Supernatural Occurances

Is there any scientific or mathematical evidence of clairvoyant or "supernatural" occurrences or phenomena? I know that asking this is trampling the definition of supernatural, but I'm curious if there are any cases like this. If you do answer, please cite a source.

No. are you dumb?

No.

No need to cite a source: burden of proof, etc. Besides, such a thing would, by definition, totally fuck up our current world view and would have profound consequences impacting every facet of our lives. You'd have fucking heard about it, trust me.

Take this retarded shit back to /x/.

If it can be proven it's no longer supernatural, it's just natural.

And therefore the supernatural exists beyond provable reality

>>4
This

>>5
Needs a better definition of "exists".

lol by the very definition of supernatural, no.
supernatural = 'above' natural.
in other words, cannot be explained via classically naturalistic means.

>>4
I see where you're going with this, but you're not quite there. Take that thought process a couple steps further:
If it can be sensed or experienced from the natural world, it is not supernatural by definition. Thus, no one can possibly have ever experienced anything supernatural. Thus, there is no evidence for supernatural events or beings. None. Thus, all descriptions of supernatural events and beings are purely imaginary. Thus, the supernatural does not exist. Burden of proof, Occam's Razor, etc, etc, etc.
Maybe later I'll post a rant.

>>4
>>8
Yes, he was right there.  You've just complicated things; what're you, a lawyer?

>>1
No, No, No!  There are no "cases like that"  Scientists feed on "evidence" or experimental data, so if there was any to be had it would be pursued.

People have observed supernatural occurances all the time.  It's more logical to accept them as part of an immeasurable system than to deny such a huge body of anecdotal testimony.  You might as well deny the Holocaust.

>>10
People claim to observe "supernatural occurrences all the time" because the "immeasurable system" they are part of is made up of their own fear and ignorance.  No one denies the "huge body of anecdotal testimony."  It's just given the weight it deserves, and since no objective evidence has ever been discovered it's become clear that the anecdotal testimony only has a bearing on matters of psychology and perhaps anthropology, sociology, and the like. Thus we have parapsychology, the discipline for cranks, fools, and Universities' appeals to mass culture.  There have been many departments for many years and not one single shred of repeatable hard evidence has ever been produced. And before you object to the qualifier repeatable, you better do some more reading.  If it's not repeatable, it's not significant.  That's how we roll.
By comparison, there's endless physical evidence relating to the "Holocaust".  So when ghosts, monsters, and aliens start tattooing people, building structures, and leaving paperwork on their projects, we'll have something to work with. 
Ignorant people and/or shitty people lie to themselves and others, in an effort to improve their perception of their own standing.  Those who claim supernatural knowledge and/or experience do so because they are impotent in a world of facts.  Ironically they become significant, but never in a positive way.  They interrupt, obfuscate, distract, and generally impede our progress toward understanding.  Science provides verifiable facts to fill the well of ignorance, and ways to uncover lies. Get with the program.

>Since no objective evidence has ever been discovered it's become clear that the anecdotal testimony only has a bearing on matters of psychology and perhaps anthropology, sociology, and the like.
do you understand the meaning of supernatural? Anything supernatural cannot be explained or reproduced via naturalistic means, because then it's not supernatural.
>made up of their own fear and ignorance
You and other who deny the existence of anything outside of the naturalistic world have not experienced anything that can be more reasonably explained by a supernatural occurrence, therefore those who have must be crazy lairs. Then I guess your huge body of anecdotal evidence should only be given the relatively low weight it deserves. In that case I will use the same logic and conclude you are the crazy lying individuals who only denies the existence of the supernatural occurrences me and many others have experienced because you are fearful and ignorant and simply too deluded to realize this.

>>12

You kind of missed the whole point, and please don't try to use the word logic.
Put more simply, we don't call anyone "crazy liars", we say "Show us."  What?  Where?  How?  When?  Why?  What do we have to do?  And in 500 years the best you've been able to come up with is the definitively subjective religious/spiritual/mystical experience.  And please look it up, it's been studied extensively by everyone from philosophers and psychologists to neurophysiologists.  Amongst other things it may be concluded that the universality of the phenomenon at the very least contradicts the idea of one True religion or "supernatural" belief system.
To be fully Homo Sapien s. a person must value rationality above, if only slightly, all other things.  If the foundation of your cosmic view is subjective, you put yourself in an objectively unsupportable position wherein irreconcilable conflicts must occur.  Please go back to /x/ you superstitious throw back.  This is a Science/Math board.

