What is Supernatural?

It's just a label. There is nothing behind the label that would tell us anything worthwhile about what existence/non-existence is. It says nothing about why there is something rather than nothing. And speculations and assumptions of what existence is are really personal human beliefs. We need to understand existence and we make assumptions. It's ok, as long we are aware that they are merely assumptions. Another term that you have no idea what it really represents - Reality. What is it?? You don't know. Then why the leap of faith about what existence in reality is, when you don't know what these both really are? Or it exists in a way you can't comprehend. Same as how you can't comprehend your own existence. Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world. You are not sugesting that I am overcomplicating, what is possibly the biggest question of the human race, are you? The way we exist in our reality, yes, you could say i don't think a God of any sorts is explicitly manifest in our reality. These are labels.What I initially picked you up on was when you seemed to be implying that the phenomenon of existence itself might require a creator. It cannot, because existence would have to be a quality of that creator, don't you agree? What's vague about "the fact or state of being"? Non-existent means non-existent in all reality regardless of anyone's perceptions. Frequently. They often claim that he's omnipresent. They certainly believe that he exists. Christians are generally defined as a group of people who believe that the Christian god exists. Ask them. Without existing. Period. Something either exists or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with our perceptions or particular dimensions or what we believe. Things either are, or they aren't. You had no idea that an atheist might agree with the non-existence of god? Do explain. We now seem to be in the bizzare MatterWave world in which Christians are expected to agree to the non-existence of god, and atheists to disagree. What is a plane of existence? Things either exist or they don't. Aren't you overcomplicating the concept of existence? God's existence? I thought you were suggesting a non-existent god? The state of being. The United States of America didn't exist 300 years ago, and now it does exist. The Roman Empire existed 2000 years ago, and now it doesn't exist. If God is an advanced race of beings similar to us mortal humans, who live in a deterministic, causation-driven reality, yes. But then we'll have to embrace the turtles.Or God is as incomprehensible as our existence is. I don't believe our minds are all-powerful and able comprehend the whole of reality. This is utopia to me.

Hello Stevesque What do you mean? How can we have evidence for anything outside of space and time? If any evidence exists it has to exist within our universe so that we can percieve it. In which case it becomes natural. Can you site an example of evidence that we have or could percieve for something that resides outside of space and time?Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Could you sort out your quote boxes on that post, Matter, as it's not clear who's saying what? If you want to use nested quotes, use the peek button below to see how it works.

I think you are confusing Evolutionists with Abiogenesists, Big Bangists, and Stringists. I bet if you asked them what their favorite flavor of ice cream was they would tell you. That doesn't make Rocky Road a part of evolution nor does it make Rocky Road a requisite part of the Evolution argument. People say a lot of things. What I am interested in is the evidence which supports their claims. What is that evidence?

Hence the problem. We have people trying to assert the qualities of something that can not be observed. So what is the equivalent observation for the supernatural and natural? What is the equivalent of the light beam? What observable phenomenon does the supernatural project into the natural?

Those physicists are not called "scientists" because of their philosophical musings. They are called scientists because they proposed testable hypotheses that were verified by scientific experiments.

This statement is immediately followed by . . . You make it quite clear that you don't want to know. The only assumption here is your injection of "God" into the discussion. You need to provide evidence of God before God can be considered.

Basically, you argument boils down to: "We can't really KNOW anything."Yawn. Solipsism is totally ghey.

