The Movie Paranormal Activity

It is believed by some that this coming May biblical Armageddon will occur. Surely in the bewildering unlikely event that this occurs it would qualify as evidence in favour of the supernatural? Imagine the scenario..... The second coming of Christ 'God the son' and ensuing Armageddon is in full swing. Christians are being exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead coming bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators. Those who have not repented their sins are cast into the fiery abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons.Now by your reckoning these events and beings fail to be evidence of anything supernatural simply by virtue of being "identified".So according to you even as unsaved non-believers such as myself are flung into the fiery abyss to be tortured by demons for all eternity we can congratulate ourselved on our rational rejection of all things supernatural because there remains absolutely no evidence of supernatural beings actually existing. All is natural in the world. Right up to and including the end of times occurring as biblically foretold. Hurrah for the supernatural skeptics say you even as you too are handed judgement of your eternal fate from Christ himself. Surely the above scenario would qualify as evidence of the supetnatural?

Yes. Absolutely. I don't think anybody is disputing this. I don't think he is saying that. At least not here.What Slevesque is doing is objecting to the idea that evidence of the supernatural is by definition impossible. He is pointing out that such definitions are self-serving and not very helpful when considering genuinely supernatural events such as omnipotent beings using their divine will to violate the laws of nature (e.g. miraculous conception and suchlike).Do I believe such acts have taken place? No. Do I think every shred of available evidence indicates humans inventing "unknowable" causes for wholly natural phenomenon? Yes. But that doesn't mean that we can simply define the term "supernatural" out of possible evidenced existence in the way that jar and others are suggesting. It is this I believe that Slev is objecting to. Usually. Yes. But let's consider an extreme example for the sake of making a point.Let's say a baby boy is born to a virgin. Tests are conducted. He has the same DNA as his mother. Scientists scratch their heads but cannot explain or replicate this phenomenon no matter what tests are undertaken. It seems to defy all the biology that applies to every other living thing. The boy grows up. He seems to be able to do some remarkable things. He can raise the dead and does so regularly. One sunny afternoon he transforms the water in the river Thames to fine Sauvignon Blanc and feeds the entire population of London on a pilchard and a bagel. Chris (that's his name) starts preaching love, peace and devotion to an omnipotent being that he refers to as "father".......Now I am not saying that science should just give up on a natural explanation for the above at all. But under these circumstances it would be difficult to continue to justify the claim that there exists no positive evidence in favour of the supernatural at all wouldn't it?

As might the whole of reality as we currently know it.Do you include such possibilities when considering all aspects of perceived reality? At what point do you invoke such explanations?

By what definition? Be specific. It was believed to be supernatural. That is very different. There is nothing inherently materially inexplicable about the Earth going round the Sun.

So the actuality of the second coming of Christ and ensuing biblical Armageddon wouldn't be evidence in favour of anything supernatural at all. This completely contradicts the entire basis of your "stores as evidence" position taken in previous threads. So "stories, tales and mythos" qualify as evidence. But the actuality of these stories really occurring in reality does not. So what could constitute such evidence?

I understand what you are making a distinction but have never seen you give an evidential reason for making one. Of course human constructs of gods exist. But on what basis do you conclude that GOD is not equally a human construct? Can you explain why the demonstrable actuality exactly matching human constructions of supernatural concepts is not evidence in favour of those supernatural beings actually existing? Incredulity aside...... Nor can you prove that any given naturalistic explanation is correct when compared to a baseless supernatural alternative. Evidence based conclusions are not about proof. Why? What happens after you die that makes the supernatural somehow more able to be evidenced than when you lived? Why don't you just classify the afterlife as "natural" in the same way that you are classifying biblical Armageddon as "natural"?

Perhaps when you dream you know? What is the difference as far as you are concerned How does experiencing what could be called an "afterlife" change that for you? There is overwhelming evidence that humans are deeply able and deeply prone to inventing gods for various purposes. Explanation, comfort, companionship, meaning etc. etc. All of which suggests that such beliefs will exist regardless of any gods actually existing.This same evidence applies to god, God, GOD. Your distinction is a false one isn't it? If not why not?

Where? So what are these definitional differences? OK. So what are you talking about when you say "after I've died"....? Is GOD supernatural? Except after apparently dying? Or still not even then? The actuality of biblical Armageddon occurs and you don't consider this to be evidence of the supernatural but you "wake-up" after apparently dying and it is perfectly possible for the supernatural to be evidenced. Is that right? If correct can you explain your reasoning? If incorrect can you explain where I have misunderstood? I am genuinely trying to make sense of what you have written. But some clarification wouldn't go amiss here.

If you clarified what you actually meant it might help here. If you retain consciousness after dying I am not sure how you could definitively distinguish between the two? But anyway.....I will assume that you somehow can for the sake of argument. Because as you put it earlier - Jar: "it would remain in the Unknown Category until all the evidence, model and method was understood at which time it would almost certainly be found to be Natural".But why wouldn't post death experiences also "remain in the Unknown Category until all the evidence, model and method was understood"....?Why are your criteria and categories different in the two cases? Except after dying? Or still not even then? Is GOD supernatural? So what are these definitional differences?

OK. But what makes belief that this GOD "critter" does exist different from believing that any 'God' exists? Is there a difference as far as you are concerned? If so what is it? What am I missing? Is this GOD supernatural? Does GOD go in the "supernatural folder"? Except after dying? Or still not even then?

What does being dead have to do with your ability to know enough to move things from the "unknown folder" to a "supernatural folder" as per your argument throughout this thread? If the end of times as invoked by the divine will of an omnipotent being fails to qualify as supernatural and necessarily goes in the "known" or "unknown" folder why does your post-death experience not also necessarily do the same?Can you at least see why this seems like an inconsistent application of your folder criteria? Can you clear up this apparent inconsistency?

I'd prefer it if you answered the questions I am asking. What does being dead have to do with your ability to know enough to move things from the "unknown folder" to a "supernatural folder" as per your argument throughout this thread?

Indeed. You have stated that nothing - Not even biblical Armageddon - would be placed in the supernatural folder. Anything that could be construed as supernatural would instead be placed in the "unknown folder". I am asking why dying changes that? My question to you is then this - Why you think being dead elevates the supernatural folder to a maybe rather than the entirely unnecessary folder you stated it to be when experiencing biblical Armageddon whilst alive.What is the difference between the two scenarios that demands this change? Why aren't post death experiences also in the "unexplained folder"....? Sure. I never said that you claimed that you would have an answer. I just want to know why the folder situation changes.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The inconsistency in your argument here is really quite obvious. Why doesn't the exact same reasoning apply to whether or not GOD is supernatural?Is it because you happen to believe in a supernatural GOD.......? Why will being dead make any difference to the reasoning you have applied to biblical armageddon or any of the other examples in this thread. All of which you said could never be considered to be supernatural.

And what is the supernatural claim is evidenced?As per Message 45 or Message 46