Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Studying the supernatural
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 181 of 207 (637146)
10-13-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rahvin
10-13-2011 5:02 PM


Hi Rahvin
Brilliant response.
The flaw I see though is this. You suggest that someday with advanced technology we might actually be able to discover Yahweh and then He would no longer be considered supernatural. Fair enough - I agree. But in the mean time it isn't reasonable to consider believing in His existence as a god-of-the-gaps form of theology.
There is no solid evidence for string theory yet many scientists believe in it. Is that considered a "science of the gaps" belief? Sure they keep on trying to prove or disprove the theory and at some point they'll be successful and they'll move on to something else. If science can ever prove or disprove the existence of God then fine I'll just have to say that I was right or wrong and move on.
In the meantime just as some scientists believe in string theory some of us believe in God. Actually when it comes to God we all have an opinion but could conceivably be confirmed or reputed by science so from that point of view the atheist is in exactly the same position as a theist whom you suggest is worshipping a "god of the gaps" in that eventually science might prove them wrong.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 10-13-2011 5:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 182 of 207 (637188)
10-14-2011 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Rahvin
10-13-2011 5:02 PM


Supernatural
Rahvin writes:
Do you disagree? Why, or why not?
Yeah, I disagree. I don't disagree with everything but a lot. Not that it's wrong just that I have a different opinion.
How can I relate this to the common ancestor. When I say for instance where did the common ancestor come from or who is it you might say "chuck, that's abiogenesis, we're talking evolution".
Then I simply say, well alrighty then. I could tho say, that is also moving the goal posts.
So, when I say the mechanism behind the lightning is God, and you tell me im moving the goal posts, it seems unfair, to me.
Im more interested in origins than how the lightning works in relation to lightning being generated in an electrically charged storm system. (Even tho the method of cloud charging still remains elusive) So, slow down a little.
Now, nobody really thinks Thor or Zeus are up in the sky or on a high mountain tossing lightning bolts.
Well, I sure as hel dont. I believe God. The God of the Bible is the one who created that process and put it in motion. That is something that you nor I can prove or disprove. Like I said, I think it's more plausable to think some intelligence was behind such an awesome thing.
You will say, "well it's not that awesome anymore. We've explained it." When I learned how my cell phone worked it doesn't mean there was no designer just because I figured it out. Some one designed it to work the way it does. Even tho I don't know who or never seen him/her.
The key similarities? Everyone had seen lightning, and nobody had any idea what was going on.
Let's not get bogged down with everyone else. People make up all kinds of crazy things. Just because the greeks thought zeus was tossing electricity around doesn't means we should group all the SN into one big myth box.
What happened over the last few hundred years? We don't consider lightning to be "supernatural" any more, or even all that mysterious!
Ok, fine. It's not mysterious. How about miraculous? Amazing? Awesome? To be feared? Respected? Because it's not mysterious doesn't mean it wasn't created to work the awesome way it does.
We just stopped applying the "supernatural" descriptor because, with a well-supported theory for the actual mechanism at work, the phenomenon is no longer mysterious.
That is their problem. If they didn't care how things worked scientifically, so they only thought about one aspect and not the other. Does that mean that they were wrong to imply a greater being was responsible for what was happening? Can we have the best of both worlds? Why does it have to only be one? You are as guilty as them in implying only one explanation.
The only things "dismissed" or "refuted" were the competing hypotheses, made up in absolute ignorance, which had no actual tie to the very real phenomenon itself
It's not a [italics]competing[/italics] hypothesis, it's origins. Just like abiogenesis is not a competing hypothesis to The TOE.
But as our understanding grows...would we still consider Yahweh to be "supernatural?"
I don't think so.
Rahvin, you sound like Xongsmith there (not that that's a bad thing).
IF, we were able to detect God im not sure we would have any say in the matter how we choose to catargorize Him. The SN and the natural are entirely different. The natural is a different dimension that the SN.
If we who are natural detected the SN it just means we have detected the SN. It doesn't give us any special powers to start labeling things we are allowed to discover because we simply observed it. The SN is the SN.
I think, like lightning, we might look back at the old myths in light of our new knowledge, and chuckle a bit at the old theologies on "God," or at those who didn't think such things could exist.
I've been trying to tell you how God is. Why would we laugh? He is exaclty what He says He is. You are the one in the dark but doesn't have to be.
I would not be laughing but confirming what I already know to be true.
Although, right about now, after reading all that, you are the one laughing at me
Governor warren took the absence of evidence of a Japanese "Fifth Column" to be evidence that such a thing did actually exist!
Let's revisit a couple old friends. Apples...and oranges
I can clearly see what is around me at work. Wide out in the open. Warren could not see the soldiers hiding.
If the soldiers are lightning, he couldn't see the lightning. So, he would obviosly be wrong. I agree with you but not the correlation. Me, on the other hand, can see the lightning. Im not making things up.
Lightning doesn't strike at random.
Then PM me where the next strike will hit
I mean Rahvin, that it didn't just come to be because of randomness. It was purposed. It is the result of intelligence. It serves a purpose.
Prove it you say? I can't but maybe we can get to a point where you can start to believe that a SN being was the originator of it.
What's to lose?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Rahvin, posted 10-13-2011 5:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 11:22 PM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 10-18-2011 8:06 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 207 (637211)
10-14-2011 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
10-13-2011 7:18 AM