Well, Matterwave, like the Jimmy Superfly Snooker that you are, you grabbed me by the hair and dragged me back into this... Is this, or is this not what you have been relentlessly lambasting everyone else in "existence" for doing? Exactly, my existentially challenged friend. You have effectively wrapped yourself up into such a furball of your own manufacture that you don't know if you're coming or going. How else would you suggest beings (...what is the state of "being"?) interact with their world (...what is..."world") in a meaningful (...what is the meaning of... "meaningful"?) fashion? Would you have mankind live life (...what is...life?)in a philosophical haze of "Am I real, or is everything just...ethereal?" What exists? What is existence?So you posit, over and over and over, that we need to accept that we can't just assume that what we observe in nature is "existing" in any meaningful way. Stop making assumptions, you say. Why the "leap of faith", you say. Yet, you then state: Finally. We finally see that all your arguments boil down to nothing more than a thought experiment. Just musings charading as a contradictorily valid premise. You might call it, "stirring the pot". Another word for it is "trolling".MatterWave, had you left this big question (and I agree with you, it's a deep one) as just that, this may have been nothing more than a polite conversation. But I think you tried to make it some kind of crusade in which, instead of admitting you were just "thinking out loud," you took it to absolutely ridiculous lengths. Sorta like a snowball, rolling down a hill. Except in this case, the metaphorical hill and snowball don't actually exist.Have a good one.

Hi Taq,I have 6 posts in this thread prior to this one.Which of those posts did I say evolution taught that the universe just is?You did tell me in Message 13
I responded to you in Message 161
You responded in the message I am responding to with: I have no idea why you want to bring evolution into the discussion of what is natural and what is Supernatural.I have not introduced the subject and will not respond to any further mention of it.I did refer to Evolutionist on this site that had told me the universe just is.FYI cavediver, Rahvin, and Straggler all have made that statement to me.Which brings me back to the subject of Existence.Existence is either infinite.ORExistence began to exist.If existence began to exist it had to begin from non existence.Can existence begin to exist?You answered "I don't know". Do you believe something can come from nothing?It is absurd to believe that existence can begin to exist from non existence.Why do you think there is a search for the Theory of Everything?Why do you think Turok/Hawking invented the instanton?
The problem with the instanton where did it begin to exist? A vacume would be required which is a volume of space. Big problem space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe.Along comes string theory with two branes producing the universe. Problem where did they exist? Back to the vacume so same problem as the instanton.Existence is required for the universe to begin to exist by any scientific hypothesis proposed.Since that exstence has to be external to the universe it can not be natural.Therefore that existence would be classified as non natural or could be called supernatural. Your choice.The evidence we have for that existence = The universe exists, we and all life forms exist.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Why refer to someone's position on biological change when discussing the origin of the universe? One does not have anything to do with the other. So which is it, and what is the evidence that supports it? I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Why is it absurd? Because we are curious as to how the universe works and how it came to be. Why can't it be natural?Thunderclouds are necessary for the existence of lightning, so does that mean that thunderclouds are not natural?

Hi Taq, Thunderclouds are part of the universe therefore natural.Something had to exist for the universe to begin to exist.According to the hypothesis there had to be a vacuum for the branes or for the instanton. That vacuum had to exist in existence.Do you have or know of a hypothesis that would not require something to exist for the uiniverse to begin to exist?If it has to be external to and in which the universe exists, how could it be natural?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Leave god and the validity of his/her existence out of this for a second...it leads to infinite regression by the very logic being used.If it wasn't "god" and instead a turtle, then the turtle would require a creator, and that creator its own creator and so on and so on.You choose to believe that something refered to as "god" was the first cause to the universe, but that is not relevant to the point. I assume nothing about the word "god," it has no meaning to me. I'm simply pointing out the error of your logic. Who created the creator? If the creator exists then by the same logic requires a creator as well. You can try to spin it all you want but you can't avoid the logical error you are making.- Oni

Thunderclouds are not a part of the lightning bolt. The lightning bolt can not exist without the thundercloud. The lightning bolt is natural. Therefore, the thundercloud can not be natural.This is your argument in a nut shell. Why couldn't it be natural? Are branes supernatural?

Well said.I actually do place a lot of importance on dreams myself. I've tried many different mind altering states (both natural and with drugs) and it can be awesome. Extremely awesome. I've studied a lot as well on dream states, REM and consciousness, etc. I honestly find approaching it without supernatural elements to be a lot more fascinating than imagining supernatural realms and things like that. Reality and nature are so much more intriguing than invisible things that can't be experienced, but only believed in. IMO. I only put it harshly because its you and me rapping here, I'd be more sensitive with others. Yeah, we could always tell them why they're prove to beliefs, but they never listen. - Oni