may have noticed that I use the word believe often. This is no coincidence. I have studied psychology and now am studying German and English. (Myself being German)
I was raised sort of Christian. (church seldom, but being baptised) I don't believe in god or a creator. As explained above I deem religions to be highly dangerous. (And no, thanks, I am old enough to not discuss this with people who want to save me - just in case)
But I am keenly aware of the fact that human beings do need to believe in something. Theories can only ever be theories (explanation: I consider myself to be radical constructivist) - you need to decide for yourself what to believe. Human being can only be subjective, there is no way for us to truly be objective.
Therefore, I say I believe in something - it is just no belief.

[Demagog]

Demagog, are you sure that the supernatural can be found in a logical way? Why?
Supernatural, god or even infinity are all incomprihensible, and such, can they be accessed logically? Can anything be said about them for sure, at all? Furthermore, if the existence of a being is logical, does it mean that it necessarily exists?...

But if we elaborate/follow your way of deduction:
- nothing must come out of nothing,
- something must come out of/cause something,
- some entity/es exist/s,
- so some entity/es must exist infinitely, because the first three rules only allows existencte.

This logic does not say that there must be a first designer. What it says is that there must be infinite existence.
It can simply be the matter, which the world consists of, creating it's own rules through interactions. And since definite divine intervention doesn't happen very often, to put it in a euphemistic way, isn't it more logical to assume this? So, if we use your logic in this scheme, your parents caused your existence, theirs were caused by theirs, and so on, in the infinite interactions of things. Infinite designers.

Let's go further. I said, "something must come out of/cause something". Can the designer/supernatural/god be something, as I mean it? I mean, the something I know, which causes something, is limited. That's why I can refer to it, and that's why it can cause another(!) something. Can the designer be limited? If yes, can it be designed by another designer, etc? Infinite designers 2. We are in the dark here, no necessities. If no, it defies understanding and logic. So it's utterly useless to talk about the designer/supernatural/god logically.

Actually I don't think most supernatural things can be found logically. I say most because it's up to perspective on what is supernatural. But the study of religion and belief is part of philosophy, so why not?

If you can only find truth in the existence of your own mind - you wouldn't even need to argue with me. You even wouldn't need to utter a theory - because just you were there.

I didn't read up on solipsism, but I was going to say just that in my answer. I decided not to since I didn't think it was necessary.

Well, yes there is a question. It goes: If your brain does this even before you become aware of it - do you have a free will? ("this" translates to: neurons fire to move the arm, but 250 ms before you even become aware of the fact that you want to move it.)

I'm not sure if you are being specific enough. Does this happen all the time? Or does it happen only when reflexes are involved? If it's the former I think we'd also have to consider conditioning. Those who practice martial arts do the same movements hundreds of times a day so that they will be able to react without thinking. Isn't it possible that the people that were studied in the thing you are talking about had some type of conditioning already programmed in?

Okay, I get that. In return: I don't just want to criticise, but I want to exchange. I strongly believe that this is the only way to expand knowledge besides of loooong observations and extrapolations. But the latter is something we all (should) do by default from the time of consciousness on.

You may have noticed that I use the word believe often. This is no coincidence. I have studied psychology and now am studying German and English. (Myself being German)
I was raised sort of Christian. (church seldom, but being baptised) I don't believe in god or a creator. As explained above I deem religions to be highly dangerous. (And no, thanks, I am old enough to not discuss this with people who want to save me - just in case)
But I am keenly aware of the fact that human beings do need to believe in something. Theories can only ever be theories (explanation: I consider myself to be radical constructivist) - you need to decide for yourself what to believe. Human being can only be subjective, there is no way for us to truly be objective.
Therefore, I say I believe in something - it is just no belief.

I'm in the same boat as you in your first paragraph.

As for your second, I am Christian, although I never go to church. And I don't really subscribe to the whole idea of going out and spreading the word in order to save others. If someone were to come to me and ask, I'd try to explain it to them, but I'd also recommend they talk to someone who really knows what they are talking about. I also believe in the power of belief; I'd say it's the most influential part of life.

[BadWolfskin]

I didn't read up on solipsism, but I was going to say just that in my answer. I decided not to since I didn't think it was necessary.


I'm not sure if you are being specific enough. Does this happen all the time? Or does it happen only when reflexes are involved? If it's the former I think we'd also have to consider conditioning. Those who practice martial arts do the same movements hundreds of times a day so that they will be able to react without thinking. Isn't it possible that the people that were studied in the thing you are talking about had some type of conditioning already programmed in?



