Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 4:25 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
16Next
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 91 of 230 (545267)
02-02-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Apothecus
02-02-2010 4:49 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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?

So what do you do in such a situation? If you can not know if the universe and reality weren't created, why jump to conclusions? this was my initial question - Why the leap of faith?

It is a line of reasoning which is weak, to the point of being ridiculous;

It cannot be ridiculous if it makes no assumptions. Your position makes unwarranted assumptions and can in fact be ridiculous.

instead, you need to logically provide evidence that this "realm" (read: reality) is not supernatural.

I am waiting for you to that.

Because no one can disprove your idea of the supernatural, what does that mean?

It means that you need to make assumptions. And you must be aware that you are making assumptions. Assumptions are not truths.

To me, it means it's a non debatable subject.

It is debateable as long as you don't insist that your assumptions are more valid than the others.

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)

That's not what i said or implied in any way.

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.

If the other option is having faith in a set of pre-conceived assumptions, then i'd choose to consider the supernatural a real possibility. Holding faith in such high regard and being indocrinated into a set of beliefs is definitely not for me, but it obviously works for you.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Apothecus, posted 02-02-2010 4:49 PM Apothecus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 02-02-2010 8:52 PM MatterWave has not yet responded
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 02-02-2010 10:05 PM MatterWave has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 230 (545268)
02-02-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 7:40 AM


That you cannot understand the questions doesn't mean they are silly. It just means that you don't comprehend the meaning implied.

Your fantasies about what I comprehend are inaccurate.

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?

Yes. Nose jewelery is not supernatural because there is no evidence that it contravenes the laws of nature.

Nose jewelery and everything else can just as easily be supernatural(i.e. created by a god).

I dare say a god could produce nose jewelery by a miracle, but I see no evidence that a god has ever done so.

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c. 1150

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 93 of 230 (545271)
02-02-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2010 5:58 PM


Yes. Nose jewelery is not supernatural because there is no evidence that it contravenes the laws of nature.

So a god that does not break the laws of nature is what? Natural God? Where did i say or imply a god has to break the laws of nature? On the contrary - my question was specifically targeting the possibility that the existence of anything might be supernatural and require a god.

I dare say a god could produce nose jewelery by a miracle, but I see no evidence that a god has ever done so.

Aha, so you assume that the existence of jewelery or anything else is not supernatural and does not require god. Great, but that is an assumption. If you make too many assumptions, you'll be living in your fantasy.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 6:26 PM MatterWave has responded
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 02-02-2010 8:55 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 230 (545273)
02-02-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 6:08 PM


So a god that does not break the laws of nature is what? Natural God? Where did i say or imply a god has to break the laws of nature? On the contrary - my question was specifically targeting the possibility that the existence of anything might be supernatural and require a god.

Your point is obscure. To be supernatural, a thing has to contravene the laws of nature.

Aha, so you assume that the existence of jewelery or anything else is not supernatural and does not require god.

No. This is why I said no such thing.

Great, but that is an assumption. If you make too many assumptions, you'll be living in your fantasy.

Since you invent opinions and assumptions for me which I do not hold, you are definitely living in a fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 6:08 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1148 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 230 (545280)
02-02-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
02-02-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Devils Advocate
Oni writes:

Experience when we die?

Strag writes:

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.

Cool. But I have never seen any evidence to think this is the case. In fact, I have only seen evidence to the contrary. Further, "soul" (or as you put it "whatever") is just that - whatever you want it to be. Since it has no material quality, and I am only able to experience that which has a material quality, I cannot know (or ever know) the validity of it's existence.

But - since ALL humans work under these same limits, it is also beyond anyone elses ability to experience and thus know - hence belief in folklore and tales of the supernatural are needed, because evidence one will NEVER have.

Kinda makes you wonder how they even knew to come up with the question? RAZD never answered it, maybe you can.

Except that 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?

No. Well let me not be so dismissive - maybe. Maybe there is a part of us that is immaterial. But your mind is not, that we know for sure. Your brain is not, that we know for sure. Consciousness is not, that we know for sure. All those things are composed of material stuff.

So where would this immaterial area be? Well, it's immaterial, it doesn't "be" anywhere. It is everywhere and anywhere you decide for it to be since you (or the devil's advocate in you) is the one supposing it. I grant you carte blanche. Just don't expect anyone to accept this theory without any physical evidence. We are humans and are limited to the laws of nature.

Oh don't get me wrong. I think it is complete bollocks. But why is it bollocks? That is the question here.

Because we live in a physcial reality. Anyone claiming to know a non-physcial aspect of reality within our physcial reality is full of shit.

It cannot be experienced. It cannot ever be known to beings that experience reality the way we do. Makes you wonder how they even came up with the question?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 02-02-2010 1:16 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 2:07 AM onifre has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 96 of 230 (545286)
02-02-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:53 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
If you can not know if the universe and reality weren't created, why jump to conclusions?

Why suggest that it was created to start with? Is the supernatural nothing more than a an imagined realm that other people must disprove? Ever heard of Russel's Teapot?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:53 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 97 of 230 (545288)
02-02-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 6:08 PM


So a god that does not break the laws of nature is what?

