Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 76 of 230 (545194)
02-02-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
01-25-2010 1:12 PM


I rated the message 4, I assume this is what I am supposed to do, while I type my response?
-- I pretty much agree with your definitions. I think science is the attempt to explain things, naturally.
There is a whole area of semantics here that people get confused about.
For example, is something "unknown", natural? If we now know it, does it become natural? For example, if you observed, experimentally, the Red Sea parting, does such phenomena become natural?
Also, we forget how mundane the universe is to us. We are NOT usual. If I knocked on your door, it wouldn't amaze you much. But if ET knocked on your door, that would amaze you!
Why? Because you have never seen ET? or perhaps, you have never understood how amazing animated matter actually is. (I speak hypothetically).
My point is - we could also ask; what is miraculous? Are natural things miraculous?
If the universe was created, then every "natural" law etc... all become supernatural/miraculous, perhaps.
The biblical understanding, is that the physical/natural manifestation, only comes because of a spiritual cause.
Just some of my thoughts, I am not trying to prove anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 01-25-2010 1:12 PM AustinG has not replied

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


Message 77 of 230 (545195)
02-02-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:19 AM


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 ...
Speak for yourself --- it's not me that's asking all the silly questions.
... so why the leap of faith?
It does not in fact require a "leap of faith" to conclude that nose jewelery is not supernatural. It just requires a total absence of supernatural nose jewelery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:19 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 7:40 AM Dr Adequate has replied

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


(1)
Message 78 of 230 (545197)
02-02-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2010 7:03 AM


Speak for yourself --- it's not me that's asking all the silly questions.
That you cannot understand the questions doesn't mean they are silly. It just means that you don't comprehend the meaning implied.
It does not in fact require a "leap of faith" to conclude that nose jewelery is not supernatural. It just requires a total absence of supernatural nose jewelery.
And the presence of nose jewelery is natural because... what? Because it's natural? Sounds exactly like circular reasoning. Do you have an argument that is not circular? Nose jewelery and everything else can just as easily be supernatural(i.e. created by a god).
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 7:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 8:38 AM MatterWave has replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 5:58 PM MatterWave has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 79 of 230 (545208)
02-02-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 7:40 AM


I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
Nose jewelery and everything else can just as easily be supernatural(i.e. created by a god).
Wait... so the guy who bends metal to create nose jewelery is a God?
You seem to be implying that supernatural things are things that are created by Gods, and natural things are things that are not created by Gods.
Yet we have absolutely no evidence that any Gods even exist at all, let alone that they can create stuff.
So, everywhere we look, all we see is "no Gods". Everywhere. Throughout the history of the universe. No Gods. There is not a single thing that points towards requiring "a God" in order to exist. There are some things that we do not understand how they come to be... but these are in an ever-decreasing pile as more and more information comes to light. Still... no Gods.
This leave us with our two options:
Supernatural (God-created) - nothing we see requires this option in anyway
Natural (non-God created) - everything we see points towards this option
And you want people to believe that the Supernatural exists merely because not everything is formally and definitively proven to exist by purely natural means?
That seems... unnecessary.
One last thing to note: the way things have been discovered so far is exactly the way they would be if it was a fact that no Gods have ever existed.
Interesting, to say the least.
This doesn't prove or show that God(s) do not exist. It merely shows that your arguement of "not being able to definitively prove that the super-natural doesn't exist means that we should accept that the supernatural actually exists" is rather lame.
Oh, and by the way, if we ever do find real evidence that a God actually exists within some Supernatural realm (somehow...), you can bet your life that religion will evolve into claiming that an Uber-God exists above the mundane "known" God and that HE lives within The Super-Duper-Natural realm.
That's just the way these things work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 7:40 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 9:23 AM Stile has replied

