|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
So, in other words, how could we claim anything is outside of natural law when we don't yet know (and never will) the extent of natural law? I can't claim for sure. However, what I can do is say that something is completely, entirely unexplicable by our current knowledge of nature, and that a naturalistic explanation for it is unfathomable. Theoretically possible, but unfathomable. In that case I am comfortable (tentatively) believing in the supernatural, even though I don't know for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the designer wanted, he could go through the game, pausing it each instant, and create an instance of himself however he wanted, without respect to any laws. I take it you've never done much programming? You can't instance something without defining what it's going to be an instance of. That means you have to define its methods and variables, and if you want to do it during runtime, you need to define a method to instance it on your command. This isn't something you can do "frame by frame".
The point is, the designer, or artist, can do whatever they want. There are no laws in their respective worlds which they must obey. But there are rules in the real world; just because an artist can draw Superman flying without support doesn't mean that he can fly like Superman in our world. In a way, the artist becomes a connection between two worlds, turning them into one. At that point, nothing the artist does can be supernatural; it's completely natural according to the laws of his world, which are now a subset of the laws of both worlds. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-18-2004 06:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
However, what I can do is say that something is completely, entirely unexplicable by our current knowledge of nature A debatable statement, but you could claim that scientifically, yes.
and that a naturalistic explanation for it is unfathomable. Now you're claiming the same thing. That statement is the same thing as "no natural theory can ever explain this." How would you know if a natural explanation was unfathomable until you had the opportunity to fathom them all? And since that represenents an infinite number of theories how can you claim to have done so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
I take it you've never done much programming? Actually, I have, but not recently.
This isn't something you can do "frame by frame". I used the word "instance" not in reference to an object (programming sense), but an object(real world sense). You could create a game such that it could be paused, and you (the programmer, not the characters) could manipulate (or create) the objects (wire frame models and stuff) in an unpredetermined way.
But there are rules in the real world; Whether or not God is subject to rules aside of logic is unknowable. I can't come up with analogies where a creator doesn't have laws governing it, but that doesn't mean there can't be such a creator.
In a way, the artist becomes a connection between two worlds, turning them into one. The created world is a subset of the real world, but that does not mean the created world could observe any of the real world. Could an sentient AI program running in your computer see your face without access to a camera? Could it deduce anything about the nature of the real world on its own, without you telling it anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
How would you know if a natural explanation was unfathomable until you had the opportunity to fathom them all? What I meant by "unfathomable" was imaginable; there are not any naturalistic theories I can imagine that could be plausible. Either I am right or I merely have mental limitations; I am not claiming any problems with science because I cannot imagine something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
My belief in a supernatural God is mainly because I believe the new testament miracles involving Jesus to have actually occured, and Jesus claimed to be God. Ah well there might be ways at coming up with non supernaturalistic explaanations for the gospel miracles, though those might be unacceptable for a fundamentist approach. I don't know.
t is possible that Jesus was merely a being with access to more dimensions than we have access to, and was lying about being God. The orthodox christian understanding of Jesus's divinity is not the only way to understand the statements along those lines in the gospels. Again the other ways would be "heretical" but I've been a heretic to so many things all my life that doesn't bother me personally. I don't believe the gospels are literal accounts anyway and am interested in the mythicist analysis of Paul's writing that claim Paul was writing about a spiritual person and not a historic individual. My brother believes Jesus was a historic teacher who was awakened and stories grew up around him after his death. There are incredible miracle stories about the birth, life and death of the Buddha but the nature of Buddhism doesn't require belief in them. The notion of an avatar or awakened being who has realized his oneness with God is another way to account for the divinity claims of Jesus, but I know that is an unnacceptable explanation for fundamentalist and most orthodox christians. Still the level of miracles in the gospels seems less taxing to explain than things like the sun standing still in the OT. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I can't come up with analogies where a creator doesn't have laws governing it, but that doesn't mean there can't be such a creator. What about our imagination. We create things in our imagination. We could create a frog that sings opera and jumps into space. Does our imagination have laws governing it? This is just a theoretical brainstorm question. Does imagination fit your requirements? Why or why not? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You could create a game such that it could be paused, and you (the programmer, not the characters) could manipulate (or create) the objects (wire frame models and stuff) in an unpredetermined way. But the only way you would be able to do that would be by inserting these programming "hooks" into the code; in other words, what you would be doing would still be determined and made possible by the "virtual" laws of the program.
Could it deduce anything about the nature of the real world on its own, without you telling it anything? Can any of us? I think my point stands - there's no way for a so-called "supernatural" entity to interact with the universe without the super-physics governing its behavior becoming part of our own physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
there are not any naturalistic theories I can imagine that could be plausible. Evolution is plausible, however. Even if you don't think it's accurate, surely you must find it plausible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Does our imagination have laws governing it? Assuming free will, no, it doesn't. Aha! An analogy using the imagination could be a perfect(or at least pretty good) analogy. It is ironic that I was unable to imagine an analogy. Oh well... Here goes: You create a world in your imagination (like the one in the game). You are holding all the characters to a set of laws, but at any instant you can change the properties (spatial properties in adition to physical properties) of any object, you can create objects, or even change the rules of the world. Does that work, Crashfrog? P.S. Thanks, Ifen, I wouldn't have thought of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You create a world in your imagination (like the one in the game). You are holding all the characters to a set of laws, but at any instant you can change the properties (spatial properties in adition to physical properties) of any object, you can create objects, or even change the rules of the world. Unless you're trying to say that we're all imaginary characters in the mind of God, I don't see how this analogy even begins to approximate what we're talking about. We live in the real world. Not an imagined one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Even if you don't think it's accurate, surely you must find it plausible? I find the hypothetical concept plausible, but once it gets to the real world it doesn't work. You are right, I should have said I don't find any current naturalistic explanations accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
We live in the real world. Not an imagined one. With God being omnipotent, I can see no fundamental difference between my analogy and reality. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything he wants, whenever he wants, in the same way you can do whatever you want in your imagination. [edited to change "omniscient" to "omnipotent"] This message has been edited by JT, 08-20-2004 12:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4678 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Unless you're trying to say that we're all imaginary characters in the mind of God Hey... I resemble that remark!
We live in the real world. Not an imagined one. Are you sure? You're a frog right? am amphibian, your body lives subject to the physical laws of the universe, but you? your thoughts, or opinions, I think they have a definite imaginary component. And I will put forth the notion that the 'ego' is imaginary. Now I'll guess each of you will object to this. JT won't want me cleverly saving his supernaturalness by pointing out that our imaginations interact with the world and we when we imagine supernatureal stuff it interacts with the world through our imaginations. And Crash has just insisted we live in the real world. But Shakesspeare? oh he would agree.
the great globe itself, yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve; and, like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep. -- Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act IV lfen "So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth, And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there's bugger all down here on Earth." Monty Python's Galaxy Song
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
And I will put forth the notion that the 'ego' is imaginary. What does 'ego' mean? Does that mean an individual's consciousness? What do you mean that it is imaginary? Are you saying that we are imagining that we have consciousness?
But Shakesspeare? oh he would agree. Appeal to authority. Or rather, appeal to poet. Either way it is a fallacy.
that our imaginations interact with the world and we when we imagine supernatureal stuff it interacts with the world through our imaginations. Are you saying that we are imagining the world? And that the supernatural is a figment of that imaginary construct? I don't understand. HELP!!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024