|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5051 days) Posts: 87 Joined:
|
What's vague about "the fact or state of being"? It's just a label. There is nothing behind the label that would tell us anything worthwhile about what existence/non-existence is. It says nothing about why there is something rather than nothing. And speculations and assumptions of what existence is are really personal human beliefs. We need to understand existence and we make assumptions. It's ok, as long we are aware that they are merely assumptions.
Non-existent means non-existent in all reality regardless of anyone's perceptions. Another term that you have no idea what it really represents - Reality. What is it?? You don't know. Then why the leap of faith about what existence in reality is, when you don't know what these both really are?
Something either exists or it doesn't. Or it exists in a way you can't comprehend. Same as how you can't comprehend your own existence.
What is a plane of existence? Things either exist or they don't. Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world.
Aren't you overcomplicating the concept of existence? You are not sugesting that I am overcomplicating, what is possibly the biggest question of the human race, are you?
God's existence? I thought you were suggesting a non-existent god? The way we exist in our reality, yes, you could say i don't think a God of any sorts is explicitly manifest in our reality.
The state of being. The United States of America didn't exist 300 years ago, and now it does exist. The Roman Empire existed 2000 years ago, and now it doesn't exist. These are labels. What I initially picked you up on was when you seemed to be implying that the phenomenon of existence itself might require a creator. It cannot, because existence would have to be a quality of that creator, don't you agree?
MatterWave writes:
What's vague about "the fact or state of being"?
Dictionaries reflect things we understand. When there is something that we don't understand, dictionary tend to be vague. MatterWave writes: Really? Non-existent as in non-existent in what we perceive as reality? Non-existent means non-existent in all reality regardless of anyone's perceptions.
I am not really a Christian, but does Christianity claim that God resides within our world/reality? Frequently. They often claim that he's omnipresent. They certainly believe that he exists. Christians are generally defined as a group of people who believe that the Christian god exists. Ask them.
MatterWave writes: "without actually existing himself" in what we perceive to be a 3D reality. I no idea an atheist would agree to such a proposition. Without existing. Period. Something either exists or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with our perceptions or particular dimensions or what we believe. Things either are, or they aren't.
I no idea an atheist would agree to such a proposition. You had no idea that an atheist might agree with the non-existence of god? Do explain. We now seem to be in the bizzare MatterWave world in which Christians are expected to agree to the non-existence of god, and atheists to disagree.
MatterWave writes: The following statement reveals that you put the existence of humans and the existence of God on the same plane of existence. You should not make that assumption, because you don't understand your own plane of existence. The conclusion you draw at the end is a non-sequitur: What is a plane of existence? Things either exist or they don't.
MatterWave writes: You are applying your limited capacity of understanding to something way beyond your comprehension. Aren't you overcomplicating the concept of existence?
MatterWave writes: Both your own existence and that of God is incomprehensible. God's existence? I thought you were suggesting a non-existent god?
Matter writes: Existent, non-existent - it's not of great importance what labels you'd attach. At the end of the day, you still don't know and understand what existence is. The state of being. The United States of America didn't exist 300 years ago, and now it does exist. The Roman Empire existed 2000 years ago, and now it doesn't exist.
What I initially picked you up on was when you seemed to be implying that the phenomenon of existence itself might require a creator. It cannot, because existence would have to be a quality of that creator, don't you agree? If God is an advanced race of beings similar to us mortal humans, who live in a deterministic, causation-driven reality, yes. But then we'll have to embrace the turtles. Or God is as incomprehensible as our existence is. I don't believe our minds are all-powerful and able comprehend the whole of reality. This is utopia to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3682 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Hello Stevesque
Stevesque writes:
What do you mean? How can we have evidence for anything outside of space and time? If any evidence exists it has to exist within our universe so that we can percieve it. In which case it becomes natural. Can you site an example of evidence that we have or could percieve for something that resides outside of space and time? The problem comes from you assuming that if something is outside our universe, we have no evidence for it. But this isn't necessarily true. Edited by rueh, : No reason given. '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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Could you sort out your quote boxes on that post, Matter, as it's not clear who's saying what? If you want to use nested quotes, use the peek button below to see how it works.
