# The Supernatural? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2003, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817 "2003-07-11T20:58:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/161 "2003-07-18T02:48:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethic \* > **Flailing around with “according to the dictionary” arguments is silly. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, JThunder, but this thread is already creating a microcosm of language. Adapt to the usage of the others.** Good grief. The fact that some people invoke erroneous usage is their problem, not mine. If someone is going to claim that “Nature is defined as everything which exists,” then THEY had better be adapting to the commonly accepted definition. It does no good for them to adopt their own usage, and then insist that everyone else must conform to it. If that were the case, then I could just as easily define nature as “Everything smaller than a breadbasket,” and invoke this usage to prove that the supernatural does exist! ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/162 "2003-07-18T02:55:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*Well, he later posted this: > > > [@](#): > > > > ## quote: > > > > I was, I should note, alluding to the NASA story, as a well known supernatural event… > > > > * * * > > So I guess: > > \*\*YOU. > > WERE. > > WRONG.\*\* > > Neener, neener, neener.😛 \*\* No, I wasn’t. I was referring to what **E-Sabbath** _actually said_, and made no claims regarding what he might have meant. I prefer to address what people say, rather than indulge in such speculations. > [@](#): > > \*\* > What do you mean _again_? You did NOT cite my exact words the first time; first, you cited a strawman version of what you wished I had said, \*\* Not true. I explicitly referred you to your exact words, in my posting dated 07-17-2003, 02:07 AM. In fact, I started that post off by saying “ **blowero** , let us examine the posting in question.” > [@](#): > > \*\*and then you deliberately left off a crucial sentence.[/B Because it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. The missing phrase (which I omitted for brevity) clearly implied that it was _the loss of a day_ which was an urban legend, not the NASA account. This is a point which I had already addressed, in my posting dated (Again, I remind you that **E-Sabbath** had not even mentioned NASA at that point.) And that is the relevant point, which you keep missing. **E-Sabbath** ’s text brought up the subject of God stopping the sun, but not NASA’s alleged discovery of a missing day. Your twin statements (“Yeah, but that didn’t happen” and “It’s an urban legend.”) were made long before NASA was even mentioned in this thread, so a plain reading indicates that it’s the God-stopping-the-sun story which supposedly “didn’t happen” and is “an urban legend.” You keep trying to shoehorn the NASA story into that posting, when _it had not even been mentioned yet_. Thus, the most straightforward reading is that it’s **E-Sabbath** ’s story which didn’t happen, rather than the not-yet-mentioned-NASA-legend. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/163 "2003-07-18T03:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethic \* > \*\*Not true. If you at least skim through the entire commentary on this urban legend, it’s pointed out in the last few paragraphs that there could be no way of astronomically determining “missing days” since we have no Absolute reference point beyond our own position in spacetime. \*\* Which, as I’ve already pointed out repeatedly, is NOT the same as proving that it didn’t occur. NOT THE SAME. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/164 "2003-07-18T03:50:40Z")
Give it up, y’all. **JThunder** just doesn’t get it, and he’s not going to catch on any time soon. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/165 "2003-07-18T05:56:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LadySybil \* > \*\*Am I being whooshed? Did JT just seriously respond to an allegation that dictionary definitions have little relavence with a dictionary definition? \*\* Yep. It’s kind of sad, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/166 "2003-07-18T05:58:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Which, as I’ve already pointed out repeatedly, is NOT the same as proving that it didn’t occur. NOT THE SAME. Calm down, Thunder. Haven’t I already conceded that you were right on this point? > [@](#): > > If someone is going to claim that “Nature is defined as everything which exists,” then THEY had better be adapting to the commonly accepted definition. It does no good for them to adopt their own usage, and then insist that everyone else must conform to it. If that were the case, then I could just as easily define nature as “Everything smaller than a breadbasket,” and invoke this usage to prove that the supernatural does exist! You’re addressing the relevant issue of equivocation. If you define NATURE as EVERYTHING SMALLER THAN A BREADBASKET, it does indeed follow that the supernatural exists (since there exists something larger than a breadbasket)! But, if you use that definition to prove the EXISTENCE of something BEYOND EXISTENCE (which is nonsensical), we have equivocation. To those who are not familiar with logical fallacies, this is when you suddenly swap the meaning of a term. Ok, since this is becoming a semantic battle, lets go to Webster’s online dictionary ([www.webster.com](http://www.webster.com)). I extracted only the interesting definitions of usage: > [@](#): > > **Nature:** > 2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe > b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual > > 6 : the external world in its entirety Taking definition 2a, 2b and 6 in combination, it becomes clear how NATURE can come to mean EVERYTHING. If it can mean God, the inner force of an individual ( the spirit? ) and the external world in its entirety, what is left? Pure thoughts perhaps. So if supernatural is everything beyond nature, then supernatural is pure thoughts, hence totally imaginary! Non sequitur, wouldn’t you say? So let’s move on to supernatural: > [@](#): > > **Supernatural:** > 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil > > 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature > b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) Wait a minute! Nature can mean a creative, controlling force and Supernatural can mean God. I’m confused…Ah! there it is! the coveted prepositional difference: -A creative force _in_ the Universe -Relating to an order of existence _beyond_ the observable universe Why do they have that adjective “observable” before universe? I think we better go back to the definition of UNIVERSE: > [@](#): > > **Universe:** > 1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : COSMOS: as > a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power > b : the world of human experience > c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos (2) : MILKY WAY GALAXY (3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy > > 2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization > > 4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem Ouch! Now I see why they put “observable” in front of universe. If we take 1b, then universe can implicitly come to mean just about EVERYTHING. And with 2 and 4, hey we’re back at the “set of all sets”. What to do? What is the problem here? I’m mixing usages!!! And I’m using one single fairly authoritative dictionary. It’s not like I’m using [www.dictionary.com](http://www.dictionary.com) or anything… 😉 Your coveted standards are fairly shaky, JThunder. I think most here in this thread seem to intuitively associate SUPERNATURAL with meaning 2: > [@](#): > > a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature > b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) If we use this term, is it fair to agree that nothing IN THE UNIVERSE can transcend the laws of nature and that if it does, it only APPEARS to do so? The crunch is that your description of such laws are not the laws in and of themselves. Such laws can only be know to you indirectly, through your epistemic system. If those laws are broken, it simply means your epistemic system is built around incorrect assumptions. With other words, the laws of nature are unbreakable whereas you and your descriptions of such laws are fallible. Regarding the Universe, clearly there are several schools here. It can mean the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, THE SET OF ALL SETS, THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE, etc. etc. If we use the term to mean the SET OF ALL SETS (or the Ultimate Universe), God cannot be beyond it. Remember Bertrand’s paradox: the set of all sets that do not include themselves. And there is nothing wrong with this definition! You will come across it not just in this thread or forum, but in countless philosophical sources. Now then, if I say “God can turn water into wine”, is that a law of Nature? That is, is not God’s dicretion to do what pleases God part of the Law of the Ultimate Universe, and hence all the sets contained within it, Nature being one of them? If a dictatorship states that such and such has the authority to do whatever they wish, does that person break the law when he does something not permitted by the general population? I should think not… ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/167 "2003-07-18T07:38:10Z")
You’re not gonna give up on this one, I see. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > No, I wasn’t. I was referring to what **E-Sabbath** _actually said_, and made no claims regarding what he might have meant. I prefer to address what people say, rather than indulge in such speculations. Um, it’s NOT speculation anymore. He admitted he was talking about the urban legend. How exactly did you get confused on that? Let’s recap: I thought he was talking about the UL, and responded as such. You thought he wasn’t talking about the UL. I turned out to be right. You turned out to be wrong. End of story. > [@](#): > > Not true. I explicitly referred you to your exact words, in my posting dated 07-17-2003, 02:07 AM. In fact, I started that post off by saying “ **blowero** , let us examine the posting in question.” Actually, you first brought it up on 7/15 > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Originally posted by blowero Yeah, but that didn’t happen. It’s an urban legend. [http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm](http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm) > > Snopes does NOT say that it didn’t happen. It merely debunks the popular claim that NASA found direct evidence of this missing day. This is a far cry from proving that the even in question never occured. So actually, I misspoke. It’s not that you didn’t cite me, it’s that you ADDED an incorrect strawman characterization of what I said, and you have been arguing the strawman for a couple pages now. You seem to want to believe that I claimed I could _prove_ that the event never happened. But I never used the word “proof” at all. I just said “it didn’t happen”. Do you understand the difference between: “That didn’t happen; it’s an urban legend” and “I can **prove** that no such event ever occurred”? The former is a more informal observation that that particular urban legend has been debunked. The latter would be a claim that I could prove a negative with regard to such an event even being possible. I did not make the latter claim. You obviously know there’s a difference, because you deemed it important enough to add the word “proving” to your characterization of what I said. Unfortunately for you, I never used the word “proving” in that regard. > [@](#): > > And that is the relevant point, which you keep missing. **E-Sabbath** ’s text brought up the subject of God stopping the sun, but not NASA’s alleged discovery of a missing day. Your twin statements (“Yeah, but that didn’t happen” and “It’s an urban legend.”) were made long before NASA was even mentioned in this thread, so a plain reading indicates that it’s the God-stopping-the-sun story which supposedly “didn’t happen” and is “an urban legend.” Look, you misinterpreted what I said, and I explained to you why you are mistaken, so why aren’t you letting it drop? > [@](#): > > You keep trying to shoehorn the NASA story into that posting, when _it had not even been mentioned yet_. Thus, the most straightforward reading is that it’s **E-Sabbath** ’s story which didn’t happen, rather than the not-yet-mentioned-NASA-legend. Straightforward, indeed. Since _you_ seem to be the only one who had trouble understanding my meaning, I would suggest that your “straightforward” reading is in error. I’m not aware of any other urban legends about missing days other than the NASA one, so I’m not sure which UL you are confusing it with, and why you would continue to confuse them even after I pointed out which one I was referring to (as if the link to the Snopes article wasn’t there plain as day anyway). And we’ve already established that E-Sabbath WAS talking about the NASA story. You’re fighting a losing battle to prove some phantom point that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/168 "2003-07-18T07:46:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethic \* > \*\*Ok, since this is becoming a semantic battle, lets go to Webster’s online dictionary ([www.webster.com](http://www.webster.com)). I extracted only the interesting definitions of usage: > > > [@](#): > > > > Nature: > > 2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe > > b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual > > > > 6 : the external world in its entirety > > Taking definition 2a, 2b and 6 in combination, it becomes clear how NATURE can come to mean EVERYTHING. If it can mean God, the inner force of an individual ( the spirit? ) and the external world in its entirety, what is left? \*\* The definition you cited says nothing about God. It says that “nature” is sometimes used to mean a creative and controlling force (as in “Nature brought us such wondeful creatures”). It does not say that this force must be God. Ditto for definition 2b, which is used in such statements as “It is not in my nature to torment infants.”) Moreover, the definitions which you cited are not additive. That is, “nature” is not declared to be the sum of definitions 1 to 6. Rather, the dictionary provides multiple definitions, not all of which are applicable in any given circumstance. And that is where your argument breaks down. It requires _assuming_ that definitions 2a and 2b mean God (when in fact, they do not), AND assuming that 2a, 2b and 6 must be taken together. That’s not how the dictionary works. Ditto for the definitions you cited for “universe,” **ethic**. Not a single one of them says that it refers to everything in existence. In fact, let us consider this statement which you made: > [@](#): > > \*\*we take 1b, then universe can implicitly come to mean just about EVERYTHING. And with 2 and 4, hey we’re back at the “set of all sets”. > \*\* Not true. Definition 1b says “the world of human experience,” which is **not** the same as “everything in existence” (and it is most certainly **not** the scientific meaning of the term). Similarly, definitions 2 and 4 do **not** constitute “the set of all sets.” Definition 2 (“ **a** distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization”) merely describes a _particular_ set, as does definition 4 (“ **a** set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem”). Note that both description use the article “a,” which denotes non-universality. In other words, your arguments are extrapolating far beyond what your dictionary actually says. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/169 "2003-07-18T09:33:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ethic \* > \*\*I wish the English language had a neutral personal pronoun. > > Anyway, your sources are so low on my trust list I don’t know what to say. If you told me a paper had been published in Scientific American regarding corroborated NDEs, I’d give it more time and consideration. How shall we approach this **Lekatt**.? > > You seem to think of papers published by the scientific community as narrow-minded and I think of them as following the hisghest standard. You think of Reader digest as an authoritative source, I take it with a grain of salt. > > Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on your shoulders since you are making a claim about how NDEs not being just imaginary thoughts. There’s a saying in Swedish: With peasants, speak like peasants. Think of me as a fool. The only way you can convince me is on my turf, using my language. > > Since you have rejected logic and scientific modelling as valid languages, I can’t imagine how we will come to agree. You essentially