Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 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

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 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

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 130 of 230 (545405)
02-03-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Stile
02-03-2010 1:47 PM


Re: I've been ousted!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 02-03-2010 1:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 131 of 230 (545407)
02-03-2010 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Apothecus
02-03-2010 1:59 PM


Re: Super-Duper-Repetition
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:59 PM Apothecus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 4:30 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 4:39 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 132 of 230 (545409)
02-03-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taq
02-03-2010 2:43 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 2:43 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 4:31 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 135 of 230 (545413)
02-03-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Huntard
02-03-2010 3:57 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 3:57 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 4:49 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 137 of 230 (545416)
02-03-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 4:30 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 4:30 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:05 PM MatterWave has replied
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:10 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 139 of 230 (545418)
02-03-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Taq
02-03-2010 4:31 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 4:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 4:54 PM MatterWave has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 144 of 230 (545424)
02-03-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Taq
02-03-2010 4:39 PM


Re: Super-Duper-Repetition
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 4:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:52 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 147 of 230 (545429)
02-03-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Huntard
02-03-2010 4:49 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Huntard, posted 02-03-2010 4:49 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Huntard, posted 02-09-2010 9:52 AM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 150 of 230 (545432)
02-03-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:05 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:28 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 151 of 230 (545434)
02-03-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by onifre
02-03-2010 5:10 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:10 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:21 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 154 of 230 (545441)
02-03-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by onifre
02-03-2010 5:21 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:21 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 1:22 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 156 of 230 (545444)
02-03-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:28 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 6:44 PM MatterWave has replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5031 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 157 of 230 (545445)
02-03-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
02-03-2010 6:15 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 6:15 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:49 AM MatterWave has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024