MatterWave writes:
bluegenes writes: xxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx. yyyyyy.yyyyyyyyy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I think you are confusing Evolutionist with the ToE. I think you are confusing Evolutionists with Abiogenesists, Big Bangists, and Stringists.
I have asked where the universe came from? Several Evolutionist on this site have told me, the universe just is. I bet if you asked them what their favorite flavor of ice cream was they would tell you. That doesn't make Rocky Road a part of evolution nor does it make Rocky Road a requisite part of the Evolution argument.
There are a lot of peope a lot smarter than I am that says no. People say a lot of things. What I am interested in is the evidence which supports their claims. What is that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Your analogy doesn't really describe the situation here. We can go outside of america into europe to see what it is and describe this way. This cannot be done in the case of nature, and so it limits how we can define it. Hence the problem. We have people trying to assert the qualities of something that can not be observed.
A more suitable analogy would be if we were all locked up in a house with no contact with the exterior world but a little tiny hole in the ceiling. Everyday, light would start to come through the hole and follow a precise trajectory across the room and disappear. One day, the most crazy out of us would say that this light comes from a light source that is actually outside the house and who is circling us. So what is the equivalent observation for the supernatural and natural? What is the equivalent of the light beam? What observable phenomenon does the supernatural project into the natural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Quite to the contrary, most physicists are very philosophical. Those physicists are not called "scientists" because of their philosophical musings. They are called scientists because they proposed testable hypotheses that were verified by scientific experiments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
No, i want to know literally everything there is to know, now. This statement is immediately followed by . . .
Existence is incomprehensible, it's way beyond our ability to understand. You make it quite clear that you don't want to know.
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). The only assumption here is your injection of "God" into the discussion. You need to provide evidence of God before God can be considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Basically, you argument boils down to: "We can't really KNOW anything."
Yawn. Solipsism is totally ghey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Well, Matterwave, like the Jimmy Superfly Snooker that you are, you grabbed me by the hair and dragged me back into this...
MatterWave writes: Reality is a plane of existence. I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world. Is this, or is this not what you have been relentlessly lambasting everyone else in "existence" for doing?
I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world. Exactly, my existentially challenged friend. You have effectively wrapped yourself up into such a furball of your own manufacture that you don't know if you're coming or going. How else would you suggest beings (...what is the state of "being"?) interact with their world (...what is..."world") in a meaningful (...what is the meaning of... "meaningful"?) fashion? Would you have mankind live life (...what is...life?)in a philosophical haze of "Am I real, or is everything just...ethereal?" What exists? What is existence? So you posit, over and over and over, that we need to accept that we can't just assume that what we observe in nature is "existing" in any meaningful way. Stop making assumptions, you say. Why the "leap of faith", you say. Yet, you then state:
I see no better way to express my observations of the outside world. Finally. We finally see that all your arguments boil down to nothing more than a thought experiment. Just musings charading as a contradictorily valid premise. You might call it, "stirring the pot". Another word for it is "trolling". MatterWave, had you left this big question (and I agree with you, it's a deep one) as just that, this may have been nothing more than a polite conversation. But I think you tried to make it some kind of crusade in which, instead of admitting you were just "thinking out loud," you took it to absolutely ridiculous lengths. Sorta like a snowball, rolling down a hill. Except in this case, the metaphorical hill and snowball don't actually exist. Have a good one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
I have 6 posts in this thread prior to this one. Which of those posts did I say evolution taught that the universe just is? You did tell me in Message 13Taq writes: 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. I responded to you in Message 161ICANT writes: I think you are confusing Evolutionist with the ToE. You responded in the message I am responding to with:
Taq writes: I think you are confusing Evolutionists with Abiogenesists, Big Bangists, and Stringists. I have no idea why you want to bring evolution into the discussion of what is natural and what is Supernatural. I have not introduced the subject and will not respond to any further mention of it. I did refer to Evolutionist on this site that had told me the universe just is. FYI cavediver, Rahvin, and Straggler all have made that statement to me. Which brings me back to the subject of Existence. Existence is either infinite. OR Existence began to exist. If existence began to exist it had to begin from non existence. Can existence begin to exist? You answered "I don't know".