refuse to speak these languages since you think they are somehow nonsensical. > > I’m at a loss here. No common language, opposite ranking of source material… \*\* It would work better if you would read my posts. I said the material quoted in Readers Digest came from the Lancet, which is a medical journal. I will post the source below, but you will still have to read the Digest for the whole article. Go to: [http://www.thelancet.com/](http://www.thelancet.com/) and register, then search for “near death”. You will find a controlled scientific study of near death experiences. “Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands by Doctors Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich.” In the above study you will find a near death experience that surprised the doctor (P. van Lommel) very much, it was the one about false teeth. It confirmed the “information while dead,” part of NDEs. Dr. P. van Lommel went on to say: “Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest.” (In other words: NDEs are NOT biological.) If not any of these then what? The Doctor also talked about the Pam Reynolds surgery. [http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html](http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html) She was “dead” for approximately two hours, the blood drained from her head, and when she was brought back to life, she described the details of her surgery. Since this study, funding and permission has been made available for a much larger study, and it is now in progress. It is due in about two years. Science will only be able to eliminate the physical factor. Then if NDES are not caused by anything physical (the body) they must be considered spiritual. That’s the way I see it. The only way we can deal with life is through personal experience. We can tell others about our experiences, but we can’t prove them. We can’t even prove we had toast for breakfast. Thousands of individuals have recorded their NDEs, while they are all unique in some aspects, other aspects are the same. In order to understand NDEs, I believe it is necessary to read several hundred of them. After that, you will see the thread of logic and truth all contain. [http://www.ndeweb.com/board00.htm](http://www.ndeweb.com/board00.htm) NDEers welcome scientific research into the experiences, I have never known a researcher to come away not believing in the reality of the experience. Remember that some followers of science and/or religion have vested interests, and depend on their beliefs to earn their living. Many will never accept NDEs, but that is ok, the information I write is for those still seeking and learning. Love Leroy _(In other words: NDEs are NOT biological.)_ ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/170 "2003-07-18T09:43:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*The only way we can deal with life is through personal experience. We can tell others about our experiences, but we can’t prove them. We can’t even prove we had toast for breakfast. \*\* Funny statement coming from the guy who claims [life after death has been proven](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131095). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/171 "2003-07-18T10:40:42Z")
Well done **Leroy** , a good solid citation from the Lancet: > [@](#): > > "During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the ‘crash car’. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: ‘Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are’. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: ‘Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.’ I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient’s prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man Now, note that this is still only a single _anecdote_ and that all kinds of Chinese whispers might have messed it around, but nevertheless if this story is true then _at least_ a radical new theory regarding what a comatose brain can take in would be warranted. _This_ is the calibre of sources which will stop you being ridiculed here so often. Unfortunately, you go off the rails by completely misunderstaning what the doctor says: > [@](#): > > We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest All he was saying was that no _sole_ factor could be isolated - there appears a complex interplay between the three. He is _not_ saying there is anything “supernatural” going on. Indeed he goes on to say > [@](#): > > And yet, neurophysiological processes must play some part in NDE. Similar experiences can be induced through electrical stimulation of the temporal lobe (and hence of the hippocampus) during neurosurgery for epilepsy, with high carbon dioxide levels (hypercarbia), and in decreased cerebral perfusion resulting in local cerebral hypoxia as in rapid acceleration during training of fighter pilots, or as in hyperventilation followed by valsalva manoeuvre.4 Ketamine-induced experiences resulting from blockage of the NMDA receptor, and the role of endorphin, serotonin, and enkephalin have also been mentioned, as have near-death-like experiences after the use of LSD, psilocarpine, and mescaline. He goes on to say that NDE’s appear to be far more “panoramic” and life-changing, but that surely does not suggest a different _source_, agreed? (Incidentally, a logically fallacious response on your part will preclude further discussion). ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/172 "2003-07-18T11:36:28Z")