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


(1)
Message 80 of 230 (545217)
02-02-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Stile
02-02-2010 8:38 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
Supernatural (God-created) - nothing we see requires this option in anyway
I challenge you and everyone else again to provide evidence for the above assertion. If you don't, it's just a bare statement and not a proper way to debate.
There is not a single thing that points towards requiring "a God" in order to exist.
Same here. How do you know this? Where is the evience that for something to exist, a god is not required? You are jumping to premature and possibly unwarranted assumptions and conclusions. I am not stating that a god is required(i don't see a way how a human being can know anything of the sort), but since it's you who declares that for a spoon to exist a god is not required, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Where is it?
You don't know what to exist really means, so why the leap of faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 8:38 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Huntard, posted 02-02-2010 10:33 AM MatterWave has not replied
 Message 82 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 10:38 AM MatterWave has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 81 of 230 (545219)
02-02-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 9:23 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
...since it's you who declares that for a spoon to exist a god is not required, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
Ok. I have seen the process that it takes to make a spoon (don't remember if it was on any of those Discovery Channel programs like "How it's Made"), and nowhere in there did I see a god taking part in the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 9:23 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 82 of 230 (545221)
02-02-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 9:23 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
Stile writes:
Supernatural (God-created) - nothing we see requires this option in anyway
I challenge you and everyone else again to provide evidence for the above assertion. If you don't, it's just a bare statement and not a proper way to debate.
I will keep this simple:
Let's go through the scenario with a pen.
1. A pen is created by people in a factory who put together pieces of plastic, pieces of metal and ink
-This may not be the only way pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
2. There are people in factories who create plastic-for-pens
-This may not be the only way plastic-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
3. There are people in factories who create metal-for-pens
-This may not be the only way metal-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
4. There are people in factories that create ink-for-pens.
-This may not be the only way ink-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
5. The original raw materials are found on our planet.
-This may not be the only way raw materials are discovered, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
6. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be developed on our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials are deveopled, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
7. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to find their way to our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials reach our planet, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
8. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be created elsewhere in our universe
-This may not be the only way raw materials can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
9. People have discovered (but not yet verified) pathways for our universe's origin and all that comes after
-This may not be the only way universes can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
Now, I have gone and given you the evidence for my assertion. As I said, the evidence is that we can identify natural pathways all the way down the list. ALL known evidence points towards natural pathways, Gods are not found anywhere at all, not even where the natural pathway cannot be verified as of yet.
MatterWave writes:
I am not stating that a god is required(i don't see a way how a human being can know anything of the sort)
And I am not saying that a God cannot exist. We're just looking at the evidence, which all points to natural methodology. That's not "lots" of it, or "a majority" of it... that's "ALL" of it. Every single last tiny shred. With NONE of it pointing towards any Supernatural existence.
Everyone is free to believe what they would like.
And, again, if you insist on presupposing that some Supernatural realm exists. I must insinst that a Super-Duper-Nautural realm exists that is beyond the mere, lowly, useless Super-ness of your own mundane imagination.
Edited by Stile, : Focusing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 9:23 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 02-02-2010 10:56 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 1:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 83 of 230 (545222)
02-02-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Stile
02-02-2010 10:38 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
Stile writes:
And, again, if you insist on presupposing that some Supernatural realm exists. I must insinst that a Super-Duper-Nautural realm exists that is beyond the mere, lowly, useless Super-ness of your own mundane imagination.
Also, if he wants to say that a god doesn't need such a realm (which is in fact controlled by me, by the way. No, I will not reveal my methods), then let him present evidence that no such thing is needed for a god to exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 10:38 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 230 (545234)
02-02-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by onifre
01-29-2010 3:06 PM


