What is Supernatural?

Hi ICANT, Why do you insist on repeatedly asking questions that have no evidence in any direction? That, for all intent and purposes, are meaningless?If all you want is someone's gut feeling on the issue then you should leave it out of science threads. They didn't invent it, the evidence pointed to it. Why do pretend to understand any of this? Does it make you feel like you're gaining an understanding of it by just throwing a couple of scientific terms around? You're trying to raise an issue with some of the theories of the greatests minds in physics, as though you could actually do that!Why do you think the people who are experts in these fields on this site won't reply to you? You could actually learn some of this stuff, but you are too arrogant in what you think you know to see that you don't know shit.- Oni

I don't see what you mean by this. So you don't know what to say and you decided you want to hijack the thread to a new topic, namely "What is real?". Where did i bring up this topic? If you don't know what to say, don't make stuff up. This is a tremendously important question. It is a philosophical question only as much as it cannot be abswered by science. There are many more important questions that science cannot answer, but yes, they are counter-productive to your personal assumptions. I understand. I am glad you understand that you are making an assumption(that you find logical). Others disagree about the validity of your assumption and you have provided absolutely no evidence for that assumption, except that it suits your taste of how you want the world to be.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Scientists first muse and make a hypothesis over unsolved questions, then they test the hypothesis. Is this news to you? Your statement that scientists aren't philosophical(thinking about the big questions) is completely false.

How generous. You provided for me words i never said, then you provided a conclusion for me, based on the things i didn't say. Great way to argue.

Not to speak for Taq, but I think his point was that scientists go beyond mere philosophical musings and actually test these 'musings', ideas, hypotheses or whatever you wish to label them and actually observe, test, experiment, verify and validate (through peer review) these ideas to match reality.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Assuming you can understand everything is a logical fallacy. You are not a God-like, or are you? Do you understand that you are making the assumption that your mind can comprehend all aspects of existence, including existence itself? Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Yes, they test different aspects of reality. They see an unexplained event, they muse over it, they make a hypothesis and they test it. They are not retards who directly shoot for impossible targets like existence. Instead, they pick different aspects of existence and are slowly building a model that may one day prove successful in matching reality to a great degree of accuracy. Do you understand this point?Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Agreed this is what I just said. No, not at all. You are being ridiculously obtuse.So are you saying that philosophers and scientists are retards? Because many of them do discuss both existence both as a whole as well as specific instances of existence. Or are you just being an obnoxious, childish troll who has nothing better to do than call people retards. BTW, many people would take offense to how you are using this pejorative term.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

So basically are you saying that because we can't understand all of reality we should automatically assume there is a supernatural being called 'God' that runs the universe?Is this really your premise? If so then you are falling into a common logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance).

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hey MW. Good job managing the onslaught. I'd not have the luxury of time to maintain it as you have.So, to be clear: you, in multiple posts in this thread, repeatedly, relentlessly, endlessly say this or something very similar to this: or this: Which begs the questions, "Does MatterWave argue this fervently because he wishes to take the long road 'round in making a freakin' point? Or does he argue this way because he actually believes we all just may be living in a supernatural realm?" I was beginning to reach the conclusion that the answer is closer to the latter until I read this: WTF? So since you didn't address this in my last reply, I'll ask again: are you or are you not employing assumptions when addressing reality and existence, those same assumptions that apparently give you DTs any time you're confronted with any poor soul who's "making the leap of faith?"If so, you, sir, are a walking contradiction.Have a good one.

Dude, you introduced the argument, I'm just showing you how it is a logical error.I am not claiming to understand everything, but I am claiming I recognize how your argument is flawed. What gives you any confidence that the word you use called "god" has any bearing on existence?I don't assume anything about existence, other than I am currently experiencing it. How it got here is limited to what the evidence is. There is no evidence for god, nor is there evidence of how existence got here. No need to assume anything on either.My only point is that your argument leads to infinite regression. Obviously not to you because you have a belief in a specific enitity that has certain powers and characteristics, but I don't share your beliefs. Your religious bias doesn't let you see the logical error you are making.- Oni

Hi MatterWave,I've been following this thread, and have just read all of your posts again. Strange as it might sound, I understand what you are saying. This is probably because I have a different viewpoint than most people here.What most here don't see is they have a "belief system" when they claim they don't. Nothing wrong with a belief or assumptions, just as long as you realize that is what you are doing.Your posts show me you have actually thought about the OP rather than just following your ingrained belief system.So on that note, Id like to show you something.EXPERIMENT #1What I would like you to do is exactly locate where you are thinking from. You are thinking, and that has a location. I want you to find "where you are".Some people have a problem doing this, so a good hint is to find all the places you are not thinking from. Are you thinking from your left foot? Are you thinking from your right leg? Are you thinking from your right pinky finger.I want you to locate exactly where your thinking is originating down to the mm.If you do this you will notice something. It has to do with not only the OP, but some things you said about existence.I've done this, but the only way to check if what I noticed is correct is to see if others notice the same thing. So far that has been the case, but I have a very small sample group.Anyone here is welcome to do this. PM or email me with your result but you must go to that last mm. I will share what I realized but only if you agree not to post it here as that would screw up the experiment. People can't know ahead of time what is supposed to occur.This experiment directly relates to the OP, if you can't see that, it's because you didn't do the experiment.

Hi Taq, The lightning bolt is a bunch of negatve electrons and positive positrons getting together and doing their thing.Are you saying positive positrons and negative electrons which are natural can not exist without the thundercloud? Branes can not be a part of the universe if the universe was created by the collision of two of them.They had to exist before the universe began to exist.Therefore they are outside of the universe we live in which is a place we have no knowledge about.They would be supernatural according to what you said. In Message 89But personaly I don't believe anything is supernatural.I guess I am done here since I don't think anything supernatural really exists.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."

Here, I'll provide you with some words that you did say:

quote:

---

These objects are what is observed and easily explained by us. But how do you explain the ability to explain? What does it mean to know and to understand, really(which is what you are employing in making your statement above)? You don't really know how it works, so why the leap of faith?

​

You don't know what to exist really means, so why the leap of faith?

​

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?

​

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.

​

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.

​

Existence is incomprehensible, it's way beyond our ability to understand.

​

No. Existence is beyond me.

​

That you can't comprehend your own existence and it's a bit self-centered to claim you understand God's existence.

---

Seems to basically boild down to Solipsism to me!

Provide evidence to support this assertion........ Provide evidence to support this assertion........ Provide evidence to support this assertion........You give us nonsense once again, ICANT.- Oni