Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
47 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,372 Year: 22,408/19,786 Month: 971/1,834 Week: 41/430 Day: 41/63 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 151 of 230 (545434)
02-03-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by onifre
02-03-2010 5:10 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
If you say existence may require a god, then if that god exists, by your own logic, god would require a god too (or at least some other means of creation).

You don't know this, you assume that your reasoning fits the universe like a glove. It doesn't.

It's the same thing as saying "complexity requires a creator." Well, then if that creator is complex too, which it has to be to create complex things, by that very logic the creator requires a creator, too. See?

The topic is whether existence requires a creator. "complexity" is on another level, it comes after existence is a fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:10 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:21 PM MatterWave has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1296 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 152 of 230 (545436)
02-03-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:15 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
You don't know this, you assume that your reasoning fits the universe like a glove. It doesn't.

Again, this is not my reasoning, this is your reasoning. I don't even know what the term "god" is, so how on earth could this be my reasoning?

Don't jump so quickly on the defensive and try to understand what I'm saying first.

I'm just showing you how your reasoning leads to infinite regression.

The topic is whether existence requires a creator.

No it is not. The topic is "What is Supernatural".

Your side topic may be, "does existence require a creator?" And again, if it does, and if that creator exists, then by the same logic it too requires a creator. Don't you see how it's the same position?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:15 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 6:08 PM onifre has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 822 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 153 of 230 (545437)
02-03-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
MatterWave writes:

bluegenes writes:

Nothing can be a prerequisite for existence itself.

Even God?

God's existence cannot be a prerequisite for existence itself. As soon as he exists, then existence exists. If he is eternal, then existence is eternal. Obviously.

That must be another assumption.

No. It's the definition of existence. Nothing can precede it without having it as a quality. So, nothing can be a prerequisite for it.

You are a human being and as such your ability to understand, unfortunately, isn't endless.

Of course. What's that got to do with anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 6:16 PM bluegenes has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 154 of 230 (545441)
02-03-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by onifre
02-03-2010 5:21 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Again, this is not my reasoning, this is your reasoning. I don't even know what the term "god" is, so how on earth could this be my reasoning?

Don't jump so quickly on the defensive and try to understand what I'm saying first.

I'm just showing you how your reasoning leads to infinite regression.

It leads to a regress only if you make the assumption that God is a physical entity that resides in a n-D universe and is bound to causality, i.e. similar to a human being(e.g. another civilization) . If you don't make that assumption, you are making the assumption that you can understand God, and i am very skeptical of such claims.

The topic is whether existence requires a creator.

No it is not. The topic is "What is Supernatural".

If exisetence requires a creator, then everything is supernatural and this is the answer to the OP. If a God is not required - Supernatural is a term that describes someone's fantasies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by onifre, posted 02-03-2010 5:21 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 1:22 PM MatterWave has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 451 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 155 of 230 (545443)
02-03-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 1:31 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
The default position is what can be measured and quantified. That is where all investigation starts.

If science were anywhere close to answering the Big questions, they wouldn't be called "big".


If scientists cared about naval-gazing and philosophical musings they wouldn't be called "scientists."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:31 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 6:21 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 156 of 230 (545444)
02-03-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
No. It's the definition of existence. Nothing can precede it without having it as a quality. So, nothing can be a prerequisite for it.

Oh come one, what dictionary claims that their definition of "existence" is applicable to God? Where in science or art or philosophy is it claimed that anyone understands God?

MatterWave writes:

You are a human being and as such your ability to understand, unfortunately, isn't endless.

Of course. What's that got to do with anything?

That you can't comprehend your own existence and it's a bit self-centered to claim you understand God's existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:28 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 6:44 PM MatterWave has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 157 of 230 (545445)
02-03-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Coyote
02-03-2010 6:15 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
If scientists cared about naval-gazing and philosophical musings they wouldn't be called "scientists."

Quite to the contrary, most physicists are very philosophical. Let's start with Einstein, Newton, Leibniz, Minkowski, Bohr, Heisenberg, Bell, Pauli, David Bohm, Zeilinger, P.Davis, etc, etc, this will run into the hundreds very quickly. It's much easier to say who weren't philosophical than who were. Nice try btw.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 6:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:49 AM MatterWave has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 822 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 158 of 230 (545447)
02-03-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 6:16 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
MatterWave writes:

Oh come one, what dictionary claims that their definition of "existence" is applicable to God? Where in science or art or philosophy is it claimed that anyone understands God?

Dictionaries don't need to single out things to which existence is applicable as it applies to everything that is, by definition. It is the fact or state of being, and if there is a god, he has that quality, and if there isn't, then the non-he hasn't.

I must admit that you're an original. It's the first time I've come across the suggestion that things might have been created by a non-existent creator.