Straggler writes:
Firstly who says we can't test for the supernatural? Mod for one has explained in various places how he would test various supernatural claims.
Ok. Let's test the SN. I must have missed it. Which should we start the testing at? I already said my shoulder was healed and you dismissed it because what, you weren't there to see it?
Or prayer, was that one we could test? I think then, we need to test everyones understanding of prayer to see if it lines up with what God says. We have to pray His will for our prayer to be answered. His will is to heal us.
Test: Successful. I was healed. You ok with this test of ours so far?
Secondly - Haven't we been through all this with the whole 'Hogwarts Hypothesis' thing? That something cannot be tested is not a barrier in and of itself for rejecting it.
Yes. What's the problem? Then you're onboard that God created lightning? Or atleast it's a viable hypothesis?
Thirdly - The idea that the more natural explanations replace supernatural ones the more legitimate supernatural beliefs are is just pointlessly perverse to the point of ridiculous.
So, you claim steak to things explained and NOW it seems to things UNEXPLIANED as well? What's left for everyone else?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2011 7:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 12:44 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 184 of 207 (637259)
10-14-2011 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 5:07 AM


Do you understand that testing involves more than simply attributing the object of your belief as the cause of whatever you believe it to have been involved in?
Chuck writes:
Which should we start the testing at? I already said my shoulder was healed and you dismissed it because what, you weren't there to see it?
It has nothing to do with me being there to personally witness your belief based thinking.
Chuck writes:
Or prayer, was that one we could test? I think then, we need to test everyones understanding of prayer to see if it lines up with what God says. We have to pray His will for our prayer to be answered. His will is to heal us.
You have been told by me and others how prayer can be tested using double blind trials.
Chuck writes:
Test: Successful. I was healed. You ok with this test of ours so far?
No. See above.
Straggler writes:
Secondly - Haven't we been through all this with the whole 'Hogwarts Hypothesis' thing? That something cannot be tested is not a barrier in and of itself for rejecting it.
Chuck writes:
Yes. What's the problem? Then you're onboard that God created lightning? Or atleast it's a viable hypothesis?
If by "God" you simply mean a series of predictable meteorological phenomenon - Then aside from pointing out the misnomer - Yes I would agree. If you mean something else by "God" you need to explain what exactly it is you are talking about.
What are you talking about?
Chuck writes:
So, you claim steak to things explained and NOW it seems to things UNEXPLIANED as well? What's left for everyone else?
Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 5:07 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:46 AM Straggler has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 207 (637373)
10-15-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Straggler
10-14-2011 12:44 PM


