Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8124 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-23-2014 6:20 AM
119 online now:
(119 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,397 Year: 22,238/28,606 Month: 1,325/1,410 Week: 112/415 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 207 (634823)
09-24-2011 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
09-23-2011 11:20 AM


It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:

For example - Thor as the conceptual cause of this phenomenon remains as conceptually supernatural as ever. And nothing science discovers will change that.

Is Science trying to explain where life came from thru the TOE?

The TOE explains how life happens not how it came to be. Science looks at the evidence, then forms the theory around it, right?

Science doesn't need to explain the SN in order for the SN to exist.

Just because something can be explained in a natural terms doesn't mean it can't have a SN connection.

There are still a lot of things Scientists' don't know about lightning:

Lightning Basics
What is lightning?
Lightning is a gigantic electrostatic discharge (the same kind of electricity that can shock you when you touch a doorknob) between the cloud and the ground, other clouds, or within a cloud. Scientists do not understand yet exactly how it works or how it interacts with the upper atmosphere or the earth 's electromagnetic field.

What causes lightning?
The creation of lightning is a complicated process. We generally know what conditions are needed to produce lightning, but there is still debate about exactly how lightning forms.The exact way a cloud builds up the electrical charges that lead to lightning is not completely understood.

Reference:http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/lightning/ltg_basics.html

So since some things are still relativley unknown can we assume it's due to not knowing how to detect or test the SN?

Of course not. There are tons of things that will always be unexplained and Science is only a part of that. If Science never finds God does that mean God doesn't exist?

If the natural world has laws and explanations maybe the Creator set it up that way.

Goddidit is a terrible thing to say I know!! My god man, I would not utter that here trust me, but maybe God created lightning to act and work the way it does. Science explains how, God supplied the lightning. Deal? Im thinking no deal...

Straggler writes:

Likewise it isn't the case that build up of electric static electric charge in clouds was once "supernatural" and is now "natural". This explanation is and always has been natural. It's just those who believed in Thor (or whoever) were (understandably) ignorant of such things.

Ignorant of what? So your saying as soon as something can be explained away God is out?

Was He ever in? So basically everything that does not have an explanation you think we say Goddidit but once Science explains it we are left with the rest of the unexplained?

So you get all the explained things that Science explains and we get the unexplained for now? Thanks a lot. Why do you have a problem with Science explaining things and God creating them?

What if the evidence is just that, the lightning? Can you claim otherwise? And if so on what basis?

God can be practical you know...just because He is SN doesn;t mean he has no common sense.

Straggler writes:

We investigate nature and where we find highly evidenced naturalistic alternatives to supernatural explanations we consider the supernatural explanation refuted to all practical intents and purposes.

COME on mannnnnnn. You think once something is explained the SN is refuted?

Geeez Louise.

Leonhard Euler-mathematician

If Gauss is the Prince, Euler is the King. Living from 1707 to 1783, he is regarded as the greatest mathematician to have ever walked this planet. It is said that all mathematical formulas are named after the next person after Euler to discover them. In his day he was ground breaking and on par with Einstein in genius. His primary (if that’s possible) contribution to the field is with the introduction of mathematical notation including the concept of a function (and how it is written as f(x)), shorthand trigonometric functions, the ‘e’ for the base of the natural logarithm (The Euler Constant), the Greek letter Sigma for summation and the letter ‘/i’ for imaginary units, as well as the symbol pi for the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter. All of which play a huge bearing on modern mathematics, from the every day to the incredibly complex.

As well as this, he also solved the Seven Bridges of Koenigsberg problem in graph theory, found the Euler Characteristic for connecting the number of vertices, edges and faces of an object, and (dis)proved many well known theories, too many to list. Furthermore, he continued to develop calculus, topology, number theory, analysis and graph theory as well as much, much more – and ultimately he paved the way for modern mathematics and all its revelations. It is probably no coincidence that industry and technological developments rapidly increased around this time.

So, as soon as everyone understood what this great mathematician was trying to convey to people and science he was simply discarded and given no credit whatsoever? Everyone else gets/takes the credit now? That doesn't sound right to me.

