Thread: Do you believe in anything supernatural?

no or atleast i dont think so i might change my mide when im older lol

Originally Posted by UcouldBdreaming

no or atleast i dont think so i might change my mide when im older lol

How old are you now?


I believed a few things when I was a kid...but I was pretty certain that most of the things I encountered or felt could be explained.

I often found myself talking to God...sometimes I still do. I think I did it more when I was scared or feeling alone.

I don't believe in ghosts though I acknowledge that I can not explain many things.

I saw a ghost once. Not even a shadow person but a full blown apparition directly in front of me. I could control my ability to see them, too. If I focus on the objects behind them, they would fade. If I let my vision rest, they would re-emerge. I still neither believe nor disbelieve in anything paranormal and I don't know what the word supernatural is supposed to mean. Transcendental? Non-causal?

No. I doubt I'd be able to comprehend the concept of something supernatural either.

Sort of. I believe in chi/ki/whatever you want to call it. Except I don't think it's some sort of mystical force like the Chinese do; I think it's just your mind allocating resources (for lack of a better term), "powering down" certain parts of the body and concentrating on one specific part. Hopefully that makes sense.

I also think there's a possibility a North American primate (or "Sasquath") might exist, but I guess that isn't exactly supernatural.

I don't believe in the supernatural at all. To me, supernatural just means fake. Everything in the world is natural. People claim things are supernatural as a cop out to avoid trying to explain something.

No, not at all. I care about the truth. I find most people who believe in supernatural things either don't care about the truth and prefer to believe things that sound cool, or are just really bad at determining what the truth is.

I believe in a lot of things that others call supernatural. But i dont think its supernatural, I just believe we haven't understood yet where it fits in the natural world.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

No, not at all. I care about the truth. I find most people who believe in supernatural things either don't care about the truth and prefer to believe things that sound cool, or are just really bad at determining what the truth is.

I don't think it's possible to determine what truth is. I would say disregarding the possibility of things which are erroneously labeled "supernatural" makes one more likely to be wrong than if you remain open minded. Granted this goes back to the thread in philosophy about belief. Like I said in this thread, even though I have "evidence" of the paranormal I still don't actually believe in anything. But I also don't hold anything that comes out of a scholarly textbook to be "true." Words are not true, they are translations. Statements are not true, though they may agree with the parameters of the statement. For instance 2+2=4 is a math statement which agrees with the logical parameters set for the language of math. Mathematical equations can either agree or disagree with these parameters, but truth remains something separate.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I don't think it's possible to determine what truth is.

You mean for certain? If so I agree. But we can sometimes determine what the truth likely is or in some cases almost certainly is.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I would say disregarding the possibility of things which are erroneously labeled "supernatural" makes one more likely to be wrong than if you remain open minded. Granted this goes back to the thread in philosophy about belief. Like I said in this thread, even though I have "evidence" of the paranormal I still don't actually believe in anything.

I agree with this too. Like you I'm only saying I don't believe it, not that I'm not open to the possibility. I just think there comes a point at which something (like telepathy) is so improbable that we might as well just treat it as impossible until some really amazing evidence comes forth.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I also don't hold anything that comes out of a scholarly textbook to be "true." Words are not true, they are translations. Statements are not true, though they may agree with the parameters of the statement. For instance 2+2=4 is a math statement which agrees with the logical parameters set for the language of math. Mathematical equations can either agree or disagree with these parameters, but truth remains something separate.

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Words written on a page can be either true or false. I mean of course if the language it's expressed in is unknown, it won't make sense and won't mean anything. It's true that the text, ink, etc. is physical and meaningless on its own. But when we say those words are 'true' we're assuming that a person has read it and has correctly comprehended what the writer was trying to express, and that the idea is true.

It's hard not to because there are so many unexplainable things in the world.

Originally Posted by Carrot

It's hard not to because there are so many unexplainable things in the world.

Unexplainable =/= supernatural.

Yay logic.

"Supernatural" is a self-refuting concept. It's literally meaningless, since describing any "supernatural" event must always lead back to appeals to the natural. Why? Because supernatural events are detected by people, and people are natural. Therefore, anything they can detect, regardless of the cause, must also be natural. Even hallucinations are natural because they involve real changes in neuron firing patterns.

So if you say, for example, that ghosts exist, and they're not hallucinations, then you will eventually have to cite physical evidence. But physical evidence is natural! Therefore ghosts are a natural hypothesis!

Of course, and that is why supernatural stuff never exist. People appeal to supernatural things as a final grasp to explain something existing when all natural means fail. The moment you call something supernatural you have given up all hope of explaining what it really was.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Unexplainable =/= supernatural.

Yay logic.

Of course the unexplainable isn't supernatural.

But try explain something unexplainable without using any supernatural terms.