Re: Devils Advocate
If there is a whole reality immune to empirical detaction that we only experience when we die (for example)....
Where does that leave us?
In complete disagreement.
Well I disagree with myself but I wouldn't be much of a devils advocate if I just left it at that would I.
Experience when we die?
Yes. That supernatural part of us. Our soul (or whatever). What if this carreies on experiencing non-physical reality of some sort after we die.
Not unless Harry Potter himself waves his wand and brings you back to life can any sensory function in your body experience anything after the body is clinically dead.
Well if your soul incorporates your mind and is able to experience and detect the immaterial then we have solved the mystery of the supernatural.
Except tha we have invoked the problem of duality. The mind body problem. But does this matter? Could it be that we are each part material and part immaterial?
Here's something I always found rather odd: It is claimed that the afterlife is immaterial, unlike this reality which is made of atoms, elements, etc. Yet it is also claimed that there is a lake of "fire." Which seems rather contradictory: (a) it is immaterial, yet (b) it contains oxygen and atoms, heat, etc....?
Yeah well even a devils advocate cannot defend the indefensible. I think we will have to put this down to metaphor. Although I think ICANT genuinely believes in the whole hell as a pit of fire thing so maybe ask him how the hell that works.
Likewise, after my sensory system stops working, it would be contradictory to say I'll "experience" something post death.
Unless your soul is equipped with a means of sensing the immaterial reality all around us.
It's all too confusing to me.
Oh don't get me wrong. I think it is complete bollocks. But why is it bollocks? That is the question here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by onifre, posted 01-29-2010 3:06 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 7:40 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 85 of 230 (545235)
02-02-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Stile
02-02-2010 10:38 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
I only asked you to provide evidence that the existence of a spoon is not supernatural, not how it is made. It seems you don't understand my request.
But ok, i'll play your game of causality. Keep following the chain of causes that led to the appearance of the pen on February 2nd 2010. At some point you will be reaching far back into the past all the way to the singularity. How would this tracing back support your assertion that the existence of the spoon is not supernatural? By asserting that the singularity was a natural event with natural physical laws? This would be circular reasoning as well, on top of being a another bare assertion, unless you want to make additional assumptions of there being 234 trillion universes. Assumptions when unevidenced are the same as faith.
My original question however demanded that you provide evidence that 'exist' as opposed to 'not exist' is not a process that requires god. It's obvious that you don't understand how big a question this is if you are addressing it by a description of what happens in a factory.
And, again, if you insist on presupposing that some Supernatural realm exists.
You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural. Let me relieve you somewhat from the pressure - no one can.
Now, I have gone and given you the evidence for my assertion. As I said, the evidence is that we can identify natural pathways all the way down the list. ALL known evidence points towards natural pathways, Gods are not found anywhere at all, not even where the natural pathway cannot be verified as of yet
You have given evidence of a causal chain(that tips the scales in my favor) + some scientific discoveries of the human race. I wanted evidence that for anything to exist(as opposed to not exist), a god is not required(exist - as in being within reality and acting according to natural laws-not ones tailered by a supernatural being). Give evidence that for everything to exist(what you'd call a universe), a god is not required.
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 10:38 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 3:23 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 88 by Apothecus, posted 02-02-2010 4:49 PM MatterWave has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 86 of 230 (545244)
02-02-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 1:29 PM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
I only asked you to provide evidence that the existence of a spoon is not supernatural, not how it is made.
Yes, I know you did. I gave you more than you asked for. I didn't think it would also be more than you could handle...
The evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is not supernatural is the evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is, in fact, natural. Hence a nice description of how it is naturally made.
At some point you will be reaching far back into the past all the way to the singularity.
You are incorrect. You can read my description reaching as far back as the origination of the universe. No singularity mentioned at all. Why do you feel the need to insert something like that into the discussion? We're already attempting to discuss a single portion of your imagination. Lets not go adding more aspects that only exist within your head.
It's obvious that you don't understand how big a question this is if you are addressing it by a description of what happens in a factory.
The origination of the entire universe and all that is contained within isn't big enough for you? How much bigger would you like to get? Super-Duper-Big?
You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural. Let me relieve you somewhat from the pressure - no one can.
You can say this all you want, it will not change the fact that I did, indeed, provide evidence as such. It is now your turn to provide evidence that the Supernatural is something other than contained within your imagination. If you can't show such a thing, why should we continue to discuss it as an option?
Give evidence that for everything to exist(what you'd call a universe), a god is not required.
All that is required is a single statement:
For everything to exist, a God (or anything Supernatural) is not required.
If you feel that this statement is in error in any way. Please show how you think it is wrong.
Going the other way: "For everything to exist, a God is required". I have already shown how a pen can exist without God, therefore such a statement is incorrect. Now it's your turn to show some non-imagined evidence. Or we could skip your turn if you would rather concede.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 1:29 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:29 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 87 of 230 (545252)
02-02-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Larni
02-02-2010 5:32 AM