If however the supernatural explanation is borne out (i.e. we examine the Sun and it really is a Golden Armored being unbounded by the laws of physics riding a flaming chariot across the sky) then we acknowledge that there is actually a basis for such concepts.

Wow man, thanks. Atleast you are being fair.

As yet no such evidence for any such entity has ever been forthcoming.

What kind of evidence do you need? Do you need to see the mathematicion in order to leave the possibility open that the SN may have played a part?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 09-23-2011 11:20 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:32 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 09-24-2011 10:30 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 5:02 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 207 (634948)
09-25-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
09-24-2011 8:32 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Percy writes:

no matter that in every instance of a scientifically investigated phenomenon traced to a cause, that cause turned out to be natural.

Ok, if you say so. Im sure there are some things still unexplained that were Scientifically investigated. Some things will never be explained and some of them are SN IMO.

There is only two possibilities. Super-natural OR natural.

The SN we can't see, or detect, so we can't test it. The only things we can test are natural that might be the cause of the SN.

It's religious or at least superstitious or primitive people who attribute what we don't know to the supernatural.

Hahah Well,umm, we are great apes after all right? So calling me primitive is a compliment? Thanks.

As time goes by science demonstrates that more of more of these phenomena are natural.

I don't follow? That is wonderful that Science would very much like to take all the great wonders that are not explained and make them theirs and put their stamp of approval on all of them as natural and de-god them. Wonderful. Until then, it's all just "I dont know, atleast im honest about it" they say. Yes, such humility those Science folk.

Such humble humble people. Just look around this particular thread for such examples.

It's the same exact thing when we ask evolutionists about our origins. They say we only deal with current life. It's so very convienient.

Science(most sciences) don't care anything about origins or how things started or got here only what we have now. Wonderful, but it doesn't give them the right to label all natural things as having a natural origin. They don't know. You don't know.

Until they know, the jury is still out and all they did was explain how it works in the natural but not where it came from or how it originated.

Science doesn't believe that what we don't know is supernatural.

Of course. Why would Science, which studies natural processes, care about the SN? Science could care less just ask Richard Dawkins.

I know that. What im saying is Science is god to some people(like you) and people like me (the primitive folk) believe it doesn't have all the answers. Im not at all against Science. It's great. I just don't hold it above everything else. It explains the natural and how some things operate. It doesn't mean once they explain that the SN is refuted. That's just silly.

What I'm wondering is how you believe study of the supernatural should be conducted?

I don't know. There may be some ways but if it can be tested then it's not SN right? Isn't that what you would say?

Isn't this whole thread a set up? Mod is trying to make us look even stupider than what people already think?

See Nuggin's condescending, ignorant, wimpy, cop-out reply to me Message 46 about how I should "grow up". Anyone who believes there is more to life than what we see is a "dreamer". A "delusional whack job" and the best one "uneducated". We need to "grow up" and think for ourselves. Get "educated" as they say, "take a look at what Science is saying, be free, open you mind". etc etc etc etc...

Well, as far as I know, science doesn't know a lot of things and that's fine, but it only deals with the natural, so why should I be concerned about science when dealing with the SN? I have my trusted Bible for that and you and the other educated people here can have the God delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 09-24-2011 8:32 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 4:02 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-25-2011 8:59 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2011 11:32 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 207 (634956)
09-25-2011 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
09-24-2011 7:51 PM


Re: Woo
Here is what a (previous?) member said to another member here: Message 21

Silent H writes:

To be honest, while I sometimes think you need to increase your endurance to reading and understanding complex pieces

Coyote writes:

The woo is strong with this one...

See Silent H above. Yeah, seemingly stronger than your non-comment. Nice going in adding to the actual debate which Zen Deist has certainly done so far. You on the other hand?

all you need to do is provide evidence of the supernatural, any deities, spirits, or any of the rest. If there is real evidence, we'll all have to admit it.

Wow Coyote. That sure is a fabulous comment. So that's it ehe? End of debate?

