All we can see and verify is the natural, so does it make any sense to believe that non-matter entities exist?

Answer 1

No, it doesn't. There is no logical reason to believe in something that doesn't physically exist and doesn't physically interact with anything that does.

Answer 2

Indeed, it is not rational.

EDIT: To *******, no, you can't see the wind, but is it logical to think something we can't verify is true? Because we can verify the existence of wind. (I thoroughly hate that comparison by now. I've had it flung to my head far too often on this board and people don't seem to get that there is a difference.)

EDIT 2: Okay, it seems he/she has deleted his/her response, so I'll erase his/her name.

EDIT 3: Yes, but anti-matter has been verified. Religion hasn't been verified. There is a difference between the human senses and existence, people. Something called proof.

Answer 3

Yes. Many sane, competant people can attest to the existance of the non-material. Your question is the basis by which the term 'super-natural' lost currency and 'para-normal' became the preferred term for matters out of the ordinary. If ghosts do exist, would they do so outside of natural boundaries? Probably not. So ghosts, assuming they exist, are a natural phenomena, but not something you would see every day. Read modern finding in the field of physics. All matter is really just energy. Living humans can effect the outcome of random chance experiments by their willpower alone. Physics experiements might even all be at question because the desires of the researchers can effect how the results occur. This can meld with the spiritual theory that the Divine (however you decide to view It) actually conforms to our expectations. This makes for bad science, as the results are always varied and never repeatable, but still a part of real reality. It's that 'spooky crap' that scientists don't like but can't deny. It exists and is natural. It cannot be 'super-natural' unless an artifical source created it. It can be para-normal because you just don't see crap like that everyday. Ok, if this stuff DOES conform to our expectations, it really could not be 'proven' by modern scientific method, but would still exist all the same. If you researched this stuff, like I have, you can come to two conclusions: at least half of primate civilization is hopelessly insane, or it does exist. The first conclusion says you have no faith in your fellow man. Now, even if three-quarters of the reports can be explained away by madness, mis-perception, stupidity, or the 'crowd factor', you still have a substantial amount of evidence pointing toward the existance of something that is currenlty 'unknown', but seems to have a real effect on reality as we know it. Even if it's just 3 or 4% of the reported cases having an actual 'unknown, that's still enough to think there is something there that we don't quite understand. I have to think about the differences in the disciplines of Science when I consider something like this. Astronomy comes across several events or things per year that throws at least one of it's major theories on it's ear. Giant extra-Solar gas planets orbitting insanely close to their stars, the percentage of matter never adding up, or something. They have no choice but to shrug and say, 'we'll figure this out SOMEDAY, but for now, we just don't know what this is about'. Compare this to Anthropology, who seems to have a dogmatic doctrine to defend. If you find evidence, no matter how well supported, that challenges their theories on, let's say, when the earliest Native Americans arrived in America, you'de better be ready for a fight. They will discredit, degrade, and steal your evidence to defend their existing theories. Remember how freaky they got when real fossils were found showing the existance of pygmy people who hunted pygmy elephants on that old Medditeranean island. 'Hobbits' they were called. I think many 'anthro old-schoolers' sounded in on that one without even checking in to see what evidence, if any, there was to support the find. They just all followed one dude's assertion that it must have been a tribe of normal humans suffering from a genetic defect. Line and column, like a dogmatic doctrine defending itself. Science is about exploration. This includes knowing our current tools are not neccessarily the best or only tools we will ever have to our disposal. Are we a Church?

Answer 4

Yes it does make sense.
The first order of business in doing so is to ask are we humans capable of knowing everything based on our physical senses alone. Is it possible that we in fact do not know everything?
There is in the physical world many things we do not even know about yet, if that is the case, (my examples are the yet countless numbers of species in the rain-forest unidentified or "discovered"),
then is it unthinkable that there is something which exists which we cannot know by our "natural" senses?
I think it is within reason to consider this possibility.

Answer 5

It leaves you open to the possibility of being imposed upon, as we may never be able to verify or substantiate any claims regarding non-material existence. Thus, as Thomas Paine asserts, reason remains our only infallible guide.

Answer 6

Anti matter is proven. Infact dark matter occupys 87% of the universe and it has no physical property nor do we have any idea what the hell it is so we call it dark matter, all we know is it some how holds the niverse together.

Answer 7

yes,it makes sense

Answer 8

Oh you of so little faith!
I'm sorry for you , that you cannot know the joy of having prayers answered by him who alone answers mine!