Taq writes: There are a lot of peope a lot smarter than I am that says no. People say a lot of things. What I am interested in is the evidence which supports their claims. What is that evidence? Do you believe something can come from nothing? It is absurd to believe that existence can begin to exist from non existence. Why do you think there is a search for the Theory of Everything? Why do you think Turok/Hawking invented the instanton?The problem with the instanton where did it begin to exist? A vacume would be required which is a volume of space. Big problem space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe. Along comes string theory with two branes producing the universe. Problem where did they exist? Back to the vacume so same problem as the instanton. Existence is required for the universe to begin to exist by any scientific hypothesis proposed. Since that exstence has to be external to the universe it can not be natural. Therefore that existence would be classified as non natural or could be called supernatural. Your choice. The evidence we have for that existence = The universe exists, we and all life forms 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: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I did refer to Evolutionist on this site that had told me the universe just is. Why refer to someone's position on biological change when discussing the origin of the universe? One does not have anything to do with the other.
Existence is either infinite. OR Existence began to exist. So which is it, and what is the evidence that supports it?
Do you believe something can come from nothing? I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
It is absurd to believe that existence can begin to exist from non existence. Why is it absurd?
Why do you think there is a search for the Theory of Everything? Because we are curious as to how the universe works and how it came to be.
Existence is required for the universe to begin to exist by any scientific hypothesis proposed. Since that exstence has to be external to the universe it can not be natural. Why can't it be natural? Thunderclouds are necessary for the existence of lightning, so does that mean that thunderclouds are not natural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: Why can't it be natural? Thunderclouds are necessary for the existence of lightning, so does that mean that thunderclouds are not natural? Thunderclouds are part of the universe therefore natural. Something had to exist for the universe to begin to exist. According to the hypothesis there had to be a vacuum for the branes or for the instanton. That vacuum had to exist in existence. Do you have or know of a hypothesis that would not require something to exist for the uiniverse to begin to exist? If it has to be external to and in which the universe exists, how could it be natural? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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. Leave god and the validity of his/her existence out of this for a second...it leads to infinite regression by the very logic being used. If it wasn't "god" and instead a turtle, then the turtle would require a creator, and that creator its own creator and so on and so on. You choose to believe that something refered to as "god" was the first cause to the universe, but that is not relevant to the point. I assume nothing about the word "god," it has no meaning to me. I'm simply pointing out the error of your logic.
If existence requires a creator, then everything is supernatural and this is the answer to the OP. Who created the creator? If the creator exists then by the same logic requires a creator as well. You can try to spin it all you want but you can't avoid the logical error you are making. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Thunderclouds are part of the universe therefore natural. Thunderclouds are not a part of the lightning bolt. The lightning bolt can not exist without the thundercloud. The lightning bolt is natural. Therefore, the thundercloud can not be natural. This is your argument in a nut shell.
If it has to be external to and in which the universe exists, how could it be natural? Why couldn't it be natural? Are branes supernatural?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Well I have some speculative theories. Dreams and mortality. I think truly contemplating a reality that is without ones own consciousness present is next to impossible. We get the concept that we world can carry on without us but actually imagining that? And then dreams that involve those that have passed away can be taken as an indicator that those physically dead are still present in some immaterial way. I think it is true that all studied primitive cultures have had some concept of an afterlife and have placed some importance on dreams. And once you have the concept of the immaterial "spirit" (or whatever) it is only a short step or two to extrapolate that to other aspects of nature in the form of tree spirits, ghosts, gods and the full plethora of the supernatural. Especially when confronted with otherwise inexplicable acts of nature.
Well said. I actually do place a lot of importance on dreams myself. I've tried many different mind altering states (both natural and with drugs) and it can be awesome. Extremely awesome. I've studied a lot as well on dream states, REM and consciousness, etc. I honestly find approaching it without supernatural elements to be a lot more fascinating than imagining supernatural realms and things like that. Reality and nature are so much more intriguing than invisible things that can't be experienced, but only believed in. IMO.
harshly put. But nevertheless true. I can't maintain my devils advocate attempt because you are saying pretty much the same as I would say in answer to my own questions. I only put it harshly because its you and me rapping here, I'd be more sensitive with others.
Finding the commonalities between religions and examining the anthropological evidence I think is the best means of gaining an answer to that interesting question. Yeah, we could always tell them why they're prove to beliefs, but they never listen. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024