Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 79 of 230 (545208)
02-02-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 7:40 AM


I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
Nose jewelery and everything else can just as easily be supernatural(i.e. created by a god).
Wait... so the guy who bends metal to create nose jewelery is a God?
You seem to be implying that supernatural things are things that are created by Gods, and natural things are things that are not created by Gods.
Yet we have absolutely no evidence that any Gods even exist at all, let alone that they can create stuff.
So, everywhere we look, all we see is "no Gods". Everywhere. Throughout the history of the universe. No Gods. There is not a single thing that points towards requiring "a God" in order to exist. There are some things that we do not understand how they come to be... but these are in an ever-decreasing pile as more and more information comes to light. Still... no Gods.
This leave us with our two options:
Supernatural (God-created) - nothing we see requires this option in anyway
Natural (non-God created) - everything we see points towards this option
And you want people to believe that the Supernatural exists merely because not everything is formally and definitively proven to exist by purely natural means?
That seems... unnecessary.
One last thing to note: the way things have been discovered so far is exactly the way they would be if it was a fact that no Gods have ever existed.
Interesting, to say the least.
This doesn't prove or show that God(s) do not exist. It merely shows that your arguement of "not being able to definitively prove that the super-natural doesn't exist means that we should accept that the supernatural actually exists" is rather lame.
Oh, and by the way, if we ever do find real evidence that a God actually exists within some Supernatural realm (somehow...), you can bet your life that religion will evolve into claiming that an Uber-God exists above the mundane "known" God and that HE lives within The Super-Duper-Natural realm.
That's just the way these things work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 7:40 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 9:23 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 82 of 230 (545221)
02-02-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 9:23 AM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
Stile writes:
Supernatural (God-created) - nothing we see requires this option in anyway
I challenge you and everyone else again to provide evidence for the above assertion. If you don't, it's just a bare statement and not a proper way to debate.
I will keep this simple:
Let's go through the scenario with a pen.
1. A pen is created by people in a factory who put together pieces of plastic, pieces of metal and ink
-This may not be the only way pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
2. There are people in factories who create plastic-for-pens
-This may not be the only way plastic-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
3. There are people in factories who create metal-for-pens
-This may not be the only way metal-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
4. There are people in factories that create ink-for-pens.
-This may not be the only way ink-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
5. The original raw materials are found on our planet.
-This may not be the only way raw materials are discovered, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
6. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be developed on our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials are deveopled, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
7. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to find their way to our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials reach our planet, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
8. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be created elsewhere in our universe
-This may not be the only way raw materials can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
9. People have discovered (but not yet verified) pathways for our universe's origin and all that comes after
-This may not be the only way universes can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
Now, I have gone and given you the evidence for my assertion. As I said, the evidence is that we can identify natural pathways all the way down the list. ALL known evidence points towards natural pathways, Gods are not found anywhere at all, not even where the natural pathway cannot be verified as of yet.
MatterWave writes:
I am not stating that a god is required(i don't see a way how a human being can know anything of the sort)
And I am not saying that a God cannot exist. We're just looking at the evidence, which all points to natural methodology. That's not "lots" of it, or "a majority" of it... that's "ALL" of it. Every single last tiny shred. With NONE of it pointing towards any Supernatural existence.
Everyone is free to believe what they would like.
And, again, if you insist on presupposing that some Supernatural realm exists. I must insinst that a Super-Duper-Nautural realm exists that is beyond the mere, lowly, useless Super-ness of your own mundane imagination.
Edited by Stile, : Focusing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 9:23 AM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 02-02-2010 10:56 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 1:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 86 of 230 (545244)
02-02-2010 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 1:29 PM


Re: I raise you a Super-Duper-Natural realm
MatterWave writes:
I only asked you to provide evidence that the existence of a spoon is not supernatural, not how it is made.
Yes, I know you did. I gave you more than you asked for. I didn't think it would also be more than you could handle...
The evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is not supernatural is the evidence that the existence of a spoon (or pen, or whatever) is, in fact, natural. Hence a nice description of how it is naturally made.
At some point you will be reaching far back into the past all the way to the singularity.
You are incorrect. You can read my description reaching as far back as the origination of the universe. No singularity mentioned at all. Why do you feel the need to insert something like that into the discussion? We're already attempting to discuss a single portion of your imagination. Lets not go adding more aspects that only exist within your head.
It's obvious that you don't understand how big a question this is if you are addressing it by a description of what happens in a factory.
The origination of the entire universe and all that is contained within isn't big enough for you? How much bigger would you like to get? Super-Duper-Big?
You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural. Let me relieve you somewhat from the pressure - no one can.
You can say this all you want, it will not change the fact that I did, indeed, provide evidence as such. It is now your turn to provide evidence that the Supernatural is something other than contained within your imagination. If you can't show such a thing, why should we continue to discuss it as an option?
Give evidence that for everything to exist(what you'd call a universe), a god is not required.
All that is required is a single statement:
For everything to exist, a God (or anything Supernatural) is not required.
If you feel that this statement is in error in any way. Please show how you think it is wrong.
Going the other way: "For everything to exist, a God is required". I have already shown how a pen can exist without God, therefore such a statement is incorrect. Now it's your turn to show some non-imagined evidence. Or we could skip your turn if you would rather concede.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 1:29 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:29 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 105 of 230 (545341)
02-03-2010 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by MatterWave
02-02-2010 5:29 PM


