|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I can understand your point. I suppose it might be an effort to give meaning to the anomoly, to say "it's supernatural". Amazingly though, spirits have been reported for thousands of years.
I associate a persons legs + reported phenomenon as standing a good chance of having something to do with "spirits" but that's just my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
mtw writes:
That's just it, though. What if science progresses enough in the future to actually have explanations for such phenomena? Would it still be supernatural? What if science finds out that ghosts are natural instead of supernatural? Would ghosts still be supernatural? I associate a persons legs + reported phenomenon as standing a good chance of having something to do with "spirits" but that's just my opinion.
The Laminator We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Do you think that given enough time, science and/or rational thought will be able to explain EVERY mystery in life? Are you so rational that you define the mysterious as mere unexplained natural phenomena?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Do you think that given enough time, science and/or rational thought will be able to explain EVERY mystery in life? Are you so rational that you define the mysterious as mere unexplained natural phenomena? How can we know the answer to that? We might try looking at what history shows us. So far, that has been the case. The best guess is; yes. The question is: Are we capable of explaining every mystery. Maybe the universe is queerer that we can imagine. Maybe we will answer all the mysteries we stumble across simply because there will be some we can't even recognize.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you think that given enough time, science and/or rational thought will be able to explain EVERY mystery in life? Well, I can't know that, but that has been the trend, so far. I see no reason why science can't develop models for all aspects of the human experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He can infact intervene/interact with this world. Then he can't be supernatural. If he can interact with things in the natural world, then he's part of the natural world. Wherever he goes when he's not in our world becomes a part of the natural world too.
If I kick start my motorbike, I have to interact with it, yet you will not find me in the motorcycle. But obviously you inhabit the same world as the motorcycle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
But obviously you inhabit the same world as the motorcycle. The motorcycle represents the natural. I represent God. Let's say that natural and supernatural are two sides of the same coin. Existence. I still transcend the motorcycle. You won't evidence me in the motorcycle.
Then he can't be supernatural. If he can interact with things in the natural world, then he's part of the natural world. Let's test your modus ponen if I may Crash. If he can interact with the natural then he's part of it. How is this conditional though? How can you know for sure that his interacting would make him natural? If I interact with my motorbike, it doesn't mean I am part of it. What if the natural is just part of a bigger plain, like the motorbike? Also, nothing is impossible to someone who made everything. I still say your implication is untrue. Are you dismissing the possibility that God could find a way of interacting without becoming it? Maybe if he is unseen, and prods it with a supernatural spatular for example. I mean, natural and supernatural are simple concepts, they may well not in any way sufficiently, describe the truth of this situation. It might be like describing the science of the sun rising and setting, as simply day and night. Fair enough, if you evidence a ghost, then I can see that you can now get your hands on it naturally, but what if you can't evidence the ghost, yet it moves your furniture? Maybe the N and SN are both part of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The motorcycle represents the natural. It may represent natural things, but it can't represent the natural world, which is not a thing, but rather, the set of all objects that can interact with each other.
Let's say that natural and supernatural are two sides of the same coin. Existence. Then they're part of the same thing; the same natural world.
How is this conditional though? How can you know for sure that his interacting would make him natural? What I said is that it would make him part of the natural world. By definition, it must. The natural world is the set of all objects that can interact that also includes humans. (This separates it from the "natural worlds" of other planes of reality or what have you. We are, obviously, interested right now in only the natural world that we inhabit.) If God can interact with things in the natural world, by definition, he is a part of it.
Are you dismissing the possibility that God could find a way of interacting without becoming it? Yes. That is not a possibility because it is not logically coherent. God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time.
Maybe the N and SN are both part of reality. Then they're both part of the same thing, a thing we call "the natural world."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Then they're both part of the same thing, a thing we call "the natural world." Or they are both part of the ultimate endeavor. The supernatural world. And natural would evidence supernatural, thanks.
Yes. That is not a possibility because it is not logically coherent. God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time But I'm saying he's supernatural only, and can interact with the natural, without becoming it. For example, the Word, though it eventually became flesh ofcourse.
What I said is that it would make him part of the natural world. By definition, it must. The natural world is the set of all objects that can interact that also includes humans. Yes, this is what the motorcycle represents. Yet I am not found in it by you.
