What Do We Mean By ‘Super Natural?’

EDITORIAL NOTE: It’s been a while since I’ve posted.  I apologize to those of you who follow me, but I have been busy with work.  However, I have no forgotten about you or my blogs.  I have some important things I would like to share, but they are not the easiest topics to explain. In fact, they are on the deeper, more philosophical end of things. This is why I have been taking some time to think about how I can best write these next post. I have decided to break things down into a series of smaller posts, and to post them on all three of my blogs. They will build off each other, with each successive post building off the posts that have come before. I hope I can do this right, and that I make the things I am able to clearly explain what I am seeing and why I see it the way I do. I also hope that you find something that helps you better understand our world in return.

When most people think about things such as God, heaven and the spiritual world, they think in terms of what we like to call, ‘the super natural.’  For many, the idea of accepting the possibility that the ‘super natural’ might be real is beyond their ability to accept.  And yet, for whatever reason, many of those same people have no problem accepting the possibility that other dimensions might exist.  If you were to ask them, they might point to the mathematical models that suggest there are additional dimensions to our universe.  Others might claim that science has proven the existence of parallel universes.  These people cannot actually touch, see, feel, measure or test these additional dimensions or parallel universes, so their belief cannot be based in science. But yet, they can still accept that these things might be real while rejecting any possibility of the spiritual ‘super natural.’  Why is this?

I propose that we examine this issue by setting aside all the obvious inconsistencies and logical contradictions this question of ‘Why is this?’ presents. Instead, I would like us to take a closer look at what we mean by, ‘super natural.’ Maybe we can find a different way to think about this subject; to see it from a different perspective.  For the sake of our current discussion, we will start by assuming there actually are additional dimensions to our universe.  How might these additional dimensions help us look at the subject from a different perspective? And can that different perspective help us to better understand why some people accept one possibility while rejecting another?

The first thing I think we need to do is identify some of the reasons a person might reject the possibility of the ‘super natural’ when it comes to the subject of The Creator and the Spiritual Realm. Now, I have no wish to create a straw man situation here. Rather, I would like to work from a strong objection to the spiritual ‘super natural.’ Judging from past discussions I have had with non-believers, one of the primary objections I have been offered is that they do not believe in things they cannot ‘prove.’ Most times, they will link their objection to the notion of science. In this case, they most often mean the ability to test things through observation, measurement and observation. Or, to state it more succinctly: they do not believe in the ‘super natural’ because it cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Therefore, to them, the ‘super natural’ is not real.

The Scriptures certainly make many claims that can be classified as, ‘super natural.’ These might include the existence of heaven, or the spirit world; the ability to walk through walls; to occupy the same space and time as another person; the ability to be with each of us every second of our lives; even the ability to stop the sun in its tracks. I cannot think of any way to subject any of these claims to direct testing or measurement, which makes it hard to apply the scientific method to them. In fact, several of these claims would appear to violate our understanding of the natural laws which govern this universe. Certainly, this is sufficient to meet the definition of, ‘super natural.’ Therefore, I propose that we start by examining whether or not the existence of additional dimensions can explain the ‘super natural’ claims made in Scripture. Then we will consider what the result of this examination can tell us about why a person might chose to accept one possibility while rejecting another.

Let us start by assuming that there are three additional space dimensions that we cannot sense. In essence, a second dimension for length, height and width. Let us also assume that these three additional space dimensions intersect our space dimensions at the proper angle. Now, I know this can be difficult to understand, and even harder to picture, so I will try to simplify matters a little. We will call our three spacial dimensions the 3D world, and the greater universe, with six spacial dimensions, the 6D world. Now, if there were a person who could fully access the 6D world, that person would be able to do things that would appear to be ‘super natural’ to those of us in the 3D world. For example, a person who had full access to the 6D world could stand right next to us and we would not be able to see them. In fact, they could even occupy the same space and time as we do, and we still would not be able to sense them. The 6D person could also appear to walk through 3D walls, or through locked 3D doors. A person with full access to the 6D world might even be able to interact with the 3D world without being seen or heard. But there is more to this. If a person could actually control or manipulate the 6D world, they could make the sun appear to stop in the sky without causing catastrophic damage to the earth and everything on it. They could even make the sun appear to disappear at high noon. All of these things are mentioned in Scripture, and all of them could easily be explained by the existence of three additional space dimensions to our universe.

