Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 106 of 230 (545342)
02-03-2010 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:03 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:05 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 118 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:32 PM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 107 of 230 (545344)
02-03-2010 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Larni
02-03-2010 3:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Larni, posted 02-03-2010 3:55 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by slevesque, posted 02-03-2010 3:29 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 108 of 230 (545352)
02-03-2010 11:22 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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:07 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 119 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:36 PM Taq has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 109 of 230 (545355)
02-03-2010 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:03 AM


Re: Existence
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."

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 12:04 PM ICANT has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 110 of 230 (545357)
02-03-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
02-03-2010 11:52 AM


Re: Existence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2010 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2010 10:39 PM Taq has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 111 of 230 (545364)
02-03-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate
02-03-2010 5:29 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-03-2010 5:29 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 1:09 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 112 of 230 (545365)
02-03-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
02-03-2010 8:29 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
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:
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.
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?
So the best you could do to respond to the biggest questions of humanity is what...? Kindergarten stuff?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 8:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 3:57 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 113 of 230 (545367)
02-03-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
02-03-2010 11:22 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 11:22 AM Taq has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 114 of 230 (545369)
02-03-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 1:03 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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,
The default position is what can be measured and quantified. That is where all investigation starts.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:03 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:31 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 115 of 230 (545372)
02-03-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Stile
02-03-2010 8:19 AM


Re: Super-Duper-Repetition
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 8:19 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:28 PM Apothecus has replied
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 1:47 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 116 of 230 (545374)
02-03-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Apothecus
02-03-2010 1:15 PM


Re: Super-Duper-Repetition
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:15 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:59 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 117 of 230 (545376)
02-03-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
02-03-2010 1:09 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 1:09 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 6:15 PM MatterWave has replied

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


Message 118 of 230 (545377)
02-03-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Huntard
02-03-2010 8:29 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 8:29 AM Huntard has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 119 of 230 (545378)
02-03-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Taq
02-03-2010 11:22 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
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 phenomenon
2. 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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 11:22 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 2:43 PM MatterWave has replied

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


Message 120 of 230 (545380)
02-03-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Apothecus
02-03-2010 1:15 PM


I've been ousted!
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:15 PM Apothecus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 4:09 PM Stile has seen this message but 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