[amateur psychologist] Could the problem be that you have beliefs but doubts, and are trying to reinforce your beliefs? [/amateur psychologist]

Real mature dude. Real...mature.

Truly, those unending threads where you torture logic are wearing thin. Either you have evidence or you don't. It's that simple.

See Silent H. above...again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 09-24-2011 7:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 207 (634964)
09-25-2011 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-25-2011 4:02 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Paulk writes:

In fact Nuggin had a valid point. It's always possible to invent ad-hoc additions to anything we know. But if you're reduced to that then you are almost certainly wrong.

In fact if you don't want to look bad then I have to suggest that you work at reducing your bias, getting your facts right and understanding the posts that you are replying to.

First off, just because YOU say Nuggin has a valid point doesn't mean anything. He took what I said and twisted it around.

GDR did a great job of explaining to the person what I actually meant so there was no need to respond to him the same exact thing. It has nothing to do with "because you aren't up to it" incidently. Also GDR felt that that person was coming across rather disingenuous too. I understand why tho you feel the need to try and belittle me. It's par the course for you here.

If ever you construct a post that isn't at all condescending flavored with arrogance with a hint of humility it will be a first.

As for understanding the posts I make, I perfectly understand what it is I said to Straggler. Thanks kindly tho.

As for getting my facts straight, OBVIOUSLY I know what abiogenesis is! In fact if you read my post it says "most sciences" aren't interested in origins (I was using the TOE as one example). I thought that would imply abiogenesis was in play as ONE of the sciences that DOES seek answers for our origins.

Anyway, Percy im sure is elated you took up for him here with the likes of me. I don't try and go around here like I know everything. I think it's obvious I do not.

It's also obvious that you think you know it all.

For instance if prayer is at all effective it should be statistically visible

Who even knows what in the frikking world that even means. If you want to come over you can watch me pray anytime. Bring your pen and notepad.

I have prayed for certain things that most certainly have been answered. I seriously doubt you would say it was due to prayer as you would call it a coincidence. So save displaying your pious attitude for someone else.

You have potential

Yep, likewise.

but a lot of it is wasted right now.

Yep, likewise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 4:02 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:00 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 8:02 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 207 (634966)
09-25-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
09-25-2011 5:02 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Im not good with trick questions so i'll do my best. If i falter I hope you'll show me some mercy.

Straggler writes:

Chuck do you think scientific investigation has to all practical intents and purposes refuted the existence of the Norse god Thor?

Hmmm. I do not no. Im not sure they are trying to disprove anything SN. Maybe some people say they are or maybe some actually are but the actual Scientists (save Dawkins) are probably not.

Would a full scientific understanding of abiogenesis effectively eliminate any "spark of life" type theistic claims in your view?

Would a full understanding of abiogenesis if explained eliminate a theistic view for me. No, why would it?

Straggler, im not saying science is evil, im saying it is content in explaining the natural means about how certain things work.

To me tho, just because something is explained doesn't mean the SN is refuted. Why would it?

In general - Is it ever legitimate to invoke a supernatural explanation where a highly evidenced naturalistic cause is scientifically known?

YES. Why not? If we were not created from something SN then Science should have no problem explaining how we got here. Right?

What's the hold up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 5:02 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:17 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 207 (634968)
09-25-2011 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:17 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:

So - To be clear - No matter how evidenced or predictively powerful a naturalistic explanation is you consider a supernatural explanation for the same phenomenon to be equally valid?

No. I didn't say THAT. I said the SN could be BEHIND the explanation. Causing it to work the WAY it does. What is the problem?

Thor is as valid an explanation for thunder and lightning as static electricity?

Thor could have caused the static electricity to form lightning, yes. Very good Straggler.

Undetectable flight gnomes are just as likely to be responsible for aeroplanes flying as are the principle of fluid dynamics pertaining to air flow?

Well, im not sure about the gnomes, but God, yes. That's just me tho. You're on the right path.

Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:17 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:32 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 207 (634970)
09-25-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:00 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:

It means you can setup experiments which involve people praying for certain outcomes and then measure whether or not the actual outcomes being prayed for occur to an extent that is statistically significant in comparison to the same occurance when not prayed for.