>>13
>Put more simply, we don't call anyone "crazy liars"
yes you do. this is where you said it:
>bearing on matters of psychology and perhaps anthropology, sociology, and the like. Thus we have parapsychology, the discipline for cranks, fools, and Universities' appeals to mass culture.
here you clearly imply all those who claim to have had similar experiences deluded and lying whether they know it or not.
now that i have that bit of irrelevant debate out of the way, let me go on to the meat of showing you where you are wrong:

>we say "Show us."  What?  Where?  How?  When?  Why?  What do we have to do?
show you what? we can communicate what we have seen to you with words. If we cannot reproduce a supernatural occurrence by the naturalistic means available to us, that means we are lying or ignorant?
>And in 500 years the best you've been able to come up with is the definitively subjective religious/spiritual/mystical experience.
and? What the hell is your point? If ever there is a phenomena that I experience but simply cannot reproduce or show you, I guess it's best to ignore my first hand perspective of what occurred. Certainly, not every experience that one deems supernatural does not have a naturalistic explanation. But you cannot extrapolate this bit of knowledge to every single human who has claimed to have experienced some supernatural phenomena. That's not how logic works.
And you throw out the word subjective like it means something here. On certain issues, the difference between subjective and objective evidence bears little relevance on what is real, especially when by definition no objective naturalistic evidence can be found to support one of the hypothesis.

You know what this boils down to?
The body of scientific and mathematical knowledge available to humanity is vast in relation to that of any other field. Most anything that can be observed by any of our senses can have scientific and mathematical facts theorems stringed together to provide a POSSIBLE explanation. Knowing this, you an incorrect leap in logic such that you simply will not accept the significant possibility that anything at least partially 'immaterial' that can communicate information to our senses exists to which the laws that govern our material universe cannot be applied.

Ooooh, one that thinks it's intelligent, and may very well be.  Lets go:
Point 1:  You failed to distinguish between my words and relation of unscientific opinions, and Science(capital s), but you're right, I'm busted there.  Personal prejudice.

Now on to "the meat"
>show you what?

Exactly.  You've nothing to show, and Science says STFU 'til you have something. 

>What the hell is your point?  That's not how logic works.

Man, that is one clumsy fucking paragraph.  I'll try to infer your meaning. I'm not asking you or anyone else to ignore your first hand perspective.  I'm telling you that Science affords your first hand experience a value, graduated within a specific context, and that that value within this context is negligible.  Why?  Because it's all anyone has ever brought to the table.  You've become the boy who cried wolf. And again, it's subjective.  Your attack on my use of subjective/objective is bad semantics and sophistry.  It means everything here.  This is a Science/Math board.

Our vast body of knowledge came from employing a system that works.  Observing things with our senses and stringing together "scientific and mathematical facts theorems(sic)" to provide a POSSIBLE explanation is just the first step. Nobody is leaping anywhere.  We accept any possibility and run it through the system. You characterize the possibility of your position as being "significant".  Prove it.  You say "at least partially immaterial"  Gravity anyone?  Hell, at this point most of the vast body of scientific knowledge deals with things invisible/undetectable to unaided human senses.  And we're still working on the laws that govern our material universe.  It's your kind who think they have them sewn up.
What this boils down to is a nice little troll, or someone who is genuinely confused about Science.  Go away now.

>Exactly.  You've nothing to show, and Science says STFU 'til you have something. 

I fully accept that there is simply no information I could communicate to thoroughly convince anybody of sound mind of the reality supernatural phenomena, I do not have the tools to explain it or show it to you. I can only hope that you might experience something without a probable naturalistic explanation. I cannot expect you to understand anything that I do in this area.

>Your attack on my use of subjective/objective is bad semantics and sophistry.  It means everything here.  This is a Science/Math board.
Ok, I accept that I am not sticking to the subject matter this board was intended for. Go ahead and report me to the mods if you must.

All I am saying is perhaps the mechanistic manner of explaining phenomena, e.g. via the scientific method, cannot account for everything that is real. I accept that science and mathematics have an excellent track record for providing explanations for natural phenomena that bear far more congruence to reality than any spiritual/religious text could hope to. But when you have an experience that contradicts what you understand to be scientifically reasonable or even possible, you may begin to accept the existence of related entities that do not ascribe to the same set of logics to which the universe we generally observe around us clearly does. Now, this obviously begs the question that if something we observe blatantly contradicts the laws of Science, and the observers are neither deluded nor ignorant of Science, then it may be concluded that our current understanding of Science is simply too imperfect and cannot as of yet account for it. But cannot one say with at least as much certainty that the mechanistic logic of science that governs much of the observable universe simply does not apply to it?

………………_„-,-~''~''':::'':::':::::''::::''~-,~„
…………._,-'':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::''-„
………..,-'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
………,-'::::::::::::„:„„-~-~--'~-'~--~-~--~--~„:,'
……..,'::::::::::,~'': : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : '-|
……..|::::::::,-': : : : : : : : - -~''''¯¯''-„: : : : : :\
……..|::::::::|: : : : : : : : : _„„--~'''''~-„: : : : : '|
……..'|:::::::,': : : : :: :_„„-: : : : : : : : ~--„_: |'
………|::::::|: : : „--~~'''~~''''''''-„…_..„~''''''''''''¯¯|¯",
………|:::::,':_„„-|: : :_„---~: : :|''¯¯''''|: ~---„_: |¯¯|
……..,~-,_/'': : : |: :(_ O__): : |: : : :|:(_O__): \.. |
……../,'-,: : : : : ''-,_______,-'': : : : ''-„______\-'
……..\: :|: : : : : : : : : : : : : :„: : : : :-,: : : : : :\
………',:': : : : : : : : : : : : :,-'__: : : :_',: : : : ,'
……….'-,-': : : : : :___„-: : :'': : ¯''~~'': ': : ~--|'
………….|: ,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :|
………….'|: \: : : : : : : : -,„_„„-~~--~--„_: : : |
…………..|: \: : : : : : : : : : : :-------~: : : : : |
…………..|: :''-,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :|
…………..',: : :''-, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,'
……………| : : : : : : : : :_ : : : : : : : : : : ,-'
……………|: : : : : : : : : : '''~----------~'': :,'
…………._|: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :|
……….„-''. '-,_: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,'
……,-''. . . . . '''~-„_: : : : : : : : : : : : :,-'''-„
█▀█░█▀█░█▀█░█▀▀░░
█▀▄░█▀█░█▀▀░█▀░░░
▀░▀░▀░▀░▀░░░▀▀▀░▀

