|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
So, what does "supernatural" mean? Obviously, "above nature", but that hardly sufficies to clarify the debate. I would define "supernatural" as an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature. Such an entity is not necessarily excluded from existing within nature, but retains the possibility of leaving nature.
For if the supernatural is not within the purview of science, how can science be faulted for ignoring it? I don't fault science for not being able to examine something beyond its abilities. However, I do not think that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge. From the The nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science":
If God participates in the natural world, he becomes part of it, and amienable to scientific investigation. Science is based completely upon the law of cause & effect. Where both the cause and effect cannot be examined, science cannot operate. By definition, we cannot examine causes that are supernatural, so when the supernatural is involved, science can't be. From "The Mythical Bible":
I don't believe anything could convince me it was supernatural - it's not coherent with the definition of "supernatural" for such a being to be able to act in the natural world. M-w online defines supernatural as: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." The definition doesn't say something supernatural is outside of nature; it says it is of an order outside of nature. The order is outside of nature, not the entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
What does that mean, exactly? "Leaving nature"? I don't understand. In the same way that a human can enter/leave a lake at will, but a fish can't.
By what other means can one obtain knowledge that isn't indistinguishable from making stuff up? By following scientific and rational principles as closely as possible for a given situation.
Either you're subject to the laws of physics in this universe, or you're outside of them altogether. Take a lake. There are fish in the lake, and they cannot leave it; they are aquatic. The only things the fish can observe are those which occur in the water. Along comes a fisherman, who is capable of being outside the lake; he is "superaquatic." The fisherman is not affected by any of the causes in the lake, but he can cause a lure in the lake to move, with no cause visible inside the lake.
It's simply not a coherent position to advance entities that can decide for themselves if the laws of physics will apply to them at that moment in time. What if one of the said entities created those laws? Couldn't that being be part of, or not part of, those laws it he wished?
Right. Therefore, supernatural entities can't take action in our universe. If they could, they wouldn't be of an order outside the universe, and so they wouldn't be supernatural. Yeah, good point. I see what you mean by supernatural now, and your definition is aligned with the definition in the dictionary. Supernatural, as I understand it now, means completely seperate from nature. That is not how I concieve God, however, so I need another word. For our debate I will define the word "preternatural" (although in reality it is a synonym of supernatural) as "an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature, but is not excluded frome entering nature in whole or in part." That is how I conceive God; so that is the concept I will be defending. I am quite sure you think there can be no preternatural being, but I will be more than happy to show you wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
But neither of those groups are subject to different laws of physics than the other. In fact the laws of physics describe how humans can leave lakes just as well as they describe why fish cannot. The fish/fisherman analogy was flawed; let me try another. Say you are a game programmer. You create a virtual world, with a complete set of "physical" laws, and a bunch of characters running around. You could design a character for yourself, and program it appropriately so it would not be restricted by the laws governing everything else. Whenever you wanted, you could create an instance of your character and take part in the world you created. If you desired, you could behave as if you were under the laws, and the other characters couldn't tell the difference. But you would also be able to behave without regard to the laws, and even delete the instance of your character and "flit" out of the world you created. Does that make more sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
My analysis of supernatural would start with early experiences of unusual events and how people experienced or understood them. I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural is actually due to naturalistic processes, and I understand the possibility that what I believe to be supernatural is merely naturalistic phenomenon. 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. It is possible that Jesus was merely a being with access to more dimensions than we have access to, and was lying about being God. However, I think he told the truth, and I believe him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
But here's the thing. The game designer can't do that without adding special rules, or laws, just for himself. 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. Sort of like drawing special effects onto a film reel frame by frame. The special effects are subject to no laws, only the whim of the artist. The point is, the designer, or artist, can do whatever they want. There are no laws in their respective worlds which they must obey. Does that change things? "People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 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 5627 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 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 5627 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 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!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
I cite the Bard to illustrate by the evocativeness of his expression. By "appeal to poet," I was just joking. I understood what you were doing. Sorry for appearing to be excesively pedantic.
I am saying that we imagine the supernatural as well as the natural yes. Are you just saying that our perception of reality is filtered by the abilities of our senses/mind, or are you meaning more than that?
Shakespeare saw that theater offered an analogy to the world. As actors brought characters to life on the stage, so consciousness brings characters to life in the world. What if IT was a soul? In that case, spirit would bring people to life in the same way actors do to characters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Nobody has free will in my imagination but me. Ah, so it isn't a perfect analogy in respect to God. But it is just an analogy, not the real thing. If God is omnipotent, he just has to will something to be done, and it is. There is no fundamental difference between him daydreaming (if he does) or commanding something to happen; there are no laws regarding either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5627 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
We actually create a lot of the reality we experience. We use sense input but we don't just filter it we add to it. I think I understand you. You are saying that it is almost like we create our matrix?
What do you mean by spirt? Is that a synonym for God, for consciousness, or are you introducing another concept here and if so do we need it? I believe "soul" is the cause of consciousness, but not consciousness itself. I mean the christian concept of a conscious, spirititual being integral to each person - a soul. I do not understand what "spiritual" is, or how it can be combined with the natural, though. But that is more a problem of my imaginatory capabilities than with the concept.
We got God, consciousness, supernatural, imagination and illusion. Do we need spirit? I believe that consciousness is something God gives to souls, which are coupled to humans. I do not believe that consciousness is itself a fundamental property of the universe - I believe it is a fundamental part of God, who is responsable for the universe.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024