What is Supernatural?

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 cannot be ridiculous if it makes no assumptions. Your position makes unwarranted assumptions and can in fact be ridiculous. I am waiting for you to that. It means that you need to make assumptions. And you must be aware that you are making assumptions. Assumptions are not truths. It is debateable as long as you don't insist that your assumptions are more valid than the others. That's not what i said or implied in any way. 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.

Your fantasies about what I comprehend are inaccurate. Yes. Nose jewelery is not supernatural because there is no evidence that it contravenes the laws of nature. I dare say a god could produce nose jewelery by a miracle, but I see no evidence that a god has ever done so. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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. 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.

Your point is obscure. To be supernatural, a thing has to contravene the laws of nature. No. This is why I said no such thing. Since you invent opinions and assumptions for me which I do not hold, you are definitely living in a fantasy.

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. 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. 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?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

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?

Indistinguishable from a god who doesn't exist. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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

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.

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 said jewelery was natural and obviously implicitly made the assumption that existence of said jewelery or whatever is natural(not created by a God). When you get too indocrinated into a belief, it's quite common to lose track of the assumptions you are making.

Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not. 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. You accuse me of not making stuff up? How excatly is making stuff up a good thing? 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? 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.

How can you tell the difference? Define existence. Why would existence require a supernatural entity? Mere baseless assertion. How do you know? How can you know the difference between the two? 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? 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

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

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?

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. 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

---

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.