I think a better word would have been esoteric (correct me if I'm worng) or paranormal than supernatural. The problem is that there is no true agreement on the meaning of natural or it's limits. Unlike the word paranormal which implies that it falls out of our understanding of normal (normal is subjective as it is based on our observations allowing for modifications to be made), supernatural would suggest that it falls outside what is natural (Objective, the laws of the unniverse) meaning that no explanation can be given ever which should never be assumed from a scientific standpoint.
I hope I phrased this right, i'm kinda tired.

As for the question, I believe that telepathy might exist, like original poster I like to keep my choices open and believe that it is neither true or false.

Originally Posted by Carrot

Of course the unexplainable isn't supernatural.

But try explain something unexplainable without using any supernatural terms.

Try explaining something unexplainable using ANY terms. That's sort of what "unexplainable" means.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I think a better word would have been esoteric (correct me if I'm worng) or paranormal than supernatural. The problem is that there is no true agreement on the meaning of natural or it's limits. Unlike the word paranormal which implies that it falls out of our understanding of normal (normal is subjective as it is based on our observations allowing for modifications to be made), supernatural would suggest that it falls outside what is natural (Objective, the laws of the unniverse) meaning that no explanation can be given ever which should never be assumed from a scientific standpoint.
I hope I phrased this right, i'm kinda tired.

As for the question, I believe that telepathy might exist, like original poster I like to keep my choices open and believe that it is neither true or false.

In that case, I must fall back to the scientific method, and thus far no good science has been done to verify any paranormal hypotheses as stated by their adherents (although some things have been explained in other ways, such as alien abductions being sleep paralysis events). As for telepathy, I don't think it exists but humans might just go ahead and make it real using BCIs and whatnot.

Of course I do.
At least in Spirit Guides - one of them proved that he's real. Many times. Which is awesome, 'cause I don't have to worry about death. Well, I wasn't worried earlier, but... in any case, I know it. XD
Don't need anything more.

Originally Posted by Send

Of course I do.
At least in Spirit Guides - one of them proved that he's real. Many times.

Describe plz.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Do you believe in anything that could be considered supernatural? Or do you think it's a all natural world.

it's all natural. there are things we (most people) still do not know about, and they could be considered supernatural... since we (most people) don't know anything/much about them. but it's all natural after you understand.

I believe everything in the universe is natural. Most people only label things paranormal/supernatural if it has no solid explanation. Ghosts, miracles, telekinesis, etc. at some point of time, man will have the needed knowledge and technology to explain these "paranormal" things.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Do you believe in anything that could be considered supernatural? Or do you think it's a all natural world.

Like everyone else has already said, anything "supernatural" is still natural. Psychic powers, aliens, ghosts, spirits, etc. aren't supernatural if they're real, that would make them natural. Do I believe in anything that could be considered supernatural? Yes. I do believe that shared dreams and mind communication (sounds better than "psychic") are real, but not because someone on the internet says they are. I believe it because of my own experiences. No one else should believe any of it exists just because I say I experienced it, but they shouldn't say it's all fake just because they haven't had any experience. I doubted (but hoped) it was real until the IOSDP's Lucid Daydreaming experiment.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Describe plz.

People who believe in spirit guides, it's really just something personal that can't be explained properly because there's so many associations with them. The only example one could use (but it still doesn't provide actual evidence of course) is:

Spirit guides are essentially what a person assumes to be a higher being, whether it's their higher self, or someone emitting high frequencies that the person who's seeking them has to be a match of to align to their presence. Some people think it's really just you in a higher sense, a missing part of your brain that you've been trying to connect to all long (being noted important reminders, how to handle incoming situations and challenges in your life, etc.)

---

When it comes to just that person's point of view, if they make those phenomena static in their reality (spirit guides and such), and really believe they are real, the mind will shift according to their desires, if they really want them to be present in their perception. Now how can one prove that? It's improbable.

---

One could argue the same for tulpa. Even though you can't really provide physical evidence (since it's really in terms of a person's perception), you can only go by anecdotes of people's success stories with tulpaforcing/tulpaforging a thought form into their reality.

Then people who aren't informed on what tulpa really is start assuming it's out beings you're inviting to control your mind, or to nest inside of it. Which is completely absurd, since it's really a part of you as a whole, and you're just extending an aspect of yourself to become a reality based on how much faith you put into it.

---

But other than that, spirit guides, tulpa, etc., are going to be sustained through anecdotes, and it's just one of those things where you have to let someone live whatever reality they want to, until some big discovery that can repeatedly prove those events to be tangible in all people's reality.

That would be a difficult task, especially with mental filtering and all that fun stuff.

---

I just think that anything that doesn't really fit the norm of practice in society is based on how everyone aligns themselves mentally to perceiving whatever it is that is intangible is because they're just blocking it off from their reality.

---