Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 61 of 230 (544952)
01-29-2010 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by cavediver
01-29-2010 3:17 PM


Re: What is There?
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
There is no "after". Then what is there?
There is eternity just as there has always been.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2010 3:17 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by onifre, posted 01-30-2010 4:00 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 230 (544956)
01-29-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AustinG
01-28-2010 9:52 AM


Re: The Supernatural
AustinG writes:
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.
Hi Austin. Some aspects of the supernatural relative to ID interpretations of archeological, physiological and historical observable data are actually more able to be scientifically studied than some aspects of conventional science. For example, problems for accomodating BB theory have led to the widely accepted hypothesis of multiverses which perhaps compound rather than aleviate the problems relative to BB theory.
Buzsaw writes:
Sasuki writes:
It's my understanding that the old idea of a "universe" is obsolete. The current idea is that there is a "multiverse" and that "universes" spring into existence from a larger space. This larger space is unstable and this is why "universes" are born from it. Another way universes spring into existence is when energy is pact into a infinately dense state which leads to a expansion. This energy that is packed into a infinately dense state is done via blackholes that exist in a universe and are born from the death of quasars in that universe. When blackholes have fed enough energy into this stored chamber(infinately dense state) the energy has no option but to expand the space it's stored in and when this happens whiteholes are born. Eventually this process leads to an evitable universe like ours born from another universe.
Thanks
Sasuke
P.S. Nothing wrong with saying before the BB with this multiverse model.
Hi Sasuki. If that be the case it would seem that conventional science must revise the whole concept of space and BB expansion as it stands. The Buzsaw model of space is that it is static unbounded area in which all forces, energy and matter exist.
The multiverse model implies an outside of our universe and space between our universe and other universes.
As well, there still remains the question of the origin of the multiverse, it's before and outside of. It appears that all this does is raise additional questions relative to origins.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AustinG, posted 01-28-2010 9:52 AM AustinG has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 230 (544968)
01-30-2010 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
01-29-2010 9:37 PM


Re: Devils Advocate
Hi ICANT,
I don't know who made those claims but the Bible sure does not make them.
Actually I've heard it from many religious people from many different religions. Including christianity.
Whether they are right or wrong I couldn't tell you; I just found it odd that they could hold to such contradictory beliefs - or cognitive dissonance.
The Bible teaches there will be a physical material heavens and a physical material earth, and a physical material lake of fire.
Is it clear? Does it state "physical"?
Can you provide a verse (or whatever it's called) from the Bible that states it (just for my own knowledge).
Mankind will have a physical body that can not be destroyed that will be inhabited by their present mind (consciousness).
That's interesting. I wonder if we would try to understand that world in the same manner that we investigate this one? Would we try to do science there or try to figure out where it is located in the physical space that it takes place in?
If we are conscious then we come to it with our knowledge, but many, especially those who died last, would be much more educated than those who lived 10,000 years ago; would we try to teach them? Would there be school? Or is that kind of information even relevant?
Have you, being someone of faith, every asked questions like that before? Again this is just for my personal knowledge.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2010 9:37 PM ICANT has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 64 of 230 (544969)
01-30-2010 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
01-29-2010 9:40 PM


Re: What is There?
There is eternity just as there has always been.
So no point of creation, thus god was never needed. I think you're finally getting it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 01-29-2010 9:40 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 230 (545006)
01-30-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by cavediver
01-29-2010 3:17 PM


Re: Static 4D Universe
Cavediver writes:
.........we live in a static 4d Universe, ..........
Hi CD. Are you saying that we do not live within the three geometric dimensional universe, time being non-geometric? How is it that an expanding universe is static? Does that mean that the universe is not moving? If so, do you buy the multiverse hypothesis? If you do could we know whether our universe is static within a multiverse?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2010 3:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5030 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 66 of 230 (545009)
01-30-2010 6:20 PM


What is Supernatural?
What is not supernatural??
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 01-30-2010 6:40 PM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 68 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-30-2010 6:48 PM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2010 11:31 PM MatterWave has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 67 of 230 (545010)
01-30-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:20 PM


What is not supernatural??
Wow, that was deep, dude...you've changed my whole outlook on reality.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:20 PM MatterWave has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 68 of 230 (545012)
01-30-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:20 PM


What is not supernatural??
If everything is supernatural than that means there is no natural which means by definition there is no supernatural.
You affectively defeated your own proposition.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:20 PM MatterWave has not replied

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


Message 69 of 230 (545135)
02-01-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
01-29-2010 8:09 PM


