Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 16 of 230 (544730)
01-28-2010 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
01-27-2010 4:55 PM


Good evening mr Levesque,
slevesque writes:
anything that is outside of nature
slevesque writes:
By nature I mean our space-time universe, which is the only place where we can do science
I disagree with both these statements for a few subtle reasons. First off, I disagree with your definition of "nature". I'm inclined to consider everything that exists and can be studied to be a part of nature. This would include other universes, a multiverse, whatever. That way we will never have to redefine "nature" as the borders of our understanding expand into new territories.
If God (and I'm making that a big IF for our non-theistic friends here) has existed eternally (whatever that means in the absence of time), then God is the natural state of existence.
If God has ever been observed, and if there is a book that describes God and assigns various traits to Him, then to some extent He can be studied and understood. Which, as I see it, places Him within the natural realm.
This definition of reality makes "supernatural" an obsolete concept. Instead, we have the bits of nature that we understand, and the bits of nature that we may one day come to grips with.
Is there any useful reason to label something supernatural?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 4:55 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Iblis, posted 01-28-2010 1:15 AM Meldinoor has not replied
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:51 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 17 of 230 (544731)
01-28-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 1:06 AM


supernature
If God has ever been observed, and if there is a book that describes God and assigns various traits to Him, then to some extent He can be studied and understood. Which, as I see it, places Him within the natural realm.
This definition of reality makes "supernatural" an obsolete concept. Instead, we have the bits of nature that we understand, and the bits of nature that we may one day come to grips with.
Is there any useful reason to label something supernatural?
The reason for this usage is based in the idea that what we call "nature" is a construct. This is very similar to the "universe" argument, which is why I just gave it such a hard banging. When the theologian talks about "nature" he means creation. Whereas in your usage, nature would simply be Everything.
Thus the theologian can speak of other natures, and even God's nature. From a more comprehensive viewpoint of science, all these would just be aspects of a single nature. This is a quibble, and can endanger communication. When the theologian says "supernatural" they just mean, from outside the world we know. When they say "Supernatural" in capitals they may mean, pertaining to the creator and cause of our own state of being.
Note that for all the translating I'm doing here, I tend to agree with Coyote that most of our ideas about the supernatural are actually swindles built on ignorance and sealed in place by pride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 1:06 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 18 of 230 (544736)
01-28-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
01-28-2010 1:05 AM


Re: On the supernatural
Okok, I understand. you weren't defining the word supernatural but simply alluding to it's origin.
I don't disagree with your explanation of it's origin. It is true that many beliefs came from trying to explain natural phenomenons with spiritual entities etc.
But I do think this is a very limited view of what causes spiritual/supernatural beliefs. Many of them came from the need to give a purpose to life, a direction to what we live. Others were to explain what happens after we die. I think we'll agree that in most cases, a mixture of all these is at the origin of supernatural beliefs.
Finally, we must not forget that the christian belief in God has another source; miracles. Events that contradict known laws of nature. water-to-wine, blind that see (without eye surgery hehe) and of course resurection. These aren't natural phenomenons that were misinterpreted as supernatural, but rather naturally impossible singular events that cannot have happened within the laws of nature.
This is all from my POV as a christian. You would probably say that this 4th source is just humans making up stories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2010 1:05 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 2:49 AM slevesque has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 19 of 230 (544737)
01-28-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by slevesque
01-28-2010 2:45 AM


Re: On the supernatural
slevesque writes:
Finally, we must not forget that the christian belief in God has another source; miracles
Have you seen any of these miracles? If not, from where do you derive your
slevesque writes:
POV as a christian
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:45 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:07 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 20 of 230 (544738)
01-28-2010 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 1:06 AM


I understand that you figure there is a need for a word that includes everything that exists, space-time and God if he does exist.
I don't think that highjacking, if I can use that expression, the word nature by redefining it to suit this need is a good thing. the current terminology of natural and supernatural is needed to distinguish between things that are subject to the laws of our universe with, well anything else that could exist outside of it.
Besides, if we were to use your definition of the word nature, what would 'laws of nature' mean ? they don't affect God, so how could he be included in 'nature' ? ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 1:06 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 3:00 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 230 (544739)
01-28-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Iblis
01-28-2010 1:01 AM


Re: multiverse
Ok, gotcha. I totally agree that there is never enough clarifications on terminology and semantics. I have been in many discussions around here that just derail on word definition etc. and so I'm glad if your intervention prevented that here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Iblis, posted 01-28-2010 1:01 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 22 of 230 (544742)
01-28-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by slevesque
01-28-2010 2:51 AM


Where do you draw the line between our universe, and the rest of reality? We used to believe that the planets and stars were subject to different rules than we are. Now we struggle to find out what happens to the laws of physics in the singularities of black holes, as well as getting the smallest elementary particles to play by the same rules as us. If a sub-atomic particle appears to violate "laws of nature" by being in two places at once, is it supernatural?
Just because something may not be currently understood, that does not mean that there aren't rules that govern it, and that those rules might someday be discovered.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 2:51 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:15 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 23 of 230 (544745)
01-28-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 2:49 AM