Indistinguishable from a god who doesn't exist.

Aha, so you assume that the existence of jewelery or anything else is not supernatural and does not require god. Great, but that is an assumption.

No, it is an observation. We can observe jewelry being made without the intervention of a supernatural being. Therefore, the existence of a nose ring does not require the existence of a supernatural deity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 6:08 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 608 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 98 of 230 (545295)
02-02-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:53 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
If you can not know if the universe and reality weren't created, why jump to conclusions?

If you are beating around the bush about the fact that we can never know anything for sure, then I guess I'd have to agree with you, Plato. Did you look up solipsism? Also another of the seemingly infinite mind exercises which will never be resolved (as if the originators of said exercises intended otherwise).

I repeat: what is your point? That it's possible that everything's supernatural? OK, I get it. You're right, anything's possible. How does that make any difference in this thread? In order to examine a topic, we need to have a starting point. Where's your starting point, MatterWave? Oh, that's right, you don't have one, because you don't make assumptions about your own existence. Again, this is just another non-falsifiable position in a long list of possibilities.

To me, it means it's a non debatable subject.

It is debateable as long as you don't insist that your assumptions are more valid than the others.

If you're saying I'm preferentially placing what I perceive as reality higher up on the list than "everything's supernatural", well then you've got me there. And since it has been argued countless times in the past by philosophers much more astute than you or I that existence (natural or supernatural) is unprovable, I contend that debate is pointless: a thought exercise and nothing more.

instead, you need to logically provide evidence that this "realm" (read: reality) is not supernatural.

I am waiting for you to that.

Pardon me, but remove the "not" from before "supernatural" in my portion of the quote and you'll see what I was really trying to say. Sorry, my typo.

That's not what i said or implied in any way.

Not those exact words, no. I was drawing a parallel, see? What you're saying is essentially the same--a non falsifiable position and pointless to argue.

How about this? I'm Neo, you're Morpheus, and we're all actually part of a computer generated simulation in order to keep the human race docile while using our bodies for energy. Sound familiar? Yes, you are correct, MatterWave. The Matrix is just as feasible as "everything's supernatural". Once again, what's your point? That making a preferential decision to accept that I'm not living inside the Matrix is nothing more than an assumption on my part?

Point taken, then.

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : spellign


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:53 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 99 of 230 (545307)
02-03-2010 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by slevesque
02-02-2010 4:45 PM


then I will think God caused them until evidence to the contrary.

My question is why do you ascribe to if (miracle happens) then (Yawheh is responsible)? You a priori rule out any other cause.

This, I think, is very pertinent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by slevesque, posted 02-02-2010 4:45 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2010 8:55 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 100 of 230 (545309)
02-03-2010 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Adequate
02-02-2010 6:26 PM


Your point is obscure. To be supernatural, a thing has to contravene the laws of nature.

So a god that is behind the existence of everything and that doesn't break his own laws is natural. I have no objection to that as it was actually my point that we cannot know if existence is natural or supernatural. It can be both, depending if God exists or not.

No. This is why I said no such thing.

You said jewelery was natural and obviously implicitly made the assumption that existence of said jewelery or whatever is natural(not created by a God).

Since you invent opinions and assumptions for me which I do not hold, you are definitely living in a fantasy.

When you get too indocrinated into a belief, it's quite common to lose track of the assumptions you are making.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2010 6:26 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-03-2010 7:43 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3227 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 101 of 230 (545311)
02-03-2010 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Apothecus
02-02-2010 10:05 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
I repeat: what is your point? That it's possible that everything's supernatural? OK, I get it. You're right, anything's possible. How does that make any difference in this thread?

Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.

In order to examine a topic, we need to have a starting point. Where's your starting point, MatterWave?

My starting point again is: "Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not."
I hope you get it this time.

Oh, that's right, you don't have one, because you don't make assumptions about your own existence. Again, this is just another non-falsifiable position in a long list of possibilities.

You accuse me of not making stuff up? How excatly is making stuff up a good thing?

If you're saying I'm preferentially placing what I perceive as reality higher up on the list than "everything's supernatural", well then you've got me there. And since it has been argued countless times in the past by philosophers much more astute than you or I that existence (natural or supernatural) is unprovable, I contend that debate is pointless: a thought exercise and nothing more.

We definitely all exist in some way, that is beyond any doubt at all. This doesn't add anything to the question whether existence requires a God or not. Gods and existence stand much higher than you can comprehend, so why make stuff up? Who benefits from this?

How about this? I'm Neo, you're Morpheus, and we're all actually part of a computer generated simulation in order to keep the human race docile while using our bodies for energy. Sound familiar? Yes, you are correct, MatterWave. The Matrix is just as feasible as "everything's supernatural". Once again, what's your point? That making a preferential decision to accept that I'm not living inside the Matrix is nothing more than an assumption on my part?

Point taken, then.

I don't dissmiss things i cannot disprove.