JThunder-- if you like dictionary definitions, look at this one from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) > [@](#): > > \Na"ture\ (?; 135), n. [F., fr. L. natura, fr. natus born, produced, p. p. of nasci to be born. See Nation.] 1. The existing system of things; the world of matter, or of matter and mind; the creation; the universe. I take “The existing system of things” to mean “that which is existent.” In other words, everything. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/173 "2003-07-18T11:51:53Z")
Great. Words don’t mean what the dictionary says they do, logic _never_ applies, there are _no rules_, reason’s fleeting, common sense is all b_ll_cks, and you can’t play the piano without a pixie, leprechaun or other spook in the room. Happy? Good. But if there _really was_ a “supernatural”, we’d be using it in a reliable, measurable fashion. If its affect on the world is _so slight_ that _its very existance cannot be measured_, then it _also_ is so slight cannot be noticed or percieved. So, if you personally cannot percieve it, why in the name of Bazooka Joe do you think it’s real? ---
**Author:** ![ethic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/977dab/32.png) [@ethic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ethic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/174 "2003-07-18T13:42:38Z")
JThunder, you must be a very sloppy reader. I understand there are alot of posts here and it gets tedious to read evrything through and through, but a little care is in order. Now I have to start quoting myself! > [@](#): > > ETHIC: > What is the problem here? I’m mixing usages!!! And I’m using one single fairly authoritative dictionary So your tirade about how I’m all wrong is correct. I wanted to demonstrate that dictionaries don’t necessarily help us resolve the issue at hand. I was being excessively liberal in my interpretations. I was picking and choosing, combining as I wished. My point is that this whole dictionary business is moot. There are too many potential interpretations. You know that “a creative and controlling force in the universe” does not quite jell with God, because you are surrounded by it’s usage on a daily basis. Dictionaries have a hard time avoiding self-referentiality and often resort to usage to demonstrate a words intentionality (as in your “Nature brought us wonderful creatures”). What you keep ignoring (and try to settle by reference to a dictionary) is the following: -What is Nature? -What is God? -What is the Universe? If they could be settled by opening a dictionary, I guess Aristotle, Heidegger, Spinoza and friends wasted a heck of a lot of time. Why didn’t they just go to [www.dictionary.com?!?](http://www.dictionary.com?!?) You have applied your weltanschauung to define the usage of these terms. When you read the dictionary, your interpretation is flavored by your desire to prove something. The truth is that there are epistemic systems that treat Nature, God and the Universe as interchangeable by denying the possibility of God’s interaction with something God isn’t part of. There are those that treat God and the Universe as distinctly separate, falling more into the dualist camp. > [@](#): > > JThunder: > Not true. Definition 1b says “the world of human experience,” which is not the same as “everything in existence” (and it is most certainly not the scientific meaning of the term). Read with a certain philosophical backdrop, the world of human experience certainly means everything. Science is more of a methodology (oh, no not that discussion again!). Yes, those who apply it have a tendency to use another framework, seeming to reference something beyond the perceivable: “He experienced hallucinations. Nothing he saw exists in our Universe”. But it still begs the question what EXISTENCE means and what HALLUCINATIONS are, issues that could not and can not be settled by Mr. Webster. Materialist will have a different answer than Spiritualists. How about: “The spiritual universe is far richer than illusions of physical manifestations”. So can we agree that universe simple means the set of all sets, regardless of whether that includes all conceivable sets? That’s why universe can mean “the physically manifest universe”, “the universe of cats and dogs”, “god and his dominions”, “the world of human experience”. So let’s leave it up to those who use it to define what the scope of their UNIVERSE is. We should focus on syntactical issues within the “universe” 😉 of what is being said rather than what constitutes appropriate usage of a signifier. As long as there’s no equivocation, I don’t care if you call God that BLUE AND PURPLE DOG and universe UXTRAGENESIS. Again, it’s equivocation that has to be avoided… ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/175 "2003-07-18T14:58:45Z")
I give up.Apparently JThunder is completely unaquainted with the word “context”(look THAT one up JT!) and is enthralled by his own bait-and-switch arguements about “meaning” and “definition”. His responses are on par with those of Biblical literalists who say “We know the Bible is 100% accurate because it says in _some chapter and verse of the Bible_:‘_Something_’!”. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/176 "2003-07-18T17:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SentientMeat \* > \*\*Well done **Leroy** , a good solid citation from the Lancet:Now, note that this is still only a single _anecdote_ and that all kinds of Chinese whispers might have messed it around, but nevertheless if this story is true then _at least_ a radical new theory regarding what a comatose brain can take in would be warranted. _This_ is the calibre of sources which will stop you being ridiculed here so often. > > Unfortunately, you go off the rails by completely misunderstaning what the doctor says:All he was saying was that no _sole_ factor could be isolated - there appears a complex interplay between the three. He is _not_ saying there is anything “supernatural” going on. Indeed he goes on to sayHe goes on to say that NDE’s appear to be far more “panoramic” and life-changing, but that surely does not suggest a different _source_, agreed? > > (Incidentally, a logically fallacious response on your part will preclude further discussion). \*\* Skeptics always ignore the ones they can’t answer. How about Pam Reynolds? She had a NDE while all the blood was removed from her body, and no life signs whatever. In the Readers Digest story this is brought out beautifully. When the doctor said “there must be a biological cause” he was stating his opinions not what the research findings were. There are thousands of examples of proof of life after death in the NDE literature. It is truth. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/177 "2003-07-18T18:36:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > There are thousands of examples of proof of life after death in the NDE literature. It is truth. \*\*\*“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it” \*_–Andre Gide_ ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/178 "2003-07-18T20:32:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Skeptics always ignore the ones they can’t answer. How about Pam Reynolds? She had a NDE while all the blood was removed from her body, and no life signs whatever. In the Readers Digest story this is brought out beautifully. When the doctor said “there must be a biological cause” he was stating his opinions not what the research findings were. There are thousands of examples of proof of life after death in the NDE literature. It is truth. > > Love > Leroy \*\* I wrote a negthy, point-by-point refutation of the Pim/netherlands fiasco at [belief.net](http://belief.net) some months back.The article I read was not from _the Lancet_ though and it appears that the nurse involved is now claiming the man with the dentures specifically told her he had an nde/obe wherein he saw her remove his dentures.Since this is little more than a suspicious anecdote which I have no way of verifying or falsifying, I cannot offer any further comment. As for the Pam Reynolds affair, are you saying that she had ALL blood removed from her body, had an nde(wouldn’t that be a DDE? A “Definately Dead Experience”?) and was somehow brought back to life, her blood resored and was able to report this alleged affair? Again, I will need something I can scrutinise myself(and no I am not going to be registering at any more sites including The Lancet unless you post some relatively intriguing portion from an article that warrants me going through such BS). ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/179 "2003-07-19T01:00:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic \* > \*\*I wrote a negthy, point-by-point refutation of the Pim/netherlands fiasco at [belief.net](http://belief.net) some months back.The article I read was not from _the Lancet_ though and it appears that the nurse involved is now claiming the man with the dentures specifically told her he had an nde/obe wherein he saw her remove his dentures.Since this is little more than a suspicious anecdote which I have no way of verifying or falsifying, I cannot offer any further comment. > > As for the Pam Reynolds affair, are you saying that she had ALL blood removed from her body, had an nde(wouldn’t that be a DDE? A “Definately Dead Experience”?) and was somehow brought back to life, her blood resored and was able to report this alleged affair? > > Again, I will need something I can scrutinise myself(and no I am not going to be registering at any more sites including The Lancet unless you post some relatively intriguing portion from an article that warrants me going through such BS). \*\* Yes, I think it a good idea for you not to read any more. That way you can remain closed to any facts or truths that may come up. The Pam Reynolds surgery was videotaped from beginning to end. It was documented on a TV presentation by the doctor who performed the surgery. Ignore everything, but it don’t change the facts. ---
**Author:** ![GodlessSkeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@GodlessSkeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GodlessSkeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817/180 "2003-07-19T06:54:28Z")
So you **are** claiming that Pam Reynolds had **no blood** in her body, as in “whiter than Howard Stern’s ass” pale, and she was somehow medically revived adn her blood restored…and all of this is on videotape for my perusal?!? Please, even though it puts any credibility you may re-establish in the future at risk, provide me a link to THAT! BTW, enough with the “Skeptics are just ignoring what they cannot answer (_sob_)!” malarchy.The only person here buying it is YOU and that is taking ‘preaching to the converted’ to extremes!I have encountered enough creationists to be well aquainted with the tactic of tossing out a 300 bits of totally unqualified BS, noting that the skeptic has refuted 298 bits of BS but, rather than answer the refutations you dwell on the 2 bits of equally unsubstantiated crap and say "Aha!See how the skeptic could not answer this!?. If you have anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, which can be scrutinised by someone(FYI, anecdotes and the like do not qualify) such as myself, then please present it.Otherwise take it to the Sci-Fi channel message boards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-supernatural/187817.md?page=10)