Re: On the supernatural
Yeah well we were discussing the different origins supernatural believes could have. The christian belief principally stems from the allegedly viewing of these miracles by those who first started christianity.
Of course, I didn't view these miracles myself. And so me taking a stance on if they did happen or not is more complicated and more thought most be put into it. It all comes down to if I think the historical documents in the bible (particularly new testament in the examples I used) are accurate or made up.
I think the most simple and accurate example of the tought process involved would be a Jury in the case of a murder. No one was there when it happened except the killer. Neither the judge, nor jury, nor security guard nor anyone else saw it. It does not stop them from coming to form a decision as to if the person accused did it or not. The fact that they weren't there simply means it is going to be harder to take a stance and it won't be 100% sure they are right. But logical deduction will take them a long way in determining what is true or not.
Same goes for my position that Jesus really did rise from the dead. I am aware that this thought-process isn't done by 90% of christians probably, who 'just have faith' but unfortunately my own cartesian mind prevents me from doing this, so I gotta take the long road to the same end
But I don't want to derail the topic. Since it isn't all about me ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 2:49 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 3:28 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 24 of 230 (544746)
01-28-2010 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 3:00 AM


Good aspect of the issue that I didn't think of.
I guess I draw the line where empirical verification isn't possible. And I mean impossible not on the technical level, but on the theoretical level.
And so to see if a given thing is inside our universe or not, the simple test is to ask if it can be tested/determined using the scientific method.
Can we be physically able to empirically verify what is inside a blak hole ? Probably not, although I'm not sure. (I use 'physically able' in terms of physics, and not biological capability)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 3:00 AM Meldinoor has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 25 of 230 (544747)
01-28-2010 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
01-27-2010 4:55 PM


For example you are witness of a true miracle
How could you be sure it was a Yahweh caused miracle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 01-27-2010 4:55 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:41 AM Larni has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 26 of 230 (544748)
01-28-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
01-28-2010 3:07 AM


Re: On the supernatural
slevesque writes:
The christian belief principally stems from the alleged viewing of these miracles by those who first started christianity.
This is not unique to Christianity. Would it not be more accurate to say:
quote:
Finally, we must not forget that the christian belief in God has another source; a written account of miracles
Since I know of very few people today who base their beliefs off of miracles they've actually experienced (I do know a few however).
Curiously, modern miracles, examples of the supernatural allegedly bending the laws of nature, tend to look pretty natural. No pillars of fire to be viewed by multitudes of people, and no chariots from heaven picking people up into the sky. What happened to the good old days of pillars of fire, chariots from heaven, and entire cities being swallowed by the ground? When did great pyrotechnics get replaced by people being "miraculously" healed in hospitals, and unfortunates finding renewed purpose in life?
I'm not even sure we can tell the difference between miracles and non-miracles, supernatural or natural anymore.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:07 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:43 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 27 of 230 (544750)
01-28-2010 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Larni
01-28-2010 3:26 AM


If by sure you mean 100% sure, then I can't be sure.
But I can be reasonably sure that when a dude comes along and says I am Yahweh's son and starts doing miracles and then dying and resurection, that if I really do think all this really happened I would have to have a strong reason to think something else then Yahweh is responsible for all of this.
Besides, if it really is another who is doing all these miracles, I think he should be pretty pissed off that this Yahweh guy is getting all the credit and would let us know about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 01-28-2010 3:26 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Larni, posted 01-28-2010 3:44 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 230 (544751)
01-28-2010 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Meldinoor
01-28-2010 3:28 AM


Re: On the supernatural
I didn't intend that the miracle-origin of a belief in the supernatural is unique to christianity. Other beliefs can have such an origin I suppose.
EDIT: For the other part of your post, would it be off-topic ? (I doN't have time to answer anymore as I got work to do)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 3:28 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Meldinoor, posted 01-28-2010 4:03 AM slevesque has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 29 of 230 (544752)
01-28-2010 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
01-28-2010 3:43 AM


Supernature and Nature, where to draw the line?
It is at least tangentially related to the topic. We are discussing the definition of the supernatural. I'm suggesting that observed miracles, which you claim are supernatural, are difficult to distinguish from utterly natural occurences.
In Message 20 you stress that supernatural is distinct from the "natural" world in a meaningful way. In support of this argument, I would like you to provide a way to distinguish the supernatural from the natural.
As I argued in Message 22, you would have to go beyond just anything not "subject to the laws of our universe". Since we do not yet fully understand the laws of our universe, we'd have no way of knowing if an observed event violated them.
I'm not trying to disprove miracles, or argue semantics, I'm trying to find a solid reason why the term "supernatural" has any real utility, or if it's just as onifre said in Message 4
onifre writes:
Supernatural is a word that describes nothing
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 3:43 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 8:40 PM Meldinoor has not replied

  
AustinG
Member (Idle past 5168 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 30 of 230 (544771)
01-28-2010 9:52 AM


The Supernatural
I tend to Agree with Ibilis:
There's nothing supernatural about any of this. If it's what's actually going on behind the history of theology, then the subjects of theology aren't actually supernatural, simply extra-dimensional. This is the way all the supernatural stuff that has since been understood has gone, it isn't supernatural anymore. This is an important point to this question. In reference to ID, if it was an alien, even an extra-dimensional alien, even a relatively immortal all-powerful alien with direct access to various areas of spacetime from outside, with three persons worth of single being, there's still nothing supernatural about it.
Remember, we are tackling the definition of supernatural from an ID perspective. ID proponents assert that "materialist" science does not take into account the supernatural. This argument would be acceptable if ID was not claimed to be science. However, since ID proponents do claim ID to be science, then its arguments are subject to scientific scrutiny. Honostly, I think this is where they F themselves. In anycase, if ID proponents claim ID to be a legitimate science then they are also arguing that the supernatural is scientifically knowable. I guess I'm asserting that this position is contradictory. The supernatural by definition is the unknowable and therefor can not be scientifically studied. Furthermore, I argue that the supernatural is simpally a "filing cabnet" for phenomena until they can be tested, repeated, and described scientifically. At which point, the phenomena is then moved to the "natural" filing cabnet.
-Austin

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Buzsaw, posted 01-29-2010 10:44 PM AustinG 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