LOL. Ok, so, if I pray for healing for my shoulder and the next day it's healed now what? You give credit to whomever I was praying to?

More simply - What it means is that the effects pf praying can actually be compared to the effects of not praying to see if praying really does work in the way people claim it does.

I know what it means. Im simply saying it won't matter now will it?

Even more simply - The effects of prayer are testable.

Hmmm. Funny. so you say it's good for evidence then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:00 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:38 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2011 10:40 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 69 of 207 (634972)
09-25-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:32 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:

But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms?

Dude, stop playing around. Of course I believe it's God. Im happy to say it's God every time believe me.

Can you explain why we would not be able to (in principle) scientifically study the supernatural entity that is Christ?

We can study the life of Christ while he was here on earth sure. Right now? You can study christianity sure.

Right now, to actually study the SN entity that is Jesus? If I could do that for you I would.

Get saved and you can do that yourself. I can't do it for you.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:32 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:47 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 09-25-2011 9:45 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 207 (635043)
09-26-2011 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
09-25-2011 8:59 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Percy writes:

what would a scientifically supernatural explanation look like. Is "scientifically supernatural" a contradiction in terms?

Well, im not so sure it's contradictory. I suppose the thing is, if you are not a chritstian/religious person and know absolutly nothing about ANY type of diety or SN anything would we be able to recognize it thru what we see/test everyday.

For me, I have a Bible, church, etc etc (a few creationist websites I like a lot) and to me, it explains things. If I wasn't a Christian I wouldn't be debating here I suppose. Maybe I would even be debating along side you.

I do have to say I don't think God is trying to fool anyone. I really think we look at evidence?/things differently.

He was trying to resolve the confusion that always develops when discussing the possibility of supernatural explanations.

Well, I understand that but it's really not possible IMO. Maybe we can be the first group of people to discover such a thing.

Maybe im taking the wrong approach here. Maybe this isn't a debate about the impossibility but just, possibilities.

Science not only cares a great deal about origins, it has given origin issues increasing attention over the years.

Yeah, im sorry for mucking that up. I do actually know that. I got lost in the moment.

but our creationist members feel that science should be able to confirm supernatural events. Not only should be able to, but has. How is debate between these two perspectives to be structured?

Well, good question...lol. Can we just cite creationist websites all day with citations?

Who knows. Im not sure what we're really discussing tho. Are we talking about for example- bluegenes theory or the great flood?

But science is not God to me. Most people in science, including myself, are not atheists.

Ok. Again, it was an overreation.

The labels refer to people who attribute unseen and unknown and even unknowable causes to phenomena. Isn't that you?

Well yeah, but that kind of makes it sound like im a UFO enthusiast. Im not of that particular ilk. So you might say "yeah, there is actually more evidence for UFO's" (it's just a guess you would say that).

The thing is, I didn't have an "experience" with a UFO. You might also say "how do you know they aren't martians fooling you into thinking it's God". GEEEZ Percy, you hang around Straggler too much.

If the explanation for thunder is Thor, a supernatural being, and if science shows that lightning is actually the product of naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena, then how would you describe what science has accomplished?

Science knows the natural explanation, not the SN one. It certainly isnt sciences' fault. Why are people just satisfied with just a natural explanation is my question.

Of course it's not sciences problem to answer that. It's not their obligation. Maybe it seems like creationists hate Science but really we/I don't. Im not sure why it is the way it is. Do you?

There are actually some people here who aren't incredibly picky about terminology. It's fine if you don't like the word "refuted" when describing what science has shown about Thor's role in the cause of lightning. What words would you like to use to describe it?

Well, how's explained? Because something has an explanation doesn't (to me) exclude anything SN. God is ok with us understanding how things work. It's just He doesn't seem to garner much credit for the things that He created to work the way they do. That's what im saying. And again you'll say "if I can see Gods fingerprints on it, i'll give Him credit."