Straggler writes:
It has nothing to do with me being there to personally witness your belief based thinking.
Hmmm, yes, belief that He will do it again as proven from past experiences.
You have been told by me and others how prayer can be tested using double blind trials.
LOL Straggler. An atheist telling us how prayer can be tested. I've been told over and over by you atheists huh? That's gold man, gold.
If you mean something else by "God" you need to explain what exactly it is you are talking about.
What are you talking about?
Yikes man. Read the Bible. If we have to study up on evolution to debate it at all resonably then you should read and study up on God. The God of the Bible. God Almighty. Start in Genesis if you want. Don't you already know who im talking about? How can you not?
Straggler writes:
chuck writes:
So, you claim steak to things explained and NOW it seems to things UNEXPLIANED as well? What's left for everyone else?
Huh?
Im mean, if something is unexplained it goes in the unexplained column and sits there till explained and nothing else. No implying anything. When something IS explained science claims it as explained therefore natural causes, the whole nine yards. Saying nothing about it's origins or how it even originated or came into existance.
Science deals with the natural and CANNOT rule out the influence from the SN no matter how they or you spin it. They simply do not know just like you do not know. So stop saying you know because you have no clue.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 10-15-2011 8:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2011 10:07 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 190 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2011 12:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 186 of 207 (637377)
10-15-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 7:46 AM


Chuck77 writes:
LOL Straggler. An atheist telling us how prayer can be tested. I've been told over and over by you atheists huh? That's gold man, gold.
Can something testable only by someone who already believes be considered science?
Or perhaps you believe that testing prayer would violate God's stricture that thou shall not test the Lord thy God. In that case, be aware that anything not testable isn't science.
There have been studies of the efficacy of prayer, here are references to a few:
These studies were not conducted by atheists, yet they used the very techniques described to you in this thread. The methods of science do not vary according to religious belief.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 207 (637396)
10-15-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 7:46 AM


The Templeton Foundation (a pro-theistic organisation) did a blue ribbon standard, peer reviewed study into the efficacy of prayer after a number of previous studies in the field were accused of methodological weaknesses. The results of this study were negative. Templeton Foundation Post Research Press Release and Associated Links
Chuck writes:
Science deals with the natural and CANNOT rule out the influence from the SN no matter how they or you spin it.
I suggest you go back and read Mod's opening post.
Mod in the OP writes:
The thing is, science investigates what can detected. It doesn't care whether the thing being detected is metaphysically natural or metaphysically supernatural. Science is a methodology for investigations.
So can you explain why exactly you think we cannot scientifically investigate supernatural claims?
Chuck writes:
When something IS explained science claims it as explained therefore natural causes, the whole nine yards. Saying nothing about it's origins or how it even originated or came into existance.
Chuck writes:
Without a means to test for the supernatural how can the supernatural be refuted or dismissed simply by explaining how some natural phenomena work?
Once we figure out how lightning works it has nothing to do with whether Thor is the one throwing those boltz or not. It only explains what happens after Thor lets go of the bolt.
Because there are scientific explanations to something only shows IMO that God (or Thor) designed it to work that way.
Given that we know the cause of thunder and are even able to predict where and when it will occur with some accuracy are you really saying that Thor cannot be discounted?
Really?
Wiki on thunderstorms writes:
Thunderstorms had a lasting and powerful influence on early civilizations. Greeks thought them to be battles waged by Zeus, who hurled lightning bolts forged by Hephaestus. Thunderstorms were associated with the Thunderbirds, held by Native Americans to be a servant of the Great Spirit.[90] The Norse considered thunderstorms to occur when Thor went to beat on Jtnar, with the thunder and lightning being the effect of his strikes with the hammer Mjlnir. Christian doctrine accepted the ideas of Aristotle's original work, called Meteorologica, that winds were caused by exhalations from the Earth and that fierce storms were the work of God. These ideas were still within the mainstream as late as the 18th century.
Link
Get with the times Chuck. That's my advice.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 3:41 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 206 by Rrhain, posted 10-22-2011 7:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 188 of 207 (637460)
10-15-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Supernatural
Well, I sure as hel dont. I believe God. The God of the Bible is the one who created that process and put it in motion. That is something that you nor I can prove or disprove. Like I said, I think it's more plausable to think some intelligence was behind such an awesome thing.
But this thread is about studying the supernatural. Now a God who is behind the natural would, granted, be supernatural but would also be indistiguishable from the natural with nothing behind it. What we need to see is some sort of suspension of the natural order.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 2:13 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 3:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 189 of 207 (637925)
10-18-2011 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Chuck77
10-14-2011 2:13 AM


