The Movie Paranormal Activity

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No.[aside]See, Moose. I'm on topic.[/aside]

Hi Phat, I agree that that definition, it is no different from ''unexplained''.The thing is, it is a self-serving definition and not at all how it is defined by dictionaries etc.AbE Grats straggler with the line of discussion you have taken. I find that your insight is very clear in all this but unfortunately, I doubt you will get anything from Jar other then the blatant inconsistency that is here for all to see (which comes, IMO, from the basic fact that he has redefined words to fit his personal worldview)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I'm sorry but that is simply another stupid assertion.I doubt you can point to a single place where I have been inconsistent, but you are free to try.
Can you provide a definition of supernatural that is somehow different then "Unexplained or Unknown Cause"?If so, then present it.Show me a valid way that I can test to determine whether something belongs in the Unknown folder or a Supernatural folder?Edited by jar, : appalin spallinEdited by jar, : And sill spallin arrers

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I feel that the folder labled "supernatrual" is a sub folder for the folder labled "unknown"
in other words there is no contradiction.

Yes - the same as my Box 2a in Message 111 that Straggler did not like.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Well if there is a folder that contains all the "unknowns"the supernatural being a unevidenced claim should be in there. IMO

I think straggler has done a pretty good job in showing this.In short, you answered that things may be clear ''after you die'' (if there is an 'after'). Straggler asked what made you make such a comment, what would be different 'after you died'. You replied that we should ask you again 'after you die'. This, at the very least, is an escape from reason, in my opinion. If you think 'after you die' you will have more insight into these matters, then you should know why right now, not only then. This is what straggler is asking, and this is what you fail to address. I have presented a definition of supernatural, that is different. However, I concede that such a definition makes the supernatural outside of scientific testing, however, because by definition, science can only conclude on what is repeatable (amongst other criterias), and therefore only what follows the laws of nature.Supernatural, as defined, is not constrained by natural laws. I think you should agree with this; almost everybody agrees that science cannot claim to study God because of this simple fact: he isn't a repeatable, constaintly testable ''thing''. He falls outside the realm of science.However, this does not mean there isn't a point where a phenomenon could be identified as being supernatural in nature (the phenomenon of ghost-like appearances, for example). This is the question we are trying to answer here: does such a point exist, and if so, where is it ?Edited by slevesque, : 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

Absolutely nothing in there but word salad and nonsense.Your definition is just another example of Unexplained and unsupported assertions.You admit that there is no way to test the supernatural and so claiming something is supernatural is worthless, it tells us nothing.Certainly you can use nonsense terms like "ghost like" but again, unless you can produce a ghost for comparisons, then the term is still simply "Unknown".

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm sorry, I will try yet again.I can see no way to class any thing as super natural as long as I am alive.MAYBE (big word I know) after I am dead I MAY be