I think you're quickly changing the subject of our discussions.
I talked about miracles described in the Bible, and you asked how I knew this were Yahweh caused miracles. I said that, to think otherwise, I would have to have evidence that it was someone else then Yahweh.
In other words, If I really think that these miracles happened, then I will think God caused them until evidence to the contrary.
Because, of course, if I don't think these miracles happened, asking how I know it wasn't another God who caused them becomes pointless.
I said you are changing the subject because now you are simply raising doubt on the accuracy of the Bible and the historicity of it's claims, which isn't the original questioning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Larni, posted 02-02-2010 5:32 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 02-03-2010 3:55 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 88 of 230 (545253)
02-02-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 1:29 PM


A pointless exercise
Hey MatterWave.
You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural. Let me relieve you somewhat from the pressure - no one can.
Your whole argument seems a bit ethereal, akin to attempting to disprove the existence of the FSM or IPUs. How can you disprove an undisprovable concept? It is a line of reasoning which is weak, to the point of being ridiculous; instead, you need to logically provide evidence that this "realm" (read: reality) is not supernatural.
Because no one can disprove your idea of the supernatural, what does that mean? To me, it means it's a non debatable subject. For example, I can say because of the order in which fossils occur in the geologic record, that the great flud did not occur. You can say, "Well, you can't tell me that a magical being didn't make it that way for some special purpose, so I declare the flud a fact!" and to that I'll have to concede that it's not a point I can argue. Does that make you correct? Nope, it just means it's what you believe, and that it's not addressable in this context (or in any scientific context, for that matter). Beliefs and reality often do not mesh. ("...but what is reality?" says MatterWave)
Seems you'd be better served to argue the un-arguable in a philosophy forum. Sounds like you'd be good at debating moot points with yourself. You can start with solipsism--that's a good unanswerable one that'll have you chasing your own tail for weeks, if I'm on my mark about you.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 1:29 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:53 PM Apothecus has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 89 of 230 (545254)
02-02-2010 4:55 PM


Looking at the history of the supernatural in human discourse it would appear to me that the supernatural is just another name for ignorance. Where is the supernatural? Just beyond the horizon of our knowledge. Everytime we learn something new about reality it turns out to be natural and that horizon of the supernatural moves once again. As Stephen Weinberg put it:
"Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator... Today, for real mystery, one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete."
--book, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
We have always equated the mysterious with the supernatural. As those mysteries are solved we find out that it wasn't supernatural afterall.

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


(1)
Message 90 of 230 (545263)
02-02-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stile
02-02-2010 3:23 PM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
The evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is not supernatural is the evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is, in fact, natural. Hence a nice description of how it is naturally made.
I thought we all agreed earlier that circular reasoning is not a proper way to debate. The existence of a spoon is not supernatural because it is natural, is not a way to explain anything.
You are incorrect. You can read my description reaching as far back as the origination of the universe. No singularity mentioned at all. Why do you feel the need to insert something like that into the discussion? We're already attempting to discuss a single portion of your imagination. Lets not go adding more aspects that only exist within your head.
It was actually you who attempted to present the processes that materials undergo till they turn into a pen. If you are confident in your position, you should actually be able to discuss any aspect of it(incl. the causal chain that you brought up), not certain portions of it.
The origination of the entire universe and all that is contained within isn't big enough for you? How much bigger would you like to get? Super-Duper-Big?
I specifically demanded that you focus on "exist". Instead you chose to speak of the process how a pen is made. I challenged even that position of yours, and you have provided zero evidence that the universe didn't start by a devine intervention. Please get back to "exist" and start from there.
You can say this all you want, it will not change the fact that I did, indeed, provide evidence as such. It is now your turn to provide evidence that the Supernatural is something other than contained within your imagination. If you can't show such a thing, why should we continue to discuss it as an option?
Circular reasoning is a fallacy in a fairly major way.
All that is required is a single statement:
For everything to exist, a God (or anything Supernatural) is not required.
If you feel that this statement is in error in any way. Please show how you think it is wrong.
Statements backed by circular reasoning are wishful thinking.
Going the other way: "For everything to exist, a God is required". I have already shown how a pen can exist without God, therefore such a statement is incorrect.
You did no such thing. Why don't you go ahead and proclaim - A God is not required because a God is not required? It appears it will work for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 02-02-2010 3:23 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 8:19 AM MatterWave 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