Re: Supernatural
How can I relate this to the common ancestor. When I say for instance where did the common ancestor come from or who is it you might say "chuck, that's abiogenesis, we're talking evolution".
Then I simply say, well alrighty then. I could tho say, that is also moving the goal posts.
So, when I say the mechanism behind the lightning is God, and you tell me im moving the goal posts, it seems unfair, to me.
Chuck, I'm sorry but I don;t think you understand what "moving the goalposts" is.
A thousand years ago, if I asked a Christian what caused lightning, they'd tell me that God caused it directly.
Now, when I ask the same question of a Christian, I'll get the scientific answer. If I ask "where's god," they'll tell me that he designed lightning.
God's place has moved from "direct causation" to "prime mover," because our ignorance (which allows us to believe virtually any hypothesis) has been replaced by knowledge of the mechanism.
The goalposts for "finding god" have moved.
I won't bother with discussing your evolutionary example, except to say that your analogy is unfortunately so far off from the actual definitions of "common ancestor" and "abiogenesis" that the analogy doesn't even make sense.
If you think I've moved the goal posts at any point during this debate, please specifically point it out and describe why you think I've done so. If I have not...then apparently I'm not being unfair at all.
Im more interested in origins than how the lightning works in relation to lightning being generated in an electrically charged storm system. (Even tho the method of cloud charging still remains elusive) So, slow down a little.
Perhaps you should revisit the topic, Chuck. This isn't a thread specifically about origins or even electricity - it's about studying the supernatural. Lightning was used only as a singular example of one phenomenon that was once regarded as supernatural, and which today is largely not.
Well, I sure as hel dont. I believe God. The God of the Bible is the one who created that process and put it in motion. That is something that you nor I can prove or disprove. Like I said, I think it's more plausable to think some intelligence was behind such an awesome thing.
Beliefs are irrelevant to this thread, Chuck. It's not about proving whether your deity exists. The thread is about whether we can study the supernatural at all. The supernatural may include some of your beliefs, but certainly there are phenomenon labelled supernatural that you don;t believe in - such as Thor or Zeus causing lightning.
We aren;t discussing which specific supernatural entities may or may not exist. We're discussing whether anything supernatural at all can ever be studied.
You will say, "well it's not that awesome anymore. We've explained it." When I learned how my cell phone worked it doesn't mean there was no designer just because I figured it out. Some one designed it to work the way it does. Even tho I don't know who or never seen him/her.
Indeed cell phones have been designed.
Here's the thing though, Chuck - we're talking about whether the supernatural can be studied, not about whether this or that was designed.
But let's roll with your tangent for just a moment. You propose that lightning (as just one example) was designed by a supernatural agent, specifically the Christian deity. Correct?
Can we differenciate between those things that have been designed and those things that have not? For example, has a random rock picked up on a mountain been designed, just as a random part picked off of a car has been designed?
If we can;t tell the difference, then the term "designed" seems to be rather useless, since it would apply to literally everything.
If we can tell the difference...then the criteria we use, whatever they are, are a way for us to examine which things were designed and which were not. As we exclude all of the things that we know were designed by human beings, we can then identify those things that have been designed by an external agent...
...and we've just identified one way in which we would then be able to study the supernatural.
In other words, if you claim that we can identify some things as being designed by a supernatural agent, then you have just agreed that we can study the supernatural. If we cannot study the supernatural, then there would be no way to identify something as having been designed by a supernatural agent.
Let's not get bogged down with everyone else. People make up all kinds of crazy things. Just because the greeks thought zeus was tossing electricity around doesn't means we should group all the SN into one big myth box.
Indeed people do come up with all manner of "crazy things," but I think you'll find what one person believes is "crazy," another person believes is the absolute truth.
Personally, that's why I try to rely on facts and what evidence compells me to believe, rather than believing unevidenced hypotheses.
What happened over the last few hundred years? We don't consider lightning to be "supernatural" any more, or even all that mysterious!
Ok, fine. It's not mysterious. How about miraculous? Amazing? Awesome? To be feared? Respected? Because it's not mysterious doesn't mean it wasn't created to work the awesome way it does.
I think the F-22 Raptor is amazing and cool. That it was designed doesn;t detract from that...and neother do I think it has anything to do with the supernatural.
I don't find lightning to be mysterious, but I too find it to be, well...really freaking cool. My one major regret for living where I do now is that I very rarely get to see a good lightning storm.
We just stopped applying the "supernatural" descriptor because, with a well-supported theory for the actual mechanism at work, the phenomenon is no longer mysterious.
That is their problem.
Whose?
If they didn't care how things worked scientifically, so they only thought about one aspect and not the other.
What aspects? How many "aspects" does a given phenomenon have? How do we know? Why do you think so?
Does that mean that they were wrong to imply a greater being was responsible for what was happening? Can we have the best of both worlds? Why does it have to only be one? You are as guilty as them in implying only one explanation.
Simply: Because A AND B is always, always equal to or less likely than A OR B.
The probability that two things are simultaneously true is equal to their probabilities multipled, all things being equal (as in, without further information to alter those probabilities). The probability that Leslie is a girl is greater than the probability that Leslie is a girl and has blonde hair, which itself is more likely than Leslie being a blond girl from Topeka, Kansas. We can change those probabilities with observations (observing that Leslie is a blonde girl increases the probabilities of those two factors to ~100% by excluding the other possibilities), but generally speaking, every time you tack on an additional claim (ie, a designer) without a specific observation to alter the probabilities, your hypothesis becomes less likely to be true.