Maybe im off topic a little bit here. Am I off topic mentioning God? Are we mostly discussing SN beings like ghosts, goblins, etc etc? How to actually test to see if they exist? Is God-Jesus included here?

I think Straggler was trying to get me to see earlier that there is no difference between Jesus and Thor when he asked about Jesus' DNA.

For example, a common creationist belief is that the great flood was an actual event for which evidence exists that can scientifically studied. If you think this kind of thinking is wrong then that's what you should be addressing,

Ok. well, I have so much information on the flood. I've even written and recieved responses from the Creationists that wrote the articles for more clarification. It would be great to discuss certain things here, but im not sure you or anyone here would think it's evidence. Well, I know because i've read the debates here.

That is why, I don't understand this thread that Mod proposed. It's obvious what is allowed or discussed as possible or not possible testing/evidence etc. isnt it?

or is it just something one happens to believe, particularly if one is saved.

Well, before I got saved I wasn't debating the Creation/Evolution view of things. Of course it has something to do with it. Then, we get involved and listen to people who are smarter than we are.

The first time I debated anyone was on the Yahoo science articles which I used bob Dutko's top ten proofs to do. (I really like him, I know that isn't popular to probably say but I do).

It didn't go to well and found myself trying to defend something I have no clue was about. I've learned a lot since that one day. I still believe a lot of it but not clear on everything.

So, im not sure how to test for the everything SN. I guess it's what tests are really tests and what is SN and what isn't.

If we say the flood was a God thing then if we test for the flood are we testing the SN? I think so maybe, possibly, not sure.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 09-25-2011 8:59 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 207 (635044)
09-26-2011 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Larni
09-25-2011 9:45 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Larni writes:

Isn't that part of the oint of this thread? For something to be studied rigorously it needs to have data available to all, not just a subset of the population.

What you are saying is that it is only true is you already believe it is true.

Huh? Have you ever read the subjective evidence threads? There is tons of recources for the christian faith if interested. PM me and i'll get you started.

Or just go to the Bible section here. The Bible is a SN book written my men inspired of God.

If Straggler says we can study prayer then surley we can study the Bible to see it it's true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 09-25-2011 9:45 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 09-26-2011 7:02 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 207 (635045)
09-26-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
09-25-2011 10:40 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Modulous writes:

From a Christian perspective, God knew that your shoulder hurt, knew that you wanted it to not hurt. Any prayer you make to that end is superfluous. Therefore your shoulder would have been healed regardless of the prayer. And therefore the correlation of prayer and healing is in fact, a coincidence.

I don't follow.

For Biblical references please see Matthew 6.

I assume you means this

Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

Well there is context to scripture. So I suppose I could quote you all of the healing verses, as well as the you ask not therefore recieve not verses, so on and so forth and so on.

I think we'll need something a little more concrete if we are going to study the supernatural.

Me or Straggler? He's the one who said prayer was good to go. Not me. Im good either way.

Are you of the position that it is in principle impossible for God to appear in front of multiple observers in a manner that lends for corroboration?

In principle yes/no. God can appear to anyone He chooses. It's asking Him to do it on demand that gets tricky ya know? Faith is a big thing.

The thing is it's not blind faith. Once that faith is excersized you see the light It's just not so bright to you because you don;t believe. It's brighter to others and even brighter to some and then they take the leap, get saved, and become a #1 on the dawkins scale.

Is the supernatural intrinsically indistinguishable from the delusional? Or is there a little more meat to it than that?

See, and Percy said you cared

It's quite the question isn't it? To me very much so. How to convey that to you, I suppose is the purpose of the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2011 10:40 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 09-26-2011 9:28 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 207 (635046)
09-26-2011 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
09-25-2011 7:47 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
Straggler writes:

Is God involved in absolutely everything or does anything happen on it's own?

Hmmmm. Nothing happens on it's own. Or I should say nothing happens outside of Gods province.

I guess that depends whether you believe Christ is amongst us at the moment or not. I am sure some do believe that.......

Straggler, there is actually a verse for that.