I'm sorry I was snarky in my last post. 

Report you?  Science abhors a rat.  It's why we experiment on them.

I agree entirely, though I would add the word (yet) after "...cannot account for everything that is real" 
We run into things that turn our understanding up side down from time to time, and even have to deal with internal dogmatism and irrational resistance from supposedly unbiased practitioners.  The beauty of the system is that in the end, the data will force the restructuring.
Your assertion that something may exist that is exempt from "the mechanistic logic of science that governs much of the universe" is valid.  It's just a well worn and slippery slope that, as yet, has always led into the darkness of superstition. It's become scientifically uninteresting; the arguments little more than masturbatory exercises in indoctrination for both sides.  It's not really even philosophically interesting anymore.  We've done it to death and have had enough.  Not that we don't pay attention.  And continue to study the observable characteristics of religions and spirituality.
 
I'm a Taoist and have found no inconsistencies with Science yet. I have also personally been to fundamentalist christian churches, spiritualists, fortunetellers, witches, alleged haunted houses, Synagogues, Mosques, the Aga Sophia in Istanbul, the Vatican, Eastern Orthodox churches in, get this, Transylvania, the pyramids, Hindu temples in India, Buddhist temples all over Asia, Taoist temples in China, I even stepped inside a Mormon temple once.  I study Chi Gong.  I could continue, but I think I've made my point.  Our investigations into our spiritual aspect must remain divorced from our intellectual pursuits.  History insists upon it.  Science requires it.  I have faith in it.

Peace

>>17
Wow.
So much work.
So much talent.
So much fail.
So sad.

BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!! The universe is boring without magical sky fairies and ghosts and shit! 99% of the population can't possibly be retarded!

>>18
nice to see we could find common ground.
>>20
no u

A supernatural occurrence would be any of the following;

Op expressing signs of intelligent life.
Op saying something intelligent.
Op being intelligent
Op being human.

>>20
You'd think that might be true, but then you see how many people isolate, hide, and die of shame alone...we are still in the dark ages where people scapegoat other people, pass the buck, blame, eat other people's sins (mistakes) without recovering. And people like you wonder why others are so misanthropic, pathos, and appear to be grieving. They are grieving the dying of their lives every moment another moment dies. That is where their attention lies. You think this isn't real? You'd be surprised.

>>22
Hmmmmm...

Op did manage to start a thread that has some pretty dense text..

If Op's not a human, it would be a supernatural occurrence; you kind of got that one backwards.

Oh wait; I get it, you're just a dick.

>>18

What if it's just psychology, curiosity and a longing for mystery?

That's pretty much my position.  My post at >>18 was the end of a conversation that I joined at post >>9

This has to be the only board where you see the words sorry....

>>18
Damn, man, you traveled a lot. I'm very impressed. What is it that you do?

I'm just a carpenter who wanted some answers.  I knew that the trade would allow me to work anywhere, but if I was smart I would have learned computers.

>>29
As someone who has been in the IT/IS field for nearly 20 years, let me assure you it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

There are only a few niches that are anywhere close to desirable, all of which take decades of education and experience to have any sort of success. The vast majority of it is grunt work, following detailed directions given to you from higher up. Only the very top echelons have any real fun.

I hear ya, but when your building shade for generators in 130degrees in Iraq, or a deck in -40 in Antarctica, any office job seems fun.  Plus, IT folks make more money.

>>24
Takes one to know one, Richard.

Here's something funny.
Absolutely there are things that exist that we aren't aware of yet.
Relatively to everyone, there are something we have yet to become aware of in our lives.

The problem? We fear change in our thinking, we fear change from safety to the unknown. So if the problem is fear, why aren't we dealing with the fear? Because we fear confronting what we are afraid might damage us. Even if the possibility truly doesn't exist, if it is within our mind as a possibility; it can (or will) happen. Possibilities don't just exist within the human mind; that's egotistical to think that they do.
So we compromise with ourselves to allow our fear to be right and what might be good for us vanishes for what is now.
With this comes emotional pain, but what's worse; we lose all sense of ability to change this. We lose sense of our own choice and Will.
Knowing that all things are ever-changing at all times; how can we assume if we don't make a choice that nothing happens and we are thereby not responsible for what comes next?
This is the nature of ignorance; banish it with challenge, confrontation, and awareness.
Put all your tools to the test, sharpen them, make all disadvantages your tools for success.