The Movie Paranormal Activity

But you can imagine some way of both acquiring knowledge of the supernatural and testing it to be such once dead?Can you describe how you imagine doing this? Until you present a method testing this once dead you have no basis for not applying the same arguments to whatever state of reality you potentially find yourself in once dead. Except that you inconsistently refuse to apply the same reasoning to this 'onceI'm-dead' state of reality you keep positing. Why? The same way that dying removes you from the natural world? How do you envisage that occurring?

I do not see how your imagined Armageddon removes me from the natural world, everything you described was happening in the natural world.But if it happens and if there was some test to show that it was supernatural, then of course I would reevaluate my position. But so far no one has presented a way to test to see if something is supernatural and I cannot imagine any way to tell if something is supernatural.And as to after I am dead, I will repeat yet again.After I am dead I may be able to tell whether or not something is supernatural, but I cannot imagine how even then. Ask me after I am dead and perhaps, just perhaps, then I might know how to determine if something is supernatural or not.I'm sorry kid but that is the best I can do. It makes sense to me, if it does not make sense to you, then that too is fine.Remember, I do not claim that my beliefs are reasonable, rational or logical. I'm not that limited.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The fact that there is no evidence of something does not mean that it is by definition impossible for it to be evidenced. Obviously.Is Thor supernatural?

You've asked this question a thousand times and gotten a thousand answers. It really is time to move on to a new interest, Straggler. Constantly pulling every thread into the direction of pointless pseudo-philosophical babble on the 'supernatural' is old.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

No. He is not. Maybe he used to be, but we know now that he was a figment of human imagination.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You spent the first part of this thread telling Slevesque that his use of the term supernatural was meaningless and the rest of it citing some aspect of being dead (and GOD) that exactly matches his description of supernatural. In the biblical Armageddon example the supernatural comes to you. In your once-I-am-dead scenario you (somehow) are transferred to the supernatural.With regard to testing the supernaturality being experienced to ensure it's genuineness - No test or method of knowing is applicable to either scenario that can not be cited for the other. Divinely imbued with knowledge? Could apply to either case. There is no basis for a distinction aside from your personal belief. OK. But your personal beliefs don't seem a very good basis upon which to make our conclusion about what constitutes positive evidence of the supernatural.

What used to qualify Thor as supernatural that he is now lacking?Why can something not be both a known fiction and supernatural?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But rarely consistent ones. You popping up in every thread to tell us how bored you are is also kinda tiresome. Maybe you should consider a new hobby?

No, it is not something supernatural that comes, it is something unexplained, something unknown.You have simply asserted that it is supernatural.Where is the evidence that it is supernatural?What is the test used to reliably detect supernatural from something that is simply unexplained?Where is positive evidence of the supernatural?When you present positive evidence and a reliable method to test the supernatural, then I will gladly reconsider my position.I think I have mentioned that once or thrice.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The fact that there is no evidence of something means by definition it is simply unevidenced. And goes into the unknown folder. Yes, in the context of literature and mythology, he is routinely violating the laws of physics with no known scientific explanation.
Do I believe Thor is truly a Norse god responsible for thunder? No.

It's the difference between a supernatual concept and a supernatural being that actually exists.As a card-carrying bluegenes' theoretician, wouldn't you agree that so far all known supernatural concepts are fiction?As for Thor, back in the day there were enough folks at the top of the information chain who held the view that Thor, the supernatural being, was real and thus for a while it was a prevailing concept writ large. Of course, Thor was not considered to be anything in other areas of the world, since back then, from those other parts of the world, reciprocally, "other areas of the world" were most likely not even thought of.Remember the white english speaking journalist confronting Shaka Zulu Khan and telling him about this dude Jesus in that nice documentary. Strange things have happened.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

When you can answer all these same questions regarding your once-I-am-dead scenario in a way that cannot also be applied to the scenario I have cited you will have the basis for a distinction.Until then the only difference between the two is derived from your personal belief. And your personal beliefs are no basis upon which the rest of us can make our conclusions about what does or does not constitute positive evidence.

Except that we all know you are not going to apply this consistently. If I ask you if there is any evidence for the existence of rotund purple spotted immaterial and empirically undetectable toilet goblins I suspect you will agree that there is not.But would you put these in the "unknown folder".....? If we are going to pursue this ridiculous folder categorisation then surely they would go in the "supernatural folder" whilst also being very strong candidates for the "human invention folder". Both of which could arguably come under the "known folder"....I'll leave it to you to arrange the bewildering array of subfolders required to take into account all possibilities. So if positive evidence for the existence of Thor were to emerge it would "by definition" be positive evidence of the supernatural concept we call Thor actually existing. How could it be otherwise? What does what you currently believe have to do with what can or cannot be "by definition" evidenced?

Positive evidence for the actual existence of the subject of the supernatural concept is positive evidence of the supernatural being.Faced with a giant blonde ethearal viking wielding a magic hammer and smiting down non-believers with lightning bolts you would have to be one stubborn bastard to continue declaring that the supernatural God Thor was an entirely unevidenced product of human invention. The only know source of supernatural concepts is human imagination. As I thought you have been applying some unstated definition of supernatural that is based on the "prevailing" view. Where are you getting this from?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How would you describe Daniel Tammet's ability to recite pi to 22,500 digits?Rarity has often been mistaken for the supernatural and promptly burnt at the stake. I guess Jar made this point back in message 29.The 'hunt' for the supernatural seems to be a very natural human tendancy.