So my point remains - existence can be either natural or supernatural, depending if a god is required for anything to exist. Going beyond this is personal beliefs that require making stuff up. So why the leap of faith?

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 02-02-2010 10:05 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-03-2010 5:29 AM MatterWave has responded
 Message 104 by Larni, posted 02-03-2010 7:54 AM MatterWave has not yet responded
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 8:29 AM MatterWave has responded
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 11:22 AM MatterWave has responded
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2010 11:52 AM MatterWave has not yet responded
 Message 122 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 2:30 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1298 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 102 of 230 (545314)
02-03-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:03 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.

How can you tell the difference?

We definitely all exist in some way,

Define existence.

This doesn't add anything to the question whether existence requires a God or not

Why would existence require a supernatural entity?

existence can be either natural or supernatural

Mere baseless assertion. How do you know? How can you know the difference between the two?

depending if a god is required for anything to exist

I assume you are talking whether the source of existence stems from a natural (not-God) or supernatural source (God).

Again the question is how can you tell the difference between the two beside pure blind faith?

So why the leap of faith?.

The leap of faith is when you assume there is a supernatural origin for everything. Not to say there isn't but how can we know for sure using science, itself defined as the study of the natural (the reality we can experience and study) world not the 'supernatural' (outside the reality we can experience and study) world?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


“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 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 230 (545335)
02-03-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 4:50 AM


So a god that is behind the existence of everything and that doesn't break his own laws is natural. I have no objection to that as it was actually my point that we cannot know if existence is natural or supernatural. It can be both, depending if God exists or not.

You appear to be trying to redefine the definition of words depending on the correctness of your personal theological opinions.

This would be stupid.

You said jewelery was natural and obviously implicitly made the assumption that existence of said jewelery or whatever is natural(not created by a God).

But no "assumption" exists. I say that I have no evidence that any nose-jewelery contravenes the laws of nature. Therefore I provisionally class nose-jewelery as natural. Show me evidence to the contrary.

When you get too indocrinated into a belief, it's quite common to lose track of the assumptions you are making.

And when a person is too stupid or too wrong to argue against what I am actually saying, it's quite common for them to retreat into an insane halfwitted fantasy world in which they make up some ludicrous fantasy about what I'm saying and then try to argue against their idiotic fantasy about my beliefs which they've made up in their crazy little minds because they are too stupid and pathetic and wrong to argue against anything that I have actually said.

Now, given that we apparently disagree about what I think, which is more likely:

(1) I know what my opinions are, and you don't.

(2) You know what my opinions are, and I don't.

Think about this carefully, because if you go for option (2) you are mentally ill and should seek psychiatric help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 4:50 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 104 of 230 (545338)
02-03-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:03 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.

I concur: however if there is no observable difference between the two states Occam's Razor excises the god from the equation.

I infer from your posts that a god (of some sort) must exist for there to be a supernatural facet of reality.

But is this really the case? Could a host of non-god supernatural entities exist without a god and still count as supernatural?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM MatterWave has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3587
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 105 of 230 (545341)
02-03-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:29 PM


Super-Duper-Repetition
MatterWave writes:

The existence of a spoon is not supernatural because it is natural, is not a way to explain anything.

Really? You think this is circular reasoning? I thought you were confused, but I suppose I didn't see how deep your issues actually go.

Um, yes... actually, this is a perfectly fine way to explain something. If we have two distinct categories (say, red and blue). And I want to show that one is not red... if I can show that it is blue... then this shows that it's not red.

We have two distinct categories (Supernatural and Natural), so it's a very basic explanation to show that something is not-Supernatural by showing how it is Natural.

If you do not understand this, you have some classes to attend, try not to forget your lunch.

MatterWave writes:

you have provided zero evidence that the universe didn't start by a devine intervention.

Oh... sorry, wrong again. But I suppose you're getting used to that, no? Here it is again:

quote:
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

MatterWave writes:

Stile writes:

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.

Oh, my. A very poor memory indeed. Here, I'll show it for you again:

quote:
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.


Hopefully I didn't use too many big words for you, let me know if you're still having trouble.

Oh... now that I've shown you how ALL of the evidence points towards a Natural existence and NONE of the evidence points specifically towards a Supernatural existence... I will take your refusal to defend your own position as a cowardly way to concede the arguement.

Doesn't anyone ever get embarrassed by trying to seriously support a "Supernatural" realm? I mean, c'mon... it sounds like it was made up by a bunch of school kids.

"Hey, man, did you hear of this other place that Timmy and I go to a lot?"
"No, I haven't."
"It's really fun, it's so beyond anything you've ever experienced naturally."
"Really? Where is it?"
"It's... um... in a place called Supernatural!!"
"Wow! That's uber-cool!!"

Until you are able to show some substance with your claim of the existence of a Supernatural anything... it remains exactly the same as all the other wacky ideas that come from human imagination.

Otherwise, you'd have to accept the existence of the Super-Duper-Natural realm, and the My-Dad-Can-Beat-Up-Your-Dad realm, and all other imaginary places.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:29 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:15 PM Stile has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019