|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 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 5061 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 5061 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
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. So you know how God works! Great! You've found all the secrets of the universe. I think you may need another universe to explore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
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? My method can say absolutely nothing on what is natural(whether a God is required for existence)- this is the reason why this question is on the list of Big questions of humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
You seem to be pulled in two different directions. You want things to be unknowable and unobservable, and yet you keep injecting a specific idea, the god idea, into the discussion. No, i want to know literally everything there is to know, now.
it is so unknowable and unobservable then why suggest "God" to begin with? Existence is incomprehensible, it's way beyond our ability to understand. You should provide evidence for your assumption that for anything to be in existence, God is not required(i.e. existence is a natural state).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
They are completely relevant to the point. Are you saying you can know that existence does not require Xongsong? Because again, if you can, you are special pleading. No. Existence is beyond me.
I am not making any assumptions about what Xongsong is either. So, again, can you know that existence does not require Xongsong? If you say you can, you are special pleading. No. Existence is beyond me. And I am not willing to make unwarranted assumptions that i can know what God is or whether God has anything remotely simiular to a physical appearance, and whether it's a spaghetti monster, etc. I leave this excercise to the inhabitants of kindergartens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
Nothing can be a prerequisite for existence itself. Even God? That must be another assumption. You are a human being and as such your ability to understand, unfortunately, isn't endless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
If you say existence may require a god, then if that god exists, by your own logic, god would require a god too (or at least some other means of creation). You don't know this, you assume that your reasoning fits the universe like a glove. It doesn't.
It's the same thing as saying "complexity requires a creator." Well, then if that creator is complex too, which it has to be to create complex things, by that very logic the creator requires a creator, too. See? The topic is whether existence requires a creator. "complexity" is on another level, it comes after existence is a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
Again, this is not my reasoning, this is your reasoning. I don't even know what the term "god" is, so how on earth could this be my reasoning? Don't jump so quickly on the defensive and try to understand what I'm saying first. I'm just showing you how your reasoning leads to infinite regression. It leads to a regress only if you make the assumption that God is a physical entity that resides in a n-D universe and is bound to causality, i.e. similar to a human being(e.g. another civilization) . If you don't make that assumption, you are making the assumption that you can understand God, and i am very skeptical of such claims.
The topic is whether existence requires a creator. No it is not. The topic is "What is Supernatural". If exisetence requires a creator, then everything is supernatural and this is the answer to the OP. If a God is not required - Supernatural is a term that describes someone's fantasies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
No. It's the definition of existence. Nothing can precede it without having it as a quality. So, nothing can be a prerequisite for it. Oh come one, what dictionary claims that their definition of "existence" is applicable to God? Where in science or art or philosophy is it claimed that anyone understands God?
MatterWave writes: You are a human being and as such your ability to understand, unfortunately, isn't endless. Of course. What's that got to do with anything? That you can't comprehend your own existence and it's a bit self-centered to claim you understand God's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
If scientists cared about naval-gazing and philosophical musings they wouldn't be called "scientists." Quite to the contrary, most physicists are very philosophical. Let's start with Einstein, Newton, Leibniz, Minkowski, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bell, Pauli, David Bohm, Zeilinger, P.Davis, etc, etc, this will run into the hundreds very quickly. It's much easier to say who weren't philosophical than who were. Nice try btw.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024