The only things "dismissed" or "refuted" were the competing hypotheses, made up in absolute ignorance, which had no actual tie to the very real phenomenon itself
It's not a [italics]competing[/italics] hypothesis, it's origins. Just like abiogenesis is not a competing hypothesis to The TOE.
"Thor" and "Zeus" were given as specific explanations as to the mechanism of lightning. Either Thor's hammer causes thunder and lightning, OR lightning is a natural electrical atmospheric phenomenon that doesn't involve any hammers. It can't be both. The two hypotheses are mutually exclusive.
In order to place the supernatural explanation in a place that avoids that mutual exclusivity, you moved it to the "designer of lightning" so that there is no conflict. That means you moved the goalposts, and then added an unevidenced hypothesis to the scientifically accepted explanation.
But again - what does this have to do with wheter or not we can study the supernatural?
But as our understanding grows...would we still consider Yahweh to be "supernatural?"
I don't think so.
IF, we were able to detect God im not sure we would have any say in the matter how we choose to catargorize Him.
Why? We're the ones who make up categories to help us communicate specifically what we're talking about. The only thing that determines how we categorize a thing are the rules we make up to determine what goes where. In other words, it depends on what your definition of "supernatural" is. What's yours, Chuck? If I have two phenomenon, without knowing what they are or anything about them, what rules would you use to determine which one is the supernatural phenomenon, and which one is natural?
The SN and the natural are entirely different. The natural is a different dimension that the SN.
It is?
How do you know that?
Why do you think so?
Be specific.
If we who are natural detected the SN it just means we have detected the SN. It doesn't give us any special powers to start labeling things we are allowed to discover because we simply observed it. The SN is the SN.
What is the supernatural? What differenciates it from the natural?
I think, like lightning, we might look back at the old myths in light of our new knowledge, and chuckle a bit at the old theologies on "God," or at those who didn't think such things could exist.
I've been trying to tell you how God is. Why would we laugh? He is exaclty what He says He is. You are the one in the dark but doesn't have to be.
I would not be laughing but confirming what I already know to be true.
Although, right about now, after reading all that, you are the one laughing at me
I'm not laughing, Chuck. But I am wondering where you get your beliefs. I'm a former Christian, I've read the Bible. It doesn't say God is in a "different dimension." And even if it did...
...why are different dimensions fundamentally exempt from the remaining rules of the Universe?
Why wouldn;t the discovery of additional dimensions simply let us better describe the real rules of the Universe, by letting us observe something we were previously unaware of?
Before telescopes, space may as well have been a "different dimension." We couldn;t make any but the most crude observations. With the development of better and better tools, we've been able to make astounding observations that have let us discover more and more and more of the rules that govern the Universe - how galaxies form, how the Universe is expanding, etc. Why would the discovery of an additional dimension be any different? Why would we still call it "supernatural?"
What differenciates "supernatural" from "natural?" How do we tell the difference? What consistent rules can we use to tell whether a newly observed phenomenon is supernatural or natural?
Governor warren took the absence of evidence of a Japanese "Fifth Column" to be evidence that such a thing did actually exist!
Let's revisit a couple old friends. Apples...and oranges
I can clearly see what is around me at work. Wide out in the open. Warren could not see the soldiers hiding.
If the soldiers are lightning, he couldn't see the lightning. So, he would obviosly be wrong. I agree with you but not the correlation. Me, on the other hand, can see the lightning. Im not making things up.
What do you see? What observations do you make that should change my mind? Why do you believe what you believe? How do you think you know it?
Lightning doesn't strike at random.
Then PM me where the next strike will hit
Come now, Chuck. Non-random doesn't mean I have all of the variables available to me to make a prediction. But knowing the rules that lightning obeys lets us create a circumstance where lightning is more likely to strike certain places and less likely to strike others by changing those variables we are able to control. For example, setting up a lightning rod so that lightning will strike a predetermined conductor rather than a person or setting fire to a building.
I don't need to be able to predict every bolt to know that I shouldn't stick around a flagpole in a lightning storm.
I mean Rahvin, that it didn't just come to be because of randomness. It was purposed. It is the result of intelligence. It serves a purpose.
Prove it you say? I can't but maybe we can get to a point where you can start to believe that a SN being was the originator of it.
What's to lose?
Rationality. And that's pretty important to me.
I have a better question, Chuck. You seem pretty convinced that something supernatural exists.
Being convinced means that you've drawn a conclusion.
To draw a conclusion, you must have examined some evidence, and from there chosen what you felt to be the most likely hypothesis to explain that evidence.
In other words...you seem to have investigated the supernatural. The conclusion itself (whether you believe something supernatural does or not exist) is irrelevant to this topic. But since you must have investigated something supernatural in order to come up with a belief about it...
what convinced you, and why should I find that same thing convincing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Chuck77, posted 10-14-2011 2:13 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 1:31 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 190 of 207 (637993)
10-19-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chuck77
10-15-2011 7:46 AM


