Supernatural vs Non-Existent

The signature Ingwe uses at the end of posts, inspired me to start this thread.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

I have often asked people what the difference is between the supernatural and things that don’t exist. I have yet to receive even one characteristic.

I came across this YouTube video, where they discuss the idea on the Atheist Experience. (I wish we had a program like this in SA. Are there any TV producers out there big enough for the task?)

I have not watched the linked-to video owing to ongoing bandwidth/connectivity problems. Believers in the supernatural always insist that the supernatural can affect our ordinary, real world, even if it is only to the extent of producing a specific brain state in the percipient. But if that were so and the supernatural was bound by certain rules (as is reasonable to suppose), however odd they may be, there would be some way of generating reproducible results – something we still don’t have despite about 150 years of research. For all that trouble, what we have discovered are many of the peculiarities of the human brain relating to its propensity for being fooled that are, given Occam’s Razor as a valuable operating principle, a much more plausible explanation for many of the “supernatural” phenomena reported by people.

And that’s just it: the supernatural invariably relies on people’s reports for its persistence, never on objective measurement or detection. In this regard, the difference between sceptics and believers is that sceptics accept that human senses and cognition are fallible.

And since infallible human senses and cognition are demonstrably non-existent, the supernatural will also be indistinguishable from non-existence.

'Luthon64