Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is supernatural?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 77 of 138 (136226)
08-23-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jt
08-16-2004 9:37 PM


Super or Pseudo?
This definition page was taken from WordIQ.com:
The Supernatural refers to conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects. This word is often used interchangeably with preternatural or paranormal. Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Claims of supernatural phenomena conflict directly and fundamentally with current scientific understanding.
A concept of the supernatural is generally identified with religion, although there is much debate as to whether a conception of the supernatural is necessary for religion (see The nature of God in Western theology and Anthropology of religion).
Generally, most people contrast the supernatural with the natural, while some people believe that these two concepts are compatible.
There have been many attempts to verify claims of supernatural phenomena scientifically. All are generally considered failures, although proponents often claimed to show startling and unusual results. Most scientists claim that the experiments are best classified as pseudoscience, that they have been experimentally flawed, statistically invalid, and/or not repeatable. Many critics of such experiments state that believers fool themselves into seeing results due to magical thinking.
Many events once accepted as supernatural are now understood as manifestations of a natural, explainable nature that were misinterpreted.
Most religious people claim that these phenomena, being essentially "unnatural," are not appropriate for scientific study (see also William James, The Variety of Religious Experience).
The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, such as fantasy and horror. Some examples of supernatural phenomena are miracles, ghosts; psychic abilities like psychokinesis and telepathy are better classified as paranormal than supernatural.
John Drane writes that science is perpetuating "intellectual arrogance" when it does not accept the possibility of supernatural events and miracles: "To say that unique events can never happen, or that the supernatural does not exist, when most people of most ethnic groups at most points in history have claimed otherwise, is merely to perpetuate the intellectual arrogance of previous generations of Western thinkers, and far from providing an answer to the questions raised by history it merely begs larger and more important questions about the nature of Western intellectual culture." In response, most scienists and historians regard such arguments as fundamentalist religious apologetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 9:37 PM jt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2004 9:55 AM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 80 of 138 (138611)
08-31-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
08-23-2004 9:55 AM


Re: Super or Pseudo?
Crashfrog writes:
nothing can be perceived except through its effects, and most of the natural forces we're aware of were "unknown" at some point.
Yes. I agree. I personally catagorize all supernatural phenomena as "spiritual" in that it is either the Holy Spirit or the other wannabe ones causing the "effects". Are you suggesting that eventually even spiritual effects will be understood as natural ones?
That there will be proven to be no spiritual realm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2004 9:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 7:56 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 82 of 138 (138875)
09-01-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 7:56 PM


Naturally Blonde
crashfrog writes:
I'm saying that what you consider the "spiritual realm" will come to be understood simply as a hitherto-unknown area of the natural realm.
So then, to you there is no spirtual realm in a perfect world,right? Everything is somehow natural, and we natives have to read more books. Right? Tear down your idols and Totem poles and pull out your laptops!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 4:10 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 84 of 138 (138880)
09-01-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 4:10 PM


Wow! You replied in like two minutes! Are you always online? I guess that judging from your number of posts that you are. Anyway....
To you there is no spiritual realm in a perfect world, right?
crashfrog writes:
Not in a perfect world, in our world. In the real world.
So then, not in THIS world. Yet then you say:
I never said there wouldn't be a spiritual realm; just that the spiritual realm is still part of the natural world.
So I disagree. I maintain that since God is the source of Spirit and creation, He transcends the natural world. You, on the other hand,believe that human wisdom is the only source of reality, which I can respect. This leads to your conclusion that everything has an explanation eventually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 4:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 5:22 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 86 of 138 (139072)
09-02-2004 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
09-01-2004 5:22 PM


"Erase, Erase, Revise, Reword...
So then, to reclarify, there is to you either no spiritual realm in our current natural world or, if there is, it is a part of the natural world?
crashfrog writes:
I never said there wouldn't be a spiritual realm; just that the spiritual realm is still part of the natural world.
I maintain that since God is the source of Spirit and creation, He transcends the natural world.
crashfrog writes:
He can't trancend the natural world and still do things in the natural world. If he can do things in the natural world, he's part of the natural world.
And I say that Jesus was born supernatutrally and became part of the natural world. Today, His Spirit, living on in Holy people(Holy only due to Gods grace) is a part of the natural world. So I guess that we agree somehow and somewhat.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-02-2004 03:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2004 5:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by lfen, posted 09-12-2004 1:52 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 87 of 138 (141421)
09-10-2004 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
08-31-2004 7:56 PM


Do ALL mysteries have Explanations?
crashfrog writes:
What would lead you to conclude that "spiritual effects" will never be understood?
I am not saying that this has to be true, but let me ask you this: 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?
==================================================================
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-11-2004 03:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 12:29 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 93 of 138 (141507)
09-11-2004 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by coffee_addict
09-10-2004 3:07 PM


Again, my Question:
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by coffee_addict, posted 09-10-2004 3:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 4:38 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 102 of 138 (141609)
09-11-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
09-11-2004 2:04 PM


crashfrog writes:
God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 2:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 6:39 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 105 of 138 (141716)
09-12-2004 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
09-11-2004 6:39 PM


What?
crashfrog writes:
God, being an entity and not a number, cannot have a value at all.
But then, you say:
crashfrog writes:
God cannot be both A and ~A at the same time.
So what gives? How can we declare what God can and cannot be?
At least my theory is shared by many believers, even if we can't define why we ascribe to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 6:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 11:05 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 134 of 138 (142097)
09-13-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
09-12-2004 7:47 PM


crashfrog writes:
Works for me, but until then, will you agree that there's nothing we know to be supernatural, but plenty we know to be unexplained?
So we are to agree that the definition of supernatural is unexplained natural phenomena? OK.
Go find some genuine Christian (or other faiths,also) believers who have testimonies of how their lives were totally changed and of testimonies of miracles or encounters of an unexplained kind.
The sincerity of these people is genuine. They are not lying. I suppose that some who have seen U.F.O.s could be also tested genuine.
These testimonies would differ from the mental patient who saw the I.P.U. so this invalidates the claim that I.P.U. is the same as U.F.O. or Angelic manifestations.
My point is that we as yet do not have a definite natural explanation for authentic instances of changed lives and encounters with the unknown. Believers call it supernatural. You call it unexplained.
TomaTOE, ToMAHtoe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 7:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2004 5:37 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024