But these are not all the things that could be explained by the existence of a 6D world. A 6D world would create a place that could be called, ‘heaven.’ In simple terms, the second set of space dimensions would form a universe we could not see or access, yet the people in it could see and access our 3D universe. That 6D world would effectively be ‘heaven.’ A 6d world could also create a directional situation in which heaven would always be ‘up’ in our 3D world and, no matter where we are in our 3D world, hell would always be ‘down.’ But a 6D world could also provide an explanation for something that we still have not explained — gravity! That is correct: we do not know how gravity works. But a 6D world could place our 3D world in a sort of free fall in the 6D world, which would create the feel of gravity in our 3D world. A 6D world could also explain ‘dark matter.’ In order for things to work the way we think our 3D world works, there should be a lot more matter in our universe than we have found. Well, what if that matter is actually in the unseen, 6D part of our universe? Remember, the 6D world might be able to affect our 3D world, so the ‘dark matter’ we cannot see because it is in the 6D world could still have the effect we see in our 3D world. Finally, the 6D world could explain why our universe can constantly expand while maintaining a perfect equilibrium of all our universal constants. In fact, without something like the 6D world, our science falls apart as we have absolutely no way to explain why this is true, in which case, our universe should have ceased to exist long ago. For that matter, a 6D world would actually give our 3D world a place to exist, period! Or can anyone out there tell me where our universe actually is? What is outside the boundaries of space? Scripture speaks to all of these things, but many people refuse to even consider how it could be true.

All of the things we discussed above can be consistently and coherently explained by simply adding three spacial dimensions to our existing universe. These spacial dimensions would then be part of our universe, which would mean they are a natural part of our world. They would also be ‘scientific,’ in that they could all be explained and defended. So, why are so many people willing to accept this as a possibility, but they refuse to accept the possibility of a ‘spirit world?’ Many of these same people will even entertain the possibility of ‘inter-dimensional aliens,’ but they refuse to entertain the possibility of angels. Why? What would be the difference? The words we use to describe them? So, I can believe in a cat, but I refuse to accept the existence of a gato. Does that make sense to you?

Then there is the matter of time.  What if we consider the possibility that time is actually a dimension? And what if there is a second ‘time’ dimension we cannot see? Once again, if this additional time dimension intersected ours at the proper angle, then a person who had access to both time lines could spend every second of every day of our lives with each and every one of us.  In other words, one person with access to both time lines could see everything you and I ever do — at the same time! They could see everything every person on earth is doing, and it would all seem like the same instant to them! This is also mentioned in Scripture, and people dismiss those claims as just more ‘super natural’ superstition. Yet, once again, they will accept the possibility of additional dimensions. Seriously, where is the difference?

Are you starting to see how most of what people think of as ‘super natural’ can easily be explained if this universe actually does contain additional dimensions that we just cannot access or control? And that, if they exist, these additional dimensions are a natural part of this universe? So, if they exist, and they are a natural part of our universe, then why would we call them, ‘super natural?’ Are they really outside of this universe or, have we — in our arrogance —  conveniently defined things this way? Are we 3D bigots who have defined the limited part of this universe to which we have physical access as the ‘natural’ world and all those dimensions to which we do not have access as ‘super natural?’  Well, the answer might surprise you, but that is exactly what we did:

Definition of 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

2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Do you see the profound importance of this definition?  ‘Super Natural’ does not mean something does not exist, it just means we have no direct access to it: we cannot perceive it using our senses.  This does not mean that something we cannot see cannot be part of our universe. We cannot see gravity or gravity waves, but they are part of our universe. So, what we mean when we say, ‘super natural,’ is not that it does not exist, but that we cannot sense or access it. But does this mean we cannot apply the scientific method to it as so many non-believers claim? Well, the answer to that might surprise you.

Quickly, ‘super natural’ does not mean something does not exist, it means we cannot sense it or access it. But does that mean we cannot perceive indirect evidence that it exists? No! It does not mean that at all! In fact, there are many things we know to exist that we cannot directly perceive or measure. By strict definition, these things would be ‘super natural,’ yet we all believe in them. Why do we believe they exist, but we reject other things without ever trying to test for them?