Matthew 18:20
New King James Version (NKJV)

20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

So yeah, of course that is true and I fully believe it. Sometimes you know he is there and other times you know

But at what ever point Christ physically walks amongst us there is nothing in principle to stop us scientifically studying this supertrnatural being is there?

Stop by during a prayer session with me and two of my friends and you might even end up getting saved due to experiencing the presense of God.

So yes, I would say there is. Bring along a few Scientists too.

I would imagine Christ's DNA (considering his parentage) would be rather interesting. For example.

The only DNA we would have a Jesus would be something he touched or wore, etc... when here 2000 years ago.

Right now tho, in this present time if He were to visit us in person, He has a glorified body. A heavenly body. No DNA as DNA is a human thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 09-25-2011 7:47 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 09-26-2011 5:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 207 (635048)
09-26-2011 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by PaulK
09-25-2011 8:02 AM


Re: It super and it's natural
PaulK writes:

I mean that a statistical study should be able to show that prayer is effective. Even if prayer only sometimes works, a positive outcome should happen more frequently than just chance.

Yeah, so what's the problem? How should we go about doing this?

But that is exactly why a proper statistical study is needed. If prayer really did work, you wouldn't need to rely on anecdotes that might be coincidences at best. It could be demonstrated. And it hasn't been.

This is quite shocking. I wasn't aware. So all these prayers of mine that were answered don't count because a scientific study wasn't there to document it?

Chuck, you've written a few good posts here

I take back everything I said about you Paul. You're ok.

and a lot of stinkers.

Damit!

I honestly am trying to give you some good advice here.

You have a weird way of doing so.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 09-25-2011 8:02 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-26-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 207 (635394)
09-29-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rahvin
09-28-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Newsweek Article
See, personally, I think a "supernatural explanation" looks an awful lot like a "natural explanation." An explanation brings a phenomenon out of the set of {not understood} and puts it in the set {at least somewhat understood}. Lightning was once considered a supernatural phenomenon - nobody had any idea how it worked, and myriad hypotheses involving spirits and elements and gods and so forth were invented in various cultures as potential explanations. The real explanation involves electromagnetism and differing charges between the atmosphere and the ground.

Isn't that a "supernatural explanation?" It's a testable, working explanation for a phenomenon once considered "supernatural." So too have we explained volcanoes and tornadoes and earthquakes and the motion of the Sun and Moon and stars. Are those not all explanations of "supernatural" phenomenon? We didn't, after all, prove that these things don't exist, akin to proving "ghosts" don't exist. Instead, we tested the phenomenon through repeated observation (in many cases of phenomenon that, like "ghosts" and other "supernatural" phenomenon, occur seemingly at random and without cause to those not already privy to the real explanations).

It seems curious to me that in every case where we actually explain a phenomenon (meaning describe the underlying mechanism in a way that can make testable, accurate predictions regarding the phenomenon), we stop labeling that phenomenon as supernatural.
Why is that, I wonder?

Rahvin, do you think there is anything SN that can be the cause of things explained? Or once explained (if it can be explained) it puts the SN to rest?

It seems curious to me that in every case where we actually explain a phenomenon (meaning describe the underlying mechanism in a way that can make testable, accurate predictions regarding the phenomenon), we stop labeling that phenomenon as supernatural.
Why is that, I wonder?

That's kind of what i've been arguing. Are you are wondering why there can't still be a SN cause to it even after it is explained?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rahvin, posted 09-28-2011 3:26 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 09-29-2011 12:17 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 207 (637058)
10-13-2011 6:43 AM


Without a means to test for the supernatural how can the supernatural be refuted or dismissed simply by explaining how some natural phenomena work?

Once we figure out how lightning works it has nothing to do with whether Thor is the one throwing those boltz or not. It only explains what happens after Thor lets go of the bolt.

Because there are scientific explanations to something only shows IMO that God (or Thor) designed it to work that way.

The more things are explained the more we see a designer at work and we are just catching up. IMO.

I think the more we find out about nature the more it favors a desinger more so than randomness or chance happenings.


Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 7:18 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 10-13-2011 5:02 PM Chuck77 has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014