LOL Straggler. An atheist telling us how prayer can be tested. I've been told over and over by you atheists huh? That's gold man, gold.
Sort of the same thing as a Creationist telling us how evidence works.
We deal in reality. You deal in fantasy.
We deal with testing. You deal with belief.
We can show you how to test your claims.
You can tell us how to make believe that your claims are true.
Those are two very different things.
We admit that it is impossible for us to adequately study the supernatural since it is entirely make believe. It doesn't adhere to any sort restrictions upon which a test can be run.
Make believe is funny that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 10-15-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 207 (638410)
10-22-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rahvin
10-18-2011 8:06 PM


Re: Supernatural
If im claiming that lightning was created of God (which I am) and then we were to study lightning (which has been done) then I suppose that science has already studied the SN. Only they didn't realize it.
What differenciates "supernatural" from "natural?" How do we tell the difference? What consistent rules can we use to tell whether a newly observed phenomenon is supernatural or natural?
Well, the natural world has laws that God put in place, gravity for instance. We can know that the laws of the natural will be obeyed no matter what we believe.
The SN world has laws too. Here is one you know of but probably don't think to much about:
You reap what you sow. IOW, what goes around comes around. That is SuperNatural Rahvin. That is not chance, it's not natural, and, it can be studied. It's happened in my life numerous times. It's a spiritual law God set in motion. There is no other way to explain it. It's a SN law.
We CAN differenciate the natural from the supernatural.
What do you see? What observations do you make that should change my mind? Why do you believe what you believe? How do you think you know it?
Well gee, that is a loaded question. You want to hear my whole spiritual experience? What I experience and how I know what I'm experiencing? In short, my spirt man is alive to God (who is a Spirit), now that i'm "born again". I am operating in the natural AND spiritual. You may see or hear or experience the SN but you wouldn't know it (necessarily). I would because my spirit man is alive and not dead (anymore).
I have a better question, Chuck. You seem pretty convinced that something supernatural exists.
Being convinced means that you've drawn a conclusion.
To draw a conclusion, you must have examined some evidence, and from there chosen what you felt to be the most likely hypothesis to explain that evidence.
In other words...you seem to have investigated the supernatural. The conclusion itself (whether you believe something supernatural does or not exist) is irrelevant to this topic. But since you must have investigated something supernatural in order to come up with a belief about it...
what convinced you, and why should I find that same thing convincing?
A born again Christian told me about God, that the way to Him was thru Jesus. After a few months of asking him questions over and over and over, I finally visited his church. After going there for a short while, I ended up giving my life to Christ and accepting what He did for me on the cross. My spirit was born again, I became alive unto God, and now have a relationship with the Creator of the universe. For the past 18 years i've experienced that relationship both in the natural and SN.
I did what the Bible said and am now reaping the benefits of putting my trust in Christ (the bridge to God) thru faith. Faith got me there, (believing without seeing) and that faith was rewarded. It's not a blind faith but (now) a knowing faith that God is real and that He exists, as well as the spirit world, or as you would call it, the SuperNatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 10-18-2011 8:06 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 4:05 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 207 by Rahvin, posted 10-24-2011 12:46 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 207 (638415)
10-22-2011 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
10-15-2011 11:22 PM