Re: naturalism -vs- what?
Hi Onifre, sorry couldn't answer until now.
How can you approach reality in any other way? The only way to understand the world you exist in is through a naturalist approach, no other way has given any answers.
The whole idea is to get a terminology where every opinion can be expressed clearly. By equivocating nature and reality (as you are again doing here) this is impossible to do.
I go where the evidence takes me. I don't start with any preconceived notions. Any phenomenon requires an explanation. The best, and only, method to understand it has proven time and time again to be naturalistic. Can you provide evidence otherwise?
You are here equivocating mehtodological naturalism with naturalism. One is ''don't provide a supernatural explanation to a natural phenomenon'' and the other is the statement that ''only nature exists''.
From the words of the rationalwiki:'' this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.''
My approach to any question is using the scientific method. If I see a bag flying through the air I don't assume invisible pixies are carrying it; I assume it is the wind - this is a naturalistic approach.
Can you provide evidence that another type of approach has proven successful?
You do consider that the very person who thought of and embraced the scientific method and methodological naturalism was a christian and believed that God existed (ie not a naturalist) ? Doesn't this ring off alarm bells that the two are not the same ?
Once again, I'll reiterate the simple point I want to make: find an acceptable terminology. Basing one around your worldview by equivocating 'nature' and 'reality' and then justifying this naturalistic bias with appeal to methodological naturalism isn't going to cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 01-29-2010 8:09 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 02-01-2010 5:35 PM slevesque has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 70 of 230 (545145)
02-01-2010 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by slevesque
02-01-2010 4:04 PM


Re: naturalism -vs- what?
Hi slevesque, no worries on the time. Answer when you can.
By equivocating nature and reality (as you are again doing here) this is impossible to do.
I'm not saying nature and reality are the same thing, I'm saying that your experience of reality is within the limits of nature - that's what makes it one and the same for humans living in this universe.
You do not approach reality in any other way. You use your sensory functions to experience reality. You believe there is some other realm that is supernatural, but you lack not only the evidence to prove this, but the ability to experience it given your senses.
You are here equivocating mehtodological naturalism with naturalism. One is ''don't provide a supernatural explanation to a natural phenomenon'' and the other is the statement that ''only nature exists''.
I just make the connection based on our experience of reality.
Only nature exists, because it is only nature that we experience - therefore - there is never a need to provide a supernatural explanation to a phenomenon.
while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.''
Provide one single piece of evidence of an unnatural cause and I'll concede.
Further, this is not essentially atheistic, this is how we experience reality without of course wishful thinking and non-evidenced beliefs. There could still be a god living in a realm outside of reality, but you can't know that being a sentient being that uses it's senses to experience reality.
So why should I find it worth while to entertain such beliefs that are unevidenced?
You do consider that the very person who thought of and embraced the scientific method and methodological naturalism was a christian and believed that God existed (ie not a naturalist) ? Doesn't this ring off alarm bells that the two are not the same ?
Not at all. One was a belief, a belief without any evidence or phenomenon that required an answer.
Methodological naturalism, if one is being honest and removing beliefs from the equation, should lead to the understanding that all we could ever know via experience is nature, our reality. Whether this is all there is is pointless to ask because we cannot and do not experience reality in any other way.
Once again, I'll reiterate the simple point I want to make: find an acceptable terminology. Basing one around your worldview by equivocating 'nature' and 'reality' and then justifying this naturalistic bias with appeal to methodological naturalism isn't going to cut it.
My points are objective, yours involve belief, and you're telling me that mine won't cut it?
Simple then, define supernatural.....
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by slevesque, posted 02-01-2010 4:04 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 230 (545163)
02-01-2010 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:20 PM


What is not supernatural??
Frogs. Potato chips. Blimps. Nose-jewelery. Microwave ovens. Whooping cough. Tapirs. Fondue. Gravel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:20 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 12:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 73 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 230 (545175)
02-02-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2010 11:31 PM


Microwave ovens.
Not according to my 74 year old father.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2010 11:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:20 AM onifre has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5030 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 230 (545189)
02-02-2010 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2010 11:31 PM


Frogs. Potato chips. Blimps. Nose-jewelery. Microwave ovens. Whooping cough. Tapirs. Fondue. Gravel.
These objects are what is observed and easily explained by us. But how do you explain the ability to explain? What does it mean to know and to understand, really(which is what you are employing in making your statement above)? You don't really know how it works, so why the leap of faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2010 11:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 7:03 AM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5030 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 74 of 230 (545190)
02-02-2010 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
02-02-2010 12:55 AM


Not according to my 74 year old father.
Your father is right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 12:55 AM onifre has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 75 of 230 (545191)
02-02-2010 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
01-28-2010 9:01 PM


Because I would have to have a reason to think otherwise.
But you are making the positive claim here. How many other things do you have no evidence of non existance of?
Do you have evidence of the non existance of Kali? By your logic you have no reason not to believe in Kali, have you?
If I have positive evidence ofr something
But you have no positive evidence, have you? One can interpret the bible as factual (to what degree I won't assume) but the strength of the evidence relies on an a priori assumption that what the bible says is correct.
Circular logic, in this case.
Every alternative can turn out to be true, but will be more unlikely the less you have evidence for it.
What you seem to be ignoring is the strength of the evidence. When I supervise students writing essays I make a big point of saying not to rely on secondary evidence.
Someone using the bible (that is secondary evidence) is on vaery shaky ground considering the fantastic claims it makes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 01-28-2010 9:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2010 4:45 PM Larni has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024