This could be described as the atheists' creator. It brings a new dimension to the concept of omnipotence. A god so powerful that he can create without actually existing himself.

Would you care to expand on the idea? I'm fascinated, and I'm sure everyone else is.

MatterWave writes:

That you can't comprehend your own existence and it's a bit self-centered to claim you understand God's existence.

If you read my brief posts, you'll see that there is no claim to understand god's existence. I merely point out that he, like everything else, cannot be a prerequisite for existence itself. However, you seem to be disagreeing by proposing a non-existent god who creates existence.

Don't you suspect that there might be a few readers of this thread laughing at this point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 6:16 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 7:38 PM bluegenes has responded

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 3375 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


(1)
Message 159 of 230 (545459)
02-03-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 6:44 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Dictionaries don't need to single out things to which existence is applicable as it applies to everything that is, by definition.

Dictionaries reflect things we understand. When there is something that we don't understand, dictionary tend to be vague.

It is the fact or state of being, and if there is a god, he has that quality, and if there isn't, then the non-he hasn't. I must admit that you're an original. It's the first time I've come across the suggestion that things might have been created by a non-existent creator.

Really? Non-existent as in non-existent in what we perceive as reality? I am not really a Christian, but does Christianity claim that God resides within our world/reality?

This could be described as the atheists' creator. It brings a new dimension to the concept of omnipotence. A god so powerful that he can create without actually existing himself.

"without actually existing himself" in what we perceive to be a 3D reality. I no idea an atheist would agree to such a proposition.

Would you care to expand on the idea? I'm fascinated, and I'm sure everyone else is.

How would I? By making additional assumptions? I'll leave this courtesy to you.

bluegenes writes:

If you read my brief posts, you'll see that there is no claim to understand god's existence.

The following statement reveals that you put the existence of humans and the existence of God on the same plane of existence. You should not make that assumption, because you don't understand your own plane of existence. The conclusion you draw at the end is a non-sequitur:

bluegenes writes:

Really? If existence requires a god, then the god would be a prerequisite for its own existence. So we know that existence cannot require a god.

If you read my brief posts, you'll see that there is no claim to understand god's existence. I merely point out that he, like everything else, cannot be a prerequisite for existence itself.

You are applying your limited capacity of understanding to something way beyond your comprehension.

However, you seem to be disagreeing by proposing a non-existent god who creates existence.

Both your own existence and that of God is incomprehensible. Existent, non-existent - it's not of great importance what labels you'd attach. At the end of the day, you still don't know and understand what existence is.

Don't you suspect that there might be a few readers of this thread laughing at this point?

I certainly do. After so many ill-thought attempts at showing how your group somehow understands existence, ha ha.

Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 6:44 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 8:43 PM MatterWave has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 822 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 160 of 230 (545487)
02-03-2010 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 7:38 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
MatterWave writes:

Dictionaries reflect things we understand. When there is something that we don't understand, dictionary tend to be vague.

What's vague about "the fact or state of being"?

MatterWave writes:

Really? Non-existent as in non-existent in what we perceive as reality?

Non-existent means non-existent in all reality regardless of anyone's perceptions.

I am not really a Christian, but does Christianity claim that God resides within our world/reality?

Frequently. They often claim that he's omnipresent. They certainly believe that he exists. Christians are generally defined as a group of people who believe that the Christian god exists. Ask them.

MatterWave writes:

"without actually existing himself" in what we perceive to be a 3D reality. I no idea an atheist would agree to such a proposition.

Without existing. Period. Something either exists or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with our perceptions or particular dimensions or what we believe. Things either are, or they aren't.

I no idea an atheist would agree to such a proposition.

You had no idea that an atheist might agree with the non-existence of god? Do explain. We now seem to be in the bizzare MatterWave world in which Christians are expected to agree to the non-existence of god, and atheists to disagree.

MatterWave writes:

The following statement reveals that you put the existence of humans and the existence of God on the same plane of existence. You should not make that assumption, because you don't understand your own plane of existence. The conclusion you draw at the end is a non-sequitur:

What is a plane of existence? Things either exist or they don't.

MatterWave writes:

You are applying your limited capacity of understanding to something way beyond your comprehension.

Aren't you overcomplicating the concept of existence?

MatterWave writes:

Both your own existence and that of God is incomprehensible.

God's existence? I thought you were suggesting a non-existent god?

Matter writes:

Existent, non-existent - it's not of great importance what labels you'd attach. At the end of the day, you still don't know and understand what existence is.

The state of being. The United States of America didn't exist 300 years ago, and now it does exist. The Roman Empire existed 2000 years ago, and now it doesn't exist.

