|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
MatterWave writes:
I think you're limiting yourself way too much. Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not. Existence can also be Hypernatural, depending on whether a hyper-god exists or not. It can be superduper natural, depending on whether a super duper-god exists. It can be xingaly, depending on whether a xonsong exists. Do you get what you're doing here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. I think slevesque's point is clear enough. If someone goes around raising the dead and healing the blind and so forth, and if that person attributes his powers to Yahweh, then we'd need a darn good reason to say that his powers had some other cause. Slevesque is not asserting that we should take the premises as true. If I understand him, he's just asserting that if the two premises were true, then in default of contrary evidence we should accept the conclusion. Perhaps I have misunderstood slevesque's point, in which case I'm sure that he'll say so. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not. Then it would seem that you need to show that a god exists before suggesting that existence can be supernatural. Lacking such evidence there is no reason to suggest that there is a supernatural realm.
I don't dissmiss things i cannot disprove. But how do you determine the difference between imaginary and real?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi MW,
MatterWave writes: 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? Existence is. Whatever that existence is everything that exists today came from that existence. Creationist claim that existence was God and He created everything that exists today. Evolutionist claim that existence is what created the universe and created the first life form. The first life form then evolved into all living life forms that exist today as well as all the extinct life forms. If existence did not exist then nothing could exist today unless it began to exist. If it began to exist it had to begin to exist from non existence. Is it possible for non existence to begin to exist? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Evolutionist claim that existence is what created the universe and created the first life form. No they don't. Evolutionists claim that life changes over time through the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation. That's it. Nowhere in evolution does it describe how the universe came about nor how the first life came about.
Is it possible for non existence to begin to exist? I don't know. Is it? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
The leap of faith is when you assume there is a supernatural origin for everything. Or that there is a natural origin for everything. Which is what most of you are doing,
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? There are questions that are way beyond the scope of science. And science is not a religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
I think you're limiting yourself way too much. Existence can also be Hypernatural, depending on whether a hyper-god exists or not. It can be superduper natural, depending on whether a super duper-god exists. It can be xingaly, depending on whether a xonsong exists. Do you get what you're doing here?
MatterWave writes:
I think you're limiting yourself way too much. Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.Existence can also be Hypernatural, depending on whether a hyper-god exists or not. It can be superduper natural, depending on whether a super duper-god exists. It can be xingaly, depending on whether a xonsong exists. Do you get what you're doing here? So the best you could do to respond to the biggest questions of humanity is what...? Kindergarten stuff?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
Then it would seem that you need to show that a god exists before suggesting that existence can be supernatural. Lacking such evidence there is no reason to suggest that there is a supernatural realm. You are thye ones making claims about everything that is in exisetence being natural. You must back up your claims, not me. My position is that:
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The leap of faith is when you assume there is a supernatural origin for everything. Or that there is a natural origin for everything. Which is what most of you are doing, Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2438 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
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. That's just the thing, Stile. He's arguing that since the supernatural (or any other wacky idea) can't be disproven, that this is license to dump the natural into the "questionable" mix as well. Nature (read: reality) can't be proven, either, he's saying. Really, what is "the question of existence" if not a topic for a random conversation while under the influence of illicit substances? But that's all this can be. A conversation. Not a debate. You can't debate the undebatable. You can't make it something it was never intended to be. It's silly. You can give examples of "real" objects 'til the cows come home, but this is beside the point, to him. All he wants is some concession that his idea is possible. Please, feed the animals and let's be done with this line of thought.
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. My sentiments exactly. However, MatterWave's premise is quite flimsy, so I suspect this may be something he'll agree with as well. Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
That's just the thing, Stile. He's arguing that since the supernatural (or any other wacky idea) can't be disproven, that this is license to dump the natural into the "questionable" mix as well. Nature (read: reality) can't be proven, either, he's saying. Really, what is "the question of existence" if not a topic for a random conversation while under the influence of illicit substances? But that's all this can be. A conversation. Not a debate. You can't debate the undebatable. You can't make it something it was never intended to be. It's silly. You can give examples of "real" objects 'til the cows come home, but this is beside the point, to him. All he wants is some concession that his idea is possible. Please, feed the animals and let's be done with this line of thought. I only wanted you to substantiate your beliefs that everything that exists is natural. I am obviously not making the assumption that existence is possible without a God. You don't understand existence, so why the leap of faith from "I exist in some way" to "Everything is natural and God does not exist?"? Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
The default position is what can be measured and quantified. That is where all investigation starts. If science were anywhere close to answering the Big questions, they wouldn't be called "big".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2438 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Huntard,
Do you get what you're doing here? No, I don't think he does. But good point, nonetheless... Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
MatterWave writes: I don't dissmiss things i cannot disprove. But how do you determine the difference between imaginary and real? I use the scientific method - 1. Find an unexplained phenomenon2. Get a description 3. Analyze the data 4. Make a hypothsis 5. Test experimentally the hypothesis 6. Analyze the results and draw conclusion/interpretation How would you propose i test my proposition: "Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a God is required for anything to be in existence"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Apothecus writes: That's just the thing, Stile. He's arguing that since the supernatural (or any other wacky idea) can't be disproven, that this is license to dump the natural into the "questionable" mix as well. Yes, I know He only has a superficial arguement. You and I and any other person with half-a-mind for logics and reason can see this. I'm taking his ridiculous arguement of "it can't be 100% disproven" to the closest reasonable level... that is, why would some think Natural vs. Supernatural isn't a 50-50 shot? And there are reasons and evidence why the Supernatural is disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. Such reasons and evidence are (in basic form) that which I've shown. I'm not posting to argue with MatterWave, such a thing would be beneath me I'm posting to provide an answer to the-next-best-reasonable-question from where MatterWave is coming from. I'm doing this because teh interwebs is littered with lurkers and skimmers of all shapes and sizes at varying levels of education, reasoning and attention span. It's just, with such immature arguements to begin with, I also find it fun to add in my own level of immature discussion. Which may not be for formal discussion, but this arguement (as you know) isn't really for formal discussion either.
All he wants is some concession that his idea is possible. Please, feed the animals and let's be done with this line of thought. If no one ever fed the trolls, the internet would be a very quiet place indeed. And then where would I find an outlet for my immaturity? Thanks for the tip, but it's okay, when I'm bored I'll stop posting to him. Otherwise, I'll continue to post what I best feel fits this style of immaturity (so that those reading his posts will actually read mine too), and also make some amount of sense. Think of it as using the trolls in order to reach a wider audience who may not want to read "all that heavy stuff" And, as to your main point, I certainly agree that arguing with MatterWave is a complete waste of time. Edited by Stile, : Quite quiet.. qui-et... quiet... and that's done it, the word has lost all meaning to me...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024