Peanut Gallery

What about it? I believe he is referring to a property that a thing has: being unexplainable in terms of natural processes. He is saying that something being inexplicable means that it cannot be explained as opposed to 'unexplained' which might imply that there is an explanation, just one that has yet to be found.Its the difference between unexplainable and unexplained. Of unclimbable and unclimbed. Of undesireable and undesired. You'll have to explain what you mean. What infallible knowledge is Straggler claiming?

That may be what people believed, but the geocentric model was a supernatural explanation for the solar system. The entire rationale for how such a thing could work was that God made it that way. And there was easy visible evidence (phases of Venus) that at least one planet did not orbit the earth.

Well if you consider the predicted motion of a falling pen as nothing more than an opinion then it is little wonder you can't understand how anything else can be considered a form of tentative knowledge. What a pile of black and white simplistic drivel. The entirety of science as a route to knowledge is based on tentatively concluding that the most objectively evidenced conclusion is more likely to be correct than the various evidentially baseless but untestable alternatives.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In which case there have been, by definition, numerous genuinely supernatural events and phenomena in the past. Everything from evil spirits causing illness through to the Earth going round the Sun have, as you state, been defined by the scientific community of the time as supernatural. In which case supernatural things have undeniably existed and bluegenes theory was falsified centuries ago.Which is fine.Except for the rather inconvenient fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything anybody else here is talking about.

Those who define the concepts they create (or I suppose conceivably - detect) as being immune from material explanation are the ones who define them as supernatural. Because that is what supernatural means. Literally - Relating to existence outside the natural world and/or possessing powers that violate or go beyond natural forces. For example: Does it sound to you like these people are talking about something that is just a few generations of particle accelerator away from being scientifically explained? Nightmare is a fictional supernatural character. NOT because a bunch of scientists decided it. But because he is defined as being supernatural. Likewise Harry Potter, Galadriel, Christ, Thor, Voldermort, Leprechauns, fairies, dragons, Allah, Vishnu etc. etc. etc.Things which are defined as being materially inexplicable in scientific terms no matter how advanced science might become.

Modulous replies: Do you think anything has an inherent property? Yes - I got that.... That something would have an "inherent property", like a slightly worn, physical cube, perhaps decaying in front of our eyes, has inside of itself an ideal, perfect "cubeness"? We know what a mathematical cube is, and we have seen zillions of near-cubes in the natural world - none of which are prefect mathematical cubes. Are these natural world near-cubes possessing an inherent "cube-ness"?See, I think Straggler has gone over the line here and injected his viewpoint with a presumed property of the real world that only exists in his mind because of his exposure to the tantalizing lures of Platonics. He has a bias apriori'.

NoNukes joins in with: Hi!The people you refer to - yes. But what was the scientific community back then? Probably not a very significant group. Perhaps I should move my whole example of scientific world-view changing and explaining away what would have been considered supernatural to some later year, when the Church wasn't in such a fascistic grip of the world. Maybe Hubble discovering that there were such things as other galaxies requiring a Major Change in this world-view...not sure which would be my best example. Actually - Einstein's Speed Limit (c) was a very strange development in the scientific community. Before Fizeau/Michelson-Morley/Lorentz/Einstein such a notion would be laughed away as ridiculous under the prevailing views of the scientific community. A supernatural notion, I bet.Or take quantum physics: Was it Feynman? No - maybe some other professor giving a talk on QM - at one point in the lecture he stops and wheels around from the blackboard of equations and admonishes the class "If you think you have been following along with me, you haven't been paying attention!"

Straggler goes: This is rich. Give me a break. RAZD listed a longer list than "opinion"....then you screw yourself into the ground by reverse conclusion "it is little wonder you can't understand how anything else can be considered a form of tentative knowledge" when in fact all his list items indicate tentativity" - jeesh, you have your head on backwards.However: Agree with this, my man, Straggler!

Straggler writes: No no no, you are not seeing it. Maybe I should clarify what I mean by the scientific community? When did such a community actually come into being? The Greeks had some pretty cool dudes....but the whole thing with Galileo was that he was up against a vicious thought mime in the Church. Was it Galileo who started it for real, in the western world as we know it today? I was just using this as an example of how EVEN TODAY we can get SHOCKED by new discoveries that we would now regard as only a supernatural phenomenon.You forget that I agreed with you that today the concept of the Earth going around the Sun is not supernatural. Bluegenes' theory has not been falsified yet. Don't you worry about that. When it comes to getting to say what is and is not supernatural, I will INDEED go with what the scientific community says.Next reply is about your fictional cartoons...they are DOA.

Straggler says: Fictional things are not supernatural things. They are but representations of supernatural CONCEPTS. Anyone can create a fictional supernatural being (as you & bluegenes have abundantly done already) - that does not make it a supernatural phenomenon.What jar and RAZD might say here is only testimony from their own world views and is not the view of the scientific community.Straggler continues with: Fictional characters DO NOT COUNT. Now, you threw in some ringers there. The THOR - is it the Marvel Comics fictional THOR? Then you throw in Christ, Allah, Vishnu as if they were on the same level....bzzzzt. Try again. Can you show me specifically where Jesus Christ (for example) is so defined???? Nightmare - sure, Harry Potter - sure...but Christ?

Are you still unable to give an example of something supernatural that can conceivably actually exist? As Aristotle said: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. If you can't give an example then you are still just playing a game of atheism by definitions. Supernatural concepts are supernatural concepts. Whether people believe they are fictional or real is the only basis upon which to make any distinction in the absence of anything that can meaningfully be called positive evidence for the actual existence any such entity. As far as I am concerned they are all likely to be fictional. So what non-fictional entity are you talking about? The ability and proclivity of humans to invent such things is indeed evidenced in abundance isn't it? What does make a particular being supernatural then? Be specific. Why? And more to the point - How are you deciding which entities are fictional and which aren't? Jesus Christ is defined (as I understand it) as the miraculously conceived, miracle capable, eternal son of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen who is not just his dad but also an aspect of himself.If this isn't supernatural what is?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh good, we get to talk about Christ some. That's not bad Straggler.I would also add that the SN is even more real that the natural world. If only we could see beyond the natural everyones answers would be answered.For now, we just have to go on peoples experiences and hope they listen and actually experience it for themselves.Straggs, start in the Gospel of John. Read the whole thing and we'll discuss it at a later time God willing.This is exciting.

Go Xongsmith GO!! Xongsmith is rolling!! Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Concepts which are defined as having inherent properties.

And I hadn't even gotten round to mentioning Christ as magically absorbing all of mankind's sins which was necessary because his dad (who is himself) decided that some sort of brutal and convuluted sacrifice was necessary in order to forgive people for the things he knew they were going to do long before they even existed. Etc. That is lovely for you.But more helpful to this discussion would be a method by which we could differentiate fictional supernatural entities from real ones......?