In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.

Yeah, what Jar said. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square.This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-29-2006 11:41 AM

jar I am not certain that mathematical definition as such applies here. That an object is a subset implies that the subset is contained within the superset by virtue of common members between the two. This would indicate that accessing the subset requires participation in the elements that make up that subset. Now one asks how does the information of the superset become known to the subset.Now, since the means by which we gain information are through the subset{physical}then the supernatural{magic} cannot be affecting it since this would make it a part of the subset and, by definition, physical.This does not mean that the supernatural does not exist just that it cannot affect the natural without altering its nature.

would you please clarify the ambiguity of what "its" is refering too.The supernatural cannot affect the natural without altering the supernatural's nature?or the supernatural cannot affect the natural without altering the natural's nature?

I don't see that at all, sidelined.Someone could speak english and canadian, and when speaking to canadians uses just those words.Also, while we know that natural means cannot do those things we call supernatural, that does not mean that those things we call natural might not be done supernaturally.It's entirely possible that the whole set Natural is but a part of, a member of a larger set Supernatural.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That would mean it would be accurate to describe everything as supernatural. We would be supernatural beings.Supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.You can't seem to make the natural a subset of the supernatural without altering the very meaning of supernatural.This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:51 PMThis message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:52 PM

No, not at all. I said supernatural is a superset. Supernatural: Of or relating to actions or existence that cannot be explained by natural means.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which means the same thing as natural being a subset.Cars are a subset of vehicles. Vehicles are a superset of cars. The two statements are equivalent. They both imply that all cars are vehicles.If the supernatural is a superset of the natural, then anything natural is also supernatural. It's fundamental set theory.This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 05:58 PM

Perhaps if you consider what you are calling Natural as a subgroup of SuperNatural, with "interaction" as the group operation, you have what Jar is getting at...

Well, a subgroup is just a restricted type of subset.Now if he means that the supernatural and natural are two non-intersecting sets, with some operation defined between them, that I understand.

What I mean is not a mathematical relationship. John can read and write fluently in 20 different languages. Paul speaks and reads english only.John's set of language capabilities is superior to Pauls. John though can also speak and read english, in addition to the 19 others.Supernatural may well include everything we call natural, but in addition, other things we cannot recognize or understand.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, I think I see. Just like arms and legs are components of people but are not themselves people, the natural can be a component of the supernatural without itself being supernatural. Is that the idea?

yes, kinda.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh good. Of course, I have no idea where you're going with the idea, if anywhere, but at least we're on the same page now.

Not going anywhere much. Simply asking sidelined a question about his post.I happen to believe that GOD was the origin of at least what we call our universe, maybe more, but that is a personal belief, nothing more. It has little to do with cosmology other than the fact I listen to the cosmologists and say, "Oh, that's how GOD did it!"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar If they were done supernaturally then would they not, by definition, be supernatural? How would we tell the difference? If we could not then there is no sense in calling something natural correct?
Since we are able to discern natural things as bound by laws and the supernatural implies no such bounds I again fail to see if this holds true at least as natural being a result of the greater operation of supernatural.

---

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.Richard Feynman