What are some good examples of things that we know exist but we cannot directly perceive? Gravity is one of them. You cannot see, taste, touch, smell or feel gravity. What you perceive is the effect of gravity! They are two related but very different things. Here, let me prove it using another example: electro-magnetic force. We cannot feel electricity, either. What we feel when we are shocked is the effect of the electrons passing through our body, and the magnetic field they produce. Which gives us another example: magnetic fields. Dark matter is yet another example. We can perceive the effect these things have in our universe, but we cannot perceive them, themselves. You cannot find magnetic energy, or magnetic fields, or gravity or gravity waves under an electron microscope. They have no mass because they are not matter. And while we assume dark matter is matter, we cannot find it, either. And yet, all of us just accept these things as reality when, bu strict definition, they are all ‘super natural.’ Why? Could it be that we have never actually tried to test for the effect of the spiritual things we consider to be ‘super natural?’ Or do we just think we have the authority to decide which ‘super natural’ things will be counted as ‘real,’ and which ones we will dismiss as ‘superstition?’

Throughout this post, I have been writing in circles: repeatedly coming back to the same basic question.  Though I have framed it in several different ways, that question remains: why do so many people feel empowered to acknowledge some possibilities that are — by definition — ‘super natural,’ while rejecting other ‘super natural’ possibilities as ‘superstition?’  Is it because we have no evidence of spiritual things? No, actually, we have strong evidence for the human soul. Tests have been done in this area, and they have indicated that there is some aspect to our existence that is bound to, but is not part of our created by our physical bodies. More than this, we have evidence that the soul survives the body and that, when it leaves the body, it enters into the 6D world where it can see and interact with us in the 3D world, but we cannot see or interact with it. But those who reject the spiritual as ‘super natural’ also reject these studies when they are every bit as scientifically sound as the studies of gravity and magnetic forces. Why? Why do they accept one while rejecting the other? You will have to answer these questions for yourself, but before you do, let me ask you to change the perspective from which you consider them by doing a little thought exercise. 

Let me steal an idea from a movie and ask you to pretend that you are a program inside a computer.  The only world you know is inside that computer. You cannot perceive anything outside of the inner case of the computer. But you know more about your world than we know about ours.  You know absolutely everything there is to know about every aspect of the things that exist inside your computer case, as well as the programs running on your computer.  You are omniscient about your hardware and software — as it pertains to their existence inside your computer case! You have absolutely no knowledge of anything outside the inner surface of your computer case — period!  Now, while you keep pretending to be this all-knowing computer program stuck inside your fictional computer world, answer these questions for me:

How do you explain the existence of your computer?

Where — exactly — is your computer? What is outside your computer case?

Where does your computer get the power to keep running?

How do you explain your existence, and the existence of all your fellow programs?

Who or what wrote the laws which govern the function of your program?

What happens to programs that stop functioning?

Where do new programs come from?

Do you see what I just asked you to do?  Better yet, do you see the implications?  Hopefully, if I have succeeded in what I have been trying to do in this post, I have managed to get you to look at the issue of ‘natural’ vs. ‘super natural’ from a different perspective. Better still, I have helped you better understand the real issue at hand.  It is not about the ultimate reality of our universe; it is about whether or not we are humble enough to consider and then look for indirect evidence of explanations outside our perceivable world; for ‘super natural’ possibilities.  In the ‘think problem’ I just gave you, those programs that place their faith in the ‘User’ will likely be laughed at by those programs that reject what they cannot see.  The problem is — ultimately — while no program may ever know the complete truth, those that deny the possibility of the ‘User’ will never be able to answer the questions asked by the programs that do believe; while the programs that believe in the ‘User’ will always be able to answer every objection posed by the programs who do not.  That, dear reader, is called an indirect indication of ultimate Truth, and the implications of this fact points those who see it in the correct direction of this divide.  The question now is, do you see it? Do you see that indirect proof pointing you in the correct direction?

[PLEASE NOTE: It is a personal matter to me that I do not promote this blog page.  This is not because I do not want it to succeed.  On the contrary; I hope I can reach as many people as possible.  It’s just that I have a great deal of trouble promoting myself. Therefore, if this blog is to grow, it will grow because you found enough value in what I have written to share it with your friends and family.  Should you ever feel lead to do so, I sincerely thank you.  You both humble and honor me, and I am glad that I was able to serve you.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s