|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2410 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Thanks for the replies, MatterWave.
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?"? I assume since you're replying to my post, you're contending that this is what I believe. At no time in this thread did I make this "leap", but thanks for putting words into my mouth. All I'm saying is that it's a silly argument. Did you understand Huntard's post, really? You can harp and harp and harp about the 6 million different notions (whatever you can imagine up) of whether some other type of reality is more "real" than what we define as "natural". For example (please try to understand this), you can't tell me we don't exist within Purple Fairy Land. Prove that we don't. Oh, and the absence of Purple Fairies cannot be used as an argument against the contention that we do indeed exist within Purple Fairy Land. And round and round we go... Your original argument was, "How do we know everything's not supernatural?" Yes, how do we know? How do we know anything, for sure? You can argue this pointless exercise until you go nuts. I think it all may come down to this statement: you seem to be looking for someone to admit (please, correct me if I'm mistaken here) that, indeed, accepting that everything we see resides in a natural realm is a "leap of faith" akin to unbelievers using the same term when describing the religious, no? If that's your intent, I think you ought to cut bait now, because you won't find many suckers here. Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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. This is a false dichotomy. First of all, natural as compared to what? Supernatural? Well, what does that word mean? This is the whole point of this thread! You have not, in fact no one as of yet, has/have explained what the alternative to what we normally experience is. We have a definition of natural, one that we can all agree on. It is the reality that we experience. It is science. It is the laws of physcis. Etc. Now, give an example of the alternative, something concrete that we can all agree on (in the same way that we agree on nature) and we can begin to compare. Right now all you are saying is things are either natural or they are "some made up word that is undefined". Supernatural means absolutely nothing in this thread right now. You have not defined it. It is nature -vs- nothing else. That's the whole point of this thread. I asked slevesque, now I'll ask you, define supernatural and lets stop this stupid merry-go-round of philosophical nonsense! - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
It means really really natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
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"?
Since you seem to be the one pushing the idea of the supernatural why don't you tell us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yes. that's exactly what I was attempting to say thanks
Edited by slevesque, : wrong phrase structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Sorry if I got lost in all this thread. But didn't I answer your question in post 46 ?
Nature: our universe, where we can do science, etc. Reality: everything that exists (this may, or may not, include God.) Imaginary: Everything that isn't part of reality. Supernatural: Everything that is part of reality, but not a part of nature. And so with this terminology, any philosophical position can be explained. If reality is strictly nature, than you are a naturalist. Back then you had answered with: do/can we have evidence that there is anything outside of nature? But this is besides the point since all I wanted to do was answer your first question and ismply define supernatural, so as every position can be expressed either it be evidenced or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Supernatural: Everything that is part of reality, but not a part of nature. This seems incomplete. It is analogous to defining "red" as "not blue". If it is not nature, then what is it? It seems that supernatural can only be defined by what it is not, not by what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
MatterWave writes:
I'm serious here. Are you denying existence can be any of these things? Because if you are, you are special pleading. So the best you could do to respond to the biggest questions of humanity is what...? Kindergarten stuff? It's not really a big question to me anyway, and I know a lot of people that don't care for it either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3661 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Hello Stevesque.
I don't mean to muddy the waters here but your definitions seem a little contradictory to me. If we define Nature as- everything within our universe and Reality as- everything that exists. Than how can we have something that exists that is not within our universe? If it exists and it is contained within our universe than by your definition it has to be natural. If it is outside of our universe than we have no evidence for it, nor anyway to aquire evidence for it and to me, should be labeled as imaginary until we are able to properly evidence it. Or at least as an unknown. 'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat' The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
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. So anyone who questions the validity of your assumptions is a troll?? Really? And anyone who questions the Flood is also a troll?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
All I'm saying is that it's a silly argument. Did you understand Huntard's post, really? You can harp and harp and harp about the 6 million different notions (whatever you can imagine up) of whether some other type of reality is more "real" than what we define as "natural". What does "real" have to do with anything i said in this thread?
For example (please try to understand this), you can't tell me we don't exist within Purple Fairy Land. Prove that we don't. My point is not to prove where we exist and i said that 100 times already. The point is "existence", that something exists, that it is there and can be observed. Existence is beyond comprehension and you or anyone else don't know if a God is required. Your assumptions are a reflection of your personal beliefs.
"How do we know everything's not supernatural?" Yes, how do we know? How do we know anything, for sure? You can argue this pointless exercise until you go nuts. There are many things we can know, you are not arguing against that, are you? Whether a God is required for anything to exist is not one of things we can know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
Since you seem to be the one pushing the idea of the supernatural why don't you tell us. 'Pushing' is a mischaracterization of what i stated:
"Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a God is required for anything to be in existence"?
If you are referring to my initial exclamation - "What is not supernatioral?", it was more of a derogatory term, as the OP obviously assumed he knew existence doesn't require God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
MatterWave writes: Existence is beyond comprehension and you or anyone else don't know if a God is required. MatterWave writes: Whether a God is required for anything to exist is not one of things we can know. Really? If existence requires a god, then the god would be a prerequisite for its own existence. So we know that existence cannot require a god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
"Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a God is required for anything to be in existence"? Can you show us, using the scientific method (your method of choice), that the supernatural exists? If not, then is it not equivalent to something that is imagined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
I'm serious here. Are you denying existence can be any of these things? Because if you are, you are special pleading. It's not really a big question to me anyway, and I know a lot of people that don't care for it either. These propositions of yours are irrelevant to the point that you don't know if anything can be in existence without the act of a god. I am not making assumptions what god is or is not.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024