I'm in the same boat as you in your first paragraph.

As for your second, I am Christian, although I never go to church. And I don't really subscribe to the whole idea of going out and spreading the word in order to save others. If someone were to come to me and ask, I'd try to explain it to them, but I'd also recommend they talk to someone who really knows what they are talking about. I also believe in the power of belief; I'd say it's the most influential part of life.

So you would agree that we would have to say: "We exist."?

About these 250 ms. It happens all the time. Unfortunately I can't give you any English sources that are easy to access, but you may find something about this, if you look up work from Benjamin Libet and others. If you have access to one of those, I would recommend to have a look:
ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH9-46C0C8W-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1156095486&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8e54ab2a22474ae80eb0dc0393e5e4f2)
NEUROSCIENCE (https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/303/5661/1144)
Conditioning is an important part when it gets to the conclusion, but this phenomena is not really dependent on it. You could argue that everything is conditioned, but I doubt this to be a good explanation. This happens, if you are surprised by a whole new situation, too. But you could argue that your part of "free will" is actually about conditioning your mind so it reacts the way you like the next time.
They very next question would have to be - am I responsible for my actions, if my brain initiates them before I am even aware? This is where the going gets rough. Morale and ethics are at stake.

I am with you in the conclusion that belief is the most influential thing in life. That's why I am not willing to even abstractly discuss "gods/creators/entities". But I won't go so far as to tell someone that he is misbelieving and should immediately refrain from it. This is something everybody has to decide for himself. Sadly, the people who are most willing to coerce you into a belief are religious people.
A year ago a guy on the bus talked to me and tried to force the love of god upon me. He wouldn't understand that I have no fear of hell or loss of soul, because I don't believe in god. When I started to ask him why he was so willing to follow a religion that was used to enslave his people, (He was black. And I am aware that not all Christians think lowly of non-white people. Of course, not all Christians were taking part in slavery either. And for damn sure: African cultures [and numerous others all around the world] know a lot about slavery and perform it up to date.) he just ignored my question - needless to say I was surprised. This way it was futile to discuss the opinion that every religion that evangelises has sort of racist roots. (Believers <-> non-believers)
That said: Christianity has an awful lot of good ideas and ways. But there are as many, or maybe more that are bad, in my opinion. If anything, I believe that a guy like Jesus existed. I just think he was a normal me and you, but had some pretty amazingly good ideas.

[Essence]

Because I gotta:

Dungeons and Discourse (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/01/27/advanced-dungeons-and-discourse/).

[BadWolfskin]

Hehehehihihihohohohohahahaha!

Indeed - you got to!

[sahtar]

Actually I don't think most supernatural things can be found logically. I say most because it's up to perspective on what is supernatural. But the study of religion and belief is part of philosophy, so why not?

to make this all more clear, I only concentrate on your initial reasoning:

1) it only says that there is always a designer, nothing more, nothing less.
 
2) the designer's only sign is that it causes existence, nothing more, nothing less.

3) can your parents cause your existence? can an H and 2 O atoms cause the existence of an H2O molecule?

4) so they are designers.

5) since there's always a designer, can these interactions be infinite?

6) to tell for sure such a thing, one has to comprehend and possibly experience infinity.

7) since I am not talking about a pattern, a logic, a structure here, but infinity itself, I dare to say, that it's absolutely impossible.

8) nothing sensible can be said.

Besides, the following presuppositions has to be true, if we want to prove the existence of god(.....) from the design argument:

- the world is finite, it has at least a beginning
- the chain of designers has an end, there has to be a first designer

[BadWolfskin]

7.) since I am not talking about a pattern, a logic, a structure here, but infinity itself, I dare to say, that it's absolutely impossible.

8.) nothing sensible can be said.

This holds true, when you follow the argumentation of Kant in his: "Die Kritik der reinen Vernunft" or in English "Critique of Pure Reason". Note: Critique here does not means criticism, but discerning.
Critique definition from Wikipedia: Especially in philosophical contexts it is influenced by Kants use of the term to mean a reflective examination of the validity and limits of a human capacity or of a set of philosophical claims and has been extended in modern philosophy to mean a systematic inquiry into the conditions and consequences of a concept, theory, discipline, or approach and an attempt to understand its limitations and validity. A critical perspective, in this sense, is the opposite of a dogmatic one.

Time (Infinity) would be a priori. You can't falsify it, neither can you verify it.