Re: Supernatural
Dr A writes:
Now a God who is behind the natural would, granted, be supernatural but would also be indistiguishable from the natural with nothing behind it.
Granted, great.
What we need to see is some sort of suspension of the natural order.
What is it that you need God to do? Granted He created everything we see, what is it exactly, that would convince you? Im already convinced because He(God) has revealed Himself to me. What is it (other than finding out yourself once you accept Christ) that you need to see being suspended naturally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-15-2011 11:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-22-2011 3:58 AM Chuck77 has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 207 (638416)
10-22-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
10-15-2011 10:07 AM


Straggler writes:
Get with the times Chuck. That's my advice.
Seriously? I'm going to forsake everything, my relationship with God? How He changed my life? What He's continued to do for me over the last 18 years (and before leadingt me to salvation) to get with the times? The times have no bearing on my experiences with my Heavenly Father who happens to be the Creator of this wonderful universe and incidently, who also Created you, Straggler. If i got with the times, i'd be left behind. Then, we'd both be lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2011 10:07 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Larni, posted 10-22-2011 9:22 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 194 of 207 (638417)
10-22-2011 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Chuck77
10-22-2011 3:35 AM


Re: Supernatural
What is it that you need God to do? Granted He created everything we see, what is it exactly, that would convince you?
Well, he could, as I said, suspend the natural order. It would not be beyond him, for example, to move the stars around in the sky to spell out the words: "I EXIST, OK, AND JESUS IS MY SON. INCIDENTALLY, YOU SHOULD ALL JOIN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GO TO HELL." To an omnipotent being, this would be as easy as me clicking my fingers. Some sort of little hint like that would be useful for all of us, I feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 3:35 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 4:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 207 (638419)
10-22-2011 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Chuck77
10-22-2011 1:31 AM


Re: Supernatural
If im claiming that lightning was created of God (which I am) and then we were to study lightning (which has been done) then I suppose that science has already studied the SN.
No, they're studying the natural. Having a supernatural being behind it doesn't change that.
Suppose I want to study bears. You offer to help me, you take me into a forest, you show me a tree, you say: "There's a bear behind that tree". I ask: "How do you know?" You say: "I just think that that the sort of tree a bear would be behind".
"Very well," I say, "but even supposing you're right I still can't study the bear. What I am presently studying is the tree. And I am learning just as much about bears as I would be if I was looking at a similar tree without a bear behind it --- that is, I am not in fact studying bears. Though my acquaintance with this tree is steadily improving."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Chuck77, posted 10-22-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024