What is Supernatural?

What is not supernatural?? There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." --A. Einstein

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?

Your father is right.

That you cannot understand the questions doesn't mean they are silly. It just means that you don't comprehend the meaning implied. And the presence of nose jewelery is natural because... what? Because it's natural? Sounds exactly like circular reasoning. Do you have an argument that is not circular? Nose jewelery and everything else can just as easily be supernatural(i.e. created by a god).Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

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. Same here. How do you know this? Where is the evience that for something to exist, a god is not required? You are jumping to premature and possibly unwarranted assumptions and conclusions. 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), but since it's you who declares that for a spoon to exist a god is not required, the onus is on you to provide evidence. Where is it?You don't know what to exist really means, so why the leap of faith?

I only asked you to provide evidence that the existence of a spoon is not supernatural, not how it is made. It seems you don't understand my request.But ok, i'll play your game of causality. Keep following the chain of causes that led to the appearance of the pen on February 2nd 2010. At some point you will be reaching far back into the past all the way to the singularity. How would this tracing back support your assertion that the existence of the spoon is not supernatural? By asserting that the singularity was a natural event with natural physical laws? This would be circular reasoning as well, on top of being a another bare assertion, unless you want to make additional assumptions of there being 234 trillion universes. Assumptions when unevidenced are the same as faith.My original question however demanded that you provide evidence that 'exist' as opposed to 'not exist' is not a process that requires god. 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. You have provided no evidence that our realm is not supernatural. Let me relieve you somewhat from the pressure - no one can. You have given evidence of a causal chain(that tips the scales in my favor) + some scientific discoveries of the human race. I wanted evidence that for anything to exist(as opposed to not exist), a god is not required(exist - as in being within reality and acting according to natural laws-not ones tailered by a supernatural being). Give evidence that for everything to exist(what you'd call a universe), a god is not required.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

I thought we all agreed earlier that circular reasoning is not a proper way to debate. The existence of a spoon is not supernatural because it is natural, is not a way to explain anything. It was actually you who attempted to present the processes that materials undergo till they turn into a pen. If you are confident in your position, you should actually be able to discuss any aspect of it(incl. the causal chain that you brought up), not certain portions of it. I specifically demanded that you focus on "exist". Instead you chose to speak of the process how a pen is made. I challenged even that position of yours, and you have provided zero evidence that the universe didn't start by a devine intervention. Please get back to "exist" and start from there. Circular reasoning is a fallacy in a fairly major way. Statements backed by circular reasoning are wishful thinking. You did no such thing. Why don't you go ahead and proclaim - A God is not required because a God is not required? It appears it will work for you.

So what do you do in such a situation? If you can not know if the universe and reality weren't created, why jump to conclusions? this was my initial question - Why the leap of faith? It cannot be ridiculous if it makes no assumptions. Your position makes unwarranted assumptions and can in fact be ridiculous. I am waiting for you to that. It means that you need to make assumptions. And you must be aware that you are making assumptions. Assumptions are not truths. It is debateable as long as you don't insist that your assumptions are more valid than the others. That's not what i said or implied in any way. If the other option is having faith in a set of pre-conceived assumptions, then i'd choose to consider the supernatural a real possibility. Holding faith in such high regard and being indocrinated into a set of beliefs is definitely not for me, but it obviously works for you. Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

So a god that does not break the laws of nature is what? Natural God? Where did i say or imply a god has to break the laws of nature? On the contrary - my question was specifically targeting the possibility that the existence of anything might be supernatural and require a god. Aha, so you assume that the existence of jewelery or anything else is not supernatural and does not require god. Great, but that is an assumption. If you make too many assumptions, you'll be living in your fantasy.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

So a god that is behind the existence of everything and that doesn't break his own laws is natural. I have no objection to that as it was actually my point that we cannot know if existence is natural or supernatural. It can be both, depending if God exists or not. You said jewelery was natural and obviously implicitly made the assumption that existence of said jewelery or whatever is natural(not created by a God). When you get too indocrinated into a belief, it's quite common to lose track of the assumptions you are making.

Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not. My starting point again is: "Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not."
I hope you get it this time. You accuse me of not making stuff up? How excatly is making stuff up a good thing? We definitely all exist in some way, that is beyond any doubt at all. This doesn't add anything to the question whether existence requires a God or not. Gods and existence stand much higher than you can comprehend, so why make stuff up? Who benefits from this? I don't dissmiss things i cannot disprove.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?Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Or that there is a natural origin for everything. Which is what most of you are doing, There are questions that are way beyond the scope of science. And science is not a religion.

So the best you could do to respond to the biggest questions of humanity is what...? Kindergarten stuff?

You are thye ones making claims about everything that is in exisetence being natural. You must back up your claims, not me. My position is that:

I only wanted you to substantiate your beliefs that everything that exists is natural. I am obviously not making the assumption that existence is possible without a God. You don't understand existence, so why the leap of faith from "I exist in some way" to "Everything is natural and God does not exist?"?Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.