Can the Supernatural be taken seriously?

Basically my question is this:

Can the "Supernatural" be considered as a possible truth claim from the minute it is put forth without being hastily shot down as being "Un-natural" or more specificly "an occurance that which doesn't happen?"

And following this I must ask, how must one support a claim of the supernatural if given the "benefit-of-the-doubt?"

I ask this mainly to those who may be skeptical of miracles, God, and the like in hopes that between us (I am a Christian who believes in God and miracles) there can be found a common ground for discussion. Let me know what your feelings or ideas are.

Remember though, this is not a debate as to whether or not certain miracles have occured. It is only questioning what sort of action we should take against the claim of a miracle or the supernatural.

truth only exists within the individual. If your individual reality doesn't encompass the 'supernatural' then ignore the claims.

quote:

---

afraid of accepting new factors that may alter the validity of their assumptions...In other words it's the desperate refuge of closed minded idiots.

---

Actually I think it is the paranormalists (or people who believe in 'supernatural, miracles, even religion etc' ) are rather fearful and close minded. This is why:

Paranormalism is socially constructed. I think those who accept new factors (ie. supernatural miracles) are yet to further explore their individual reality. Instead they take a 'desperate refuge' short-cut, by accepting the paranormal. They collapse with, "Oh well, it must be a miracle which we weren't meant to understand".

With this delusion they struggle with exploring their invididual realm. This short-cut offers them comfort by 'connecting the dots' and creating a sense of order and structure in life. They offer a sense of meaning or control over things that are otherwise beyond our understanding. Believers of the paranormal don't understand how to be skeptical and hold such claims up to basic standards of logic and reason.

Religion, the media, and social processes, overwhelmingly influence peoples refuge for the paranormal. The scientific version of reality is more likely to be factually correct than the paranormal version. Paranormalists tend to be more sympathetic to the idea that "anything is possible," a principle that science emphatically rejects. We should have a reason to believe not a duty to believe. These are some reasons why I am skeptic of the apparent 'supernatural'.

quote:

---

truth only exists within the individual

---

Is that statement absolutely true?

quote:

---

Is that statement absolutely true?

---

It is a postmodernist opinion. Opinions are individual truths/perceptions not universal truth. It is relative.

you asked me this before in the following thread-
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread.php3/thrdid=47762-u-frmid=17-u-page=1

To state that truth only exists within the individual does sound pretty absolute, if it wasn't then it leaves room for absolute. So both ways of looking at it lead to the existence of absolute truth.

It is an individual absolute, but it is not universal truth. You are getting confused between individual truth and universal truth. Your tragedy is that you think we can know the universal truth. Universal truth is an empty abstraction. If truth must account for all the facts, and if accounting for all the facts results in inconsistency; only the most empty abstractions can be true. If we knew all the facts, one individual's "truth" would be inconsistent with another's, and therefore universal truth is false. All truth is relative. Certainty is an illusion, certainty stifles thought. Uncertainty frees it. Whatever beliefs we hold they are provisional. If there was universal truth then there would certainly be only one rational course of action open to us.

And ignorance is bliss.

quote:

---

"Your tragedy is that you think we can know the universal truth. Universal truth is an empty abstraction."

---

Is this true for everyone, or only the entirety of the human race with our completely separate individual perceptions of truth?

And, in what frame of your "truth is relative" mind do you have to be to think you must correct one's individual perception of truth with your own?

You know, sarcasm isn't really my thing, but dang dude. Obviously you must have recognized this thread as one where those who coexist within it know that we can draw consistent conclusions about the world around us. That's what science does, and the mere formation of the scientific community bears witness to this fact in that it has cooperation between its individual parts so it may understand what is around us.

This is what the topic of this thread assumes and recognizes. That's why we're trying to find a common ground for discussion. There is no place here for relativism and postmodernism.

I am sorry if I may seem disrespectful.

I concur with the first of your posts Decius, but only partialy since I'm not sure if a person can show something to be statistically improbable.

I've seen that a person can show a claim or theory to be probable by showing favorable evidences. The more favorable evidences that are shown, the more stable a positive conclusion gets. But in my reasoning, the only way a claim can be concluded to be unstable or improbable is by its lack of evidence. Maybe that's the statistical part if it...?

Strongclad:

quote:

---

Is this true for everyone, or only the entirety of the human race with our completely separate individual perceptions of truth?

---

thats self-explanatory for you; obviously its not true for you.

quote:

---

in what frame of your "truth is relative" mind do you have to be to think you must correct one's individual perception of truth with your own?

---

In no frame. This is a discussion of listening to different opinions, not to repudiate. The whole essence of my opinion is that I never claim universal truth, only individual truth, unlike you.

quote:

---

draw consistent conclusions about the world around us. That's what science does

---

And so does religion and paranormalists.

quote:

---

I ask this mainly to those who may be skeptical of miracles, God

---

oh...wait, hang on, then you say-

quote:

---

That's why we're trying to find a common ground for discussion. There is no place here for relativism and postmodernism

---

It appears self evident that you asked for skeptics of paranormalism. If you believe we are trying to find a common ground then you shouldn't have asked for different opinions in the first place. why be a bigot. In other words, you seem intolerant of those who differ. You could consider listening to what postmodernism has to say.

quote:

---

It is an individual absolute

---

what does this mean????
If I believe that truth is absolute and universal then you have to grant that I am right because it is my opinion.

Is this what you are saying?

quote:

---

If I believe that truth is absolute and universal then you have to grant that I am right because it is my opinion.

---

Petesmith: yes you are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean one has to accept your claim. Your opinion is an individual absolute, however it is not universal. I'll further explain why below.

What does individual absolute mean?
Individual absolute truth means that 'truth' only exists within yourself. Basically, there is no one truth, there are many. Your individual absolute is part of this 'many'. Meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference to truth. Each person has their own, personal, truth. Truths in the human sense are ever-changing. Truth varies between person to person (contextually specific). Truth is relative. It is always dynamic depending upon one's knowledge and growth. Truth depends on your culture, religion, education, governments and the media. Moral truths are socially constructed. As I said before whatever beliefs we hold they are provisional. If there was universal truth then there would certainly be only one rational course of action open to us.

quote:

---

but that doesn't mean one has to accept your claim

---

Why does that mean we have to accept yours!

it doesn't mean that. I never said you have to accept mine, I simple put out an opinion.