If God can interact with things in the natural world, by definition, he is a part of it. I disagree, despite your explanation. If I can interact with ghosts, by communicating with them, does that mean I am a ghost/supernatural? I am not buying your conditional implication because I don't think it's conditional. Also, |"God cannot" is trumped by; "Nothing shall be impossible with God". Stick to your guns but I am also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or they are both part of the ultimate endeavor. The supernatural world. No. If both of these purported worlds are the same thing, then they must be the natural world, not the supernatural world, because the supernatural world is defined as being "above" the natural world, and how can something be above itself?
But I'm saying he's supernatural only, and can interact with the natural, without becoming it. And I'm telling you that position is incoherent. It's like saying God is A and ~A. That's contradictory. God can't be both soley supernatural and interact with the natural world. Being soley supernatural means that he can't interact with the natural world.
Yes, this is what the motorcycle represents. No, it doesn't. A thing can't represent a set. You've picked an analogy that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
I disagree Then you disagree with the definitions of the words we're using. Which is the point of the thread - what definition of "supernatural" do you propose that allows God to influence things in the natural world and still remain supernatural?
If I can interact with ghosts, by communicating with them, does that mean I am a ghost/supernatural? No, Mike, as I explained above, it means that the ghosts are natural, not supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Which is the point of the thread - what definition of "supernatural" do you propose that allows God to influence things in the natural world and still remain supernatural? One which allows God to not be detectable by science yet interact unknowingly in this world, unless he chooses to make it known.
No, it doesn't. A thing can't represent a set. You've picked an analogy that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. But a motorcycle has many interacting parts. It is full of parts, interacting. I can "start" it and interact with it yet I transcend it. Logically, I have interacted with it yet I am not it. If is self-sufficient, yet you can't locate me, because I'm not a motorcycle.
And I'm telling you that position is incoherent. It's like saying God is A and ~A. That's contradictory. God can't be both soley supernatural and interact with the natural world. Doesn't it mean that he is supernatural, or not detected naturally? I think he can transcend yet interact without being natural. So, I even agree that you can't really "detect" or lay hands on the supernatural with science. So what with the disagreement? Is it because you are against God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
crashfrog writes: Indeed. You are, of course, going off of a different definition of God than I am. On a number line analogy, God, being infinite, is not only the value of 0 to infinity, but is also the value of 0 to - infinity. Many think that we are humans having a spiritual experience. Few see that we are spirits having a human experience.
God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One which allows God to not be detectable by science yet interact unknowingly in this world, unless he chooses to make it known. Yes, you've described the definition that would allow your position to be coherent. Unfortunately you haven't given us the definition.
I can "start" it and interact with it yet I transcend it. But you don't transcend what makes the motorcycle work; you're subject to the same rules, constraints, and laws that govern the motorcycle. You're part of the same world as the motorcycle. You "transcend" nothing.
Doesn't it mean that he is supernatural, or not detected naturally? You can't intervene undetected. The very act of intervention makes your presence known. If you cause an effect, as you're proposing God does, you become detectable. That is, after all, how we detect things - by the effects they cause.
So, I even agree that you can't really "detect" or lay hands on the supernatural with science. That's either not true, or it's true by definition. It works like this: If the supernatural means that which is different from known natural laws or entities that can influence the natural world, we can detect those things. The very act of influencing the natural world leaves detectable consequences. If the supernatural means that which cannot be detected by science, then, by definition, it can have no influence on the natural world, because if it did, it would become detectable by science and cease to be supernatural. So whether or not the supernatural is detectable depends on how you define it, which was the point of this thread. People like you vacillate between the two definitions in an effort to explain how something can both influence and be undetectable. That's equivocation. Since we detect things by virtue of their influence, you can't have something that is both able to influence and be undetected. There's no such thing as an undetectable influence.
Is it because you are against God? No, it's because people like you can't decide what you mean by "supernatural."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
God, being infinite, is not only the value of 0 to infinity, but is also the value of 0 to - infinity. God, being an entity and not a number, cannot have a value at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
crashfrog writes: But then, you say:
God, being an entity and not a number, cannot have a value at all.crashfrog writes:
So what gives? How can we declare what God can and cannot be? God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time.At least my theory is shared by many believers, even if we can't define why we ascribe to it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024