What I initially picked you up on was when you seemed to be implying that the phenomenon of existence itself might require a creator. It cannot, because existence would have to be a quality of that creator, don't you agree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 7:38 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:10 AM bluegenes has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 161 of 230 (545503)
02-03-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Taq
02-03-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Existence
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

No they don't. Evolutionists claim that life changes over time through the mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation. That's it. Nowhere in evolution does it describe how the universe came about nor how the first life came about.

I think you are confusing Evolutionist with the ToE.

I have asked where the universe came from?

Several Evolutionist on this site have told me, the universe just is.

That is existence.

That existence expanded into everything in the universe.

We don't know how life began to exist but it did.

Then it evolved into all the life forms we see today and the extinct ones.

So everything you see today and all the things that ceased to exist came from the first existence.

Is that existence infinite?

OR

Did that existence begin to exist?

If it began to exist what is the mechanism by which it began to exist?

Taq writes:

I don't know. Is it?

There are a lot of peope a lot smarter than I am that says no.

I agree with them.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Taq, posted 02-03-2010 12:04 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by lyx2no, posted 02-03-2010 11:16 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 169 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 10:41 AM ICANT has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 162 of 230 (545505)
02-03-2010 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by ICANT
02-03-2010 10:39 PM


Re: Existence
Several Evolutionist on this site have told me, the universe just is.

If an "Evolutionist" says "Banana splits are the best dessert ever." should he be able to cite some obscure passage from On the Origin of Species as evidence? And are you sure they didn't say that in their capacity as red heads, or Brewers fans? Hint: evolution has nothing to do with either the origins of universes or life. But as the book title says, it does cover the origin of species.

I think you are confusing Evolutionist with the ToE.

If you're not saying that the "Evolutionist" isn't relying on the ToE to inform his opinion on universal origins or abiogenesis why did you bring it up?


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by ICANT, posted 02-03-2010 10:39 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by ICANT, posted 02-04-2010 12:55 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 163 of 230 (545508)
02-03-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by bluegenes
02-03-2010 5:05 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Hi bluegenes,

bluejgees writes:

Nothing can be a prerequisite for existence itself.

Existence is a fact. The universe and life is here.

Therefore:

Existence has to be infinite.

OR

Existence had to begin to exist.

One of those are required (prerequisite) for existence, to exist.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2010 5:05 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 164 of 230 (545512)
02-04-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by lyx2no
02-03-2010 11:16 PM


Re: Existence
Hi lyx2no,

lux2no writes:

If you're not saying that the "Evolutionist" isn't relying on the ToE to inform his opinion on universal origins or abiogenesis why did you bring it up?

My statement was that Several Evolutionist on this site have told me, the universe just is.

Taq then told me what the ToE says as if that was the only thing Evolutionist ever talke about..

cavediver made the following statement in answer to the question where the universe appeared from?

cavediver writes:

It didn't 'appear' from anywhere. It just is.


Found here Message 341.

There are others that made the statement "it just is".

If it just is that means it is already in existence.

My question is then, is existence infinite?

OR

Did existence begin to exist?

If it began to exist, did it begin to exist from non existence?

Then what was the mechanism that caused it to begin to exist?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by lyx2no, posted 02-03-2010 11:16 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 165 of 230 (545517)
02-04-2010 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by onifre
02-02-2010 7:40 PM


Speculations
But - since ALL humans work under these same limits, it is also beyond anyone elses ability to experience and thus know - hence belief in folklore and tales of the supernatural are needed, because evidence one will NEVER have.

Kinda makes you wonder how they even knew to come up with the question? RAZD never answered it, maybe you can.

Well I have some speculative theories. Dreams and mortality. I think truly contemplating a reality that is without ones own consciousness present is next to impossible. We get the concept that we world can carry on without us but actually imagining that? And then dreams that involve those that have passed away can be taken as an indicator that those physically dead are still present in some immaterial way.

I think it is true that all studied primitive cultures have had some concept of an afterlife and have placed some importance on dreams. And once you have the concept of the immaterial "spirit" (or whatever) it is only a short step or two to extrapolate that to other aspects of nature in the form of tree spirits, ghosts, gods and the full plethora of the supernatural. Especially when confronted with otherwise inexplicable acts of nature.

Because we live in a physcial reality. Anyone claiming to know a non-physcial aspect of reality within our physcial reality is full of shit.

harshly put. But nevertheless true. I can't maintain my devils advocate attempt because you are saying pretty much the same as I would say in answer to my own questions.

It cannot be experienced. It cannot ever be known to beings that experience reality the way we do. Makes you wonder how they even came up with the question?

Finding the commonalities between religions and examining the anthropological evidence I think is the best means of gaining an answer to that interesting question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 02-02-2010 7:40 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 5:16 PM Straggler has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019