Decent little five-minute exchange here to get us going.

Hmm...from the tone it appears the guy on the left has the better point, but it's probably just because he's shouting a bit louder.

The problem is, people asking naturalists to be able to disprove supernatural beliefs demand a 100% proof. But nothing we believe based on scientific evidence is 100% proven, we believe it simply on high percentages. Hell, people still don't agree on what gravity is.

I don't believe in anything supernatural. My belief is based on good percentages. I can't prove it's non-existence, but I can't prove/disprove absolutely anything with this mindset.

My beliefs are also malleable. Certain scientific rules/phenomena that I believe now (based on good percentages), will be affected by future discoveries. If God came down and revealed himself to me ( ), then my belief would change - although according to those who argue that scientific evidence isn't complete proof, even this wouldn't 100% prove the existence of God.

When we moved from a classical look on the building blocks of the universe to a quantum look, 100 years ago, scientists' beliefs were changed. But at no point did scientific minds have the arrogance/naivity to declare the classical world was 100% correct, and now people still question our current view.

I don't condemn people who believe in the supernatural, they might be right. But for me, the percentage is low enough for me to place it down the list of my priorities. We don't have enough time to look at every infinite possibility (impossible by definition). To me, giving some of my time to think about the supernatural is on par with wondering whether my leg is made out of chocolate or not (obvious exaggeration) - we may have incorrectly defined the fundamental structure of chocolate / leg, we can't rule it out, what if the guy next to me perceives the state of chocolate different to I etc, etc...

I may have explained this pretty badly...

the guy on the left seems very smug and well supported by the audience.

also, giving consideration to the fact that the three of us who have posted so far are much more on the naturalist side of things, i would think that it would influence our opinions of the video. it definitely influenced my take on things.

but getting to the topic of nature as the end all, I say ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY YES!

there are things that cannot be explained by science today, that one day will be. end of story.

consciousness exists

which means what? that b/c you're aware of being aware that something supernatural is happening?

I thought the super-naturalist guy was just better prepared and knew where the weaknesses on the naturalist guy's arguement were. The naturalist guy just seemed on the defensive too much.

Totally don't understand the applauding part.

I'm not making a case for the supernatural. They thread title is "Is nature all there is?"
one could certainly make the case that consciousness is all there is

Well... one could make the case that you are all that exists because consciousness exists. That one would be Descartes. Kant takes the same idea and says that because consciousness exists and we have perception, you must exist, space and time must exist, and something must exist in space and time besides yourself. That is, to simplify 1000+ pages of one of the most complicated arguments in history. lol.

and my only contention is that all of these things exist (and we're able to conceptualize their existence) through scientific theory. i would explain all of it down to the principal of natural occurrence, and despite the fact that we can't explain everything, it just means their is still more to discover. scientifically that is.

Yes. Now let's keep dancing.

It can all come down to how you define the supernatural.

I consider myself a naturalist. I am aware that everything natural occurs in this world as a result of particles reacting to various forces. Essentially fundamental particles tend to some sort of energetically favourable state. They follow fields, react and obey the laws we've observed. Multiply by obscene levels of complexity and we have what we see. But if I wanted to go deeper I'd ask why the basic principles occur, after I've got past the real fundamentals of science, I'd would have to ultimately say...'weeeell, because it does'. Is the presence of these laws supernatural?

Nobody has ever, will ever have the answer. An argument could prove one idea to be infallible to one person, and raise even more doubts and questions to the next.

The whole 'consciousness exists and we have perception, you must exist, space and time must exist, and something must exist in space and time besides yourself' idea is essentially just words that make complete sense to one person and are absolute unrelated nonsense to the next.

So, good luck with agreeing on this.

Look at it from another standpoint. And I'm sure some of you will denounce this because you have a tendancy to denounce things you know nothing about.

They had a special on N-Geo one time discussing animal instincts and psychic abilities. How throughout time people have reported animals acting peculiar and freaking out before an impending disaster (earthquakes, tsuamis). What in nature gives them this ability? How come humans are the only ones who seem to be without this ability (if they in fact don't possess it)? Yes, nature is all there is, but we have a long way to go to fully understand it. And we may be able to someday.

For some animals this is simply explained by biology we don't have. Many animals, especially migratory birds, have proteins behind their eyes that are sensitive to magnetic fields - for use in navigation. Earthquakes and storms give rise to magnetic perturbations - hence, confusion for the birds.

I don't know much more about this, but I would assume there are similar explanations, i.e. some species have finer tuned senses to vibrations (I've heard Pigeons have such sensitive nerve 'units' on their legs), or fluctuations in air composition/electrical charges.

i thought of this too when reading IHRM's post.

Also, I heard it suggested, that, over time, living the way we do, with so much distortion from electricity, radio- & microwaves, cellular phones, wi-fi, etc., we've become desensitized to these feelings, but we have the ability to relate to our world as "animals" do.

The old cliche of 'we only use 10% of our brain' always excites me. It's inevitably a long way off the mark, but there is obviously stuff (technical term) there that we don't use for reasons I can only assume to be 'unrequired'. Unfortunately all neuroscience has to go on is a human brain with unbelievably complex connections. They can monitor electrical activity only in the areas that are, well, active. And then they compare different connective areas etc. etc. I don't see how they can fully deduce what our unused potential actually is.

Obviously there are variations on the general theme;

"Overall, there’s not much of a difference between his brain and that of the average person. However, if we look at his inferior parietal lobe, we see that it is huge. Much larger than average. Which is interesting, because this region is thought to be very important for mathematical and spatial intelligence- the essence of Einstein’s genius."

But even one of the greatest mind's of modern science was apparently not that different.

It's absolute unrelated nonsense to people just like quantum electrodynamics is unrelated nonsense to people. It's because they don't/can't understand it. Just like you simplified particle physics in the above post, I simplified transcendental idealism in that small quote.

Now I'm not saying that it is on the same level as physics which is tested in the laboratory, but Kant isn't considered the greatest philosopher of the last 300 years because he made up some random nonsense that sounded cool to someone. I just can't agree with the way you seem to dismiss it here.

Not to mention changes in pressure, temperature, humidity, air composition, etc.

I'm not saying it's nonsense in that he 'made it up to sound cool'. I'm saying I'm sure some of his peers would have disagreed that the links he made are valid. My point was that people can, and do, dismiss ANY theory - often just on a whim. Some theories, backed up by solid evidence can also be completely dismissed...possible due to questioning of the evidence itself. Hence my overrall point being that nobody will ever find the answer/be able to prove to everyone that something is true. Not that we shouldn't still debate of course...

I don't know if these have been around long enough to have any sizable influence on our evolution.

i'm not saying it has altered our biology, i'm saying there is actual interference "where we live" that impairs our ability to sense these signals. We still have the capacity and ability to pick up on them but our created world is interrupting our relationship to our natural world.

think about it, we all have electricity running through our homes, we've got computers running, we've got cell phones and TVs sending signals. asside from domestic animals and caged animals, we're the only ones that live within these "fields" constantly.