Super-Duper-Repetition
MatterWave writes:
The existence of a spoon is not supernatural because it is natural, is not a way to explain anything.
Really? You think this is circular reasoning? I thought you were confused, but I suppose I didn't see how deep your issues actually go.
Um, yes... actually, this is a perfectly fine way to explain something. If we have two distinct categories (say, red and blue). And I want to show that one is not red... if I can show that it is blue... then this shows that it's not red.
We have two distinct categories (Supernatural and Natural), so it's a very basic explanation to show that something is not-Supernatural by showing how it is Natural.
If you do not understand this, you have some classes to attend, try not to forget your lunch.
MatterWave writes:
you have provided zero evidence that the universe didn't start by a devine intervention.
Oh... sorry, wrong again. But I suppose you're getting used to that, no? Here it is again:
quote:
9. People have discovered (but not yet verified) pathways for our universe's origin and all that comes after
-This may not be the only way universes can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
MatterWave writes:
Stile writes:
Going the other way: "For everything to exist, a God is required". I have already shown how a pen can exist without God, therefore such a statement is incorrect.
You did no such thing.
Oh, my. A very poor memory indeed. Here, I'll show it for you again:
quote:
1. A pen is created by people in a factory who put together pieces of plastic, pieces of metal and ink
-This may not be the only way pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
2. There are people in factories who create plastic-for-pens
-This may not be the only way plastic-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
3. There are people in factories who create metal-for-pens
-This may not be the only way metal-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
4. There are people in factories that create ink-for-pens.
-This may not be the only way ink-for-pens can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
5. The original raw materials are found on our planet.
-This may not be the only way raw materials are discovered, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
6. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be developed on our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials are deveopled, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
7. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to find their way to our planet
-This may not be the only way raw materials reach our planet, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
8. People have discovered and verified pathways for these raw materials to be created elsewhere in our universe
-This may not be the only way raw materials can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
9. People have discovered (but not yet verified) pathways for our universe's origin and all that comes after
-This may not be the only way universes can be created, but it is a way, and it is possible
-Nothing that specifically requires a God is found here
Now, I have gone and given you the evidence for my assertion. As I said, the evidence is that we can identify natural pathways all the way down the list. ALL known evidence points towards natural pathways, Gods are not found anywhere at all, not even where the natural pathway cannot be verified as of yet.
Hopefully I didn't use too many big words for you, let me know if you're still having trouble.
Oh... now that I've shown you how ALL of the evidence points towards a Natural existence and NONE of the evidence points specifically towards a Supernatural existence... I will take your refusal to defend your own position as a cowardly way to concede the arguement.
Doesn't anyone ever get embarrassed by trying to seriously support a "Supernatural" realm? I mean, c'mon... it sounds like it was made up by a bunch of school kids.
"Hey, man, did you hear of this other place that Timmy and I go to a lot?"
"No, I haven't."
"It's really fun, it's so beyond anything you've ever experienced naturally."
"Really? Where is it?"
"It's... um... in a place called Supernatural!!"
"Wow! That's uber-cool!!"
Until you are able to show some substance with your claim of the existence of a Supernatural anything... it remains exactly the same as all the other wacky ideas that come from human imagination.
Otherwise, you'd have to accept the existence of the Super-Duper-Natural realm, and the My-Dad-Can-Beat-Up-Your-Dad realm, and all other imaginary places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by MatterWave, posted 02-02-2010 5:29 PM MatterWave has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:15 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 120 of 230 (545380)
02-03-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Apothecus
02-03-2010 1:15 PM


I've been ousted!
Apothecus writes:
That's just the thing, Stile. He's arguing that since the supernatural (or any other wacky idea) can't be disproven, that this is license to dump the natural into the "questionable" mix as well.
Yes, I know
He only has a superficial arguement. You and I and any other person with half-a-mind for logics and reason can see this. I'm taking his ridiculous arguement of "it can't be 100% disproven" to the closest reasonable level... that is, why would some think Natural vs. Supernatural isn't a 50-50 shot?
And there are reasons and evidence why the Supernatural is disproven beyond all reasonable doubt. Such reasons and evidence are (in basic form) that which I've shown.
I'm not posting to argue with MatterWave, such a thing would be beneath me
I'm posting to provide an answer to the-next-best-reasonable-question from where MatterWave is coming from. I'm doing this because teh interwebs is littered with lurkers and skimmers of all shapes and sizes at varying levels of education, reasoning and attention span.
It's just, with such immature arguements to begin with, I also find it fun to add in my own level of immature discussion. Which may not be for formal discussion, but this arguement (as you know) isn't really for formal discussion either.
All he wants is some concession that his idea is possible. Please, feed the animals and let's be done with this line of thought.
If no one ever fed the trolls, the internet would be a very quiet place indeed. And then where would I find an outlet for my immaturity?
Thanks for the tip, but it's okay, when I'm bored I'll stop posting to him. Otherwise, I'll continue to post what I best feel fits this style of immaturity (so that those reading his posts will actually read mine too), and also make some amount of sense.
Think of it as using the trolls in order to reach a wider audience who may not want to read "all that heavy stuff"
And, as to your main point, I certainly agree that arguing with MatterWave is a complete waste of time.
Edited by Stile, : Quite quiet.. qui-et... quiet... and that's done it, the word has lost all meaning to me...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Apothecus, posted 02-03-2010 1:15 PM Apothecus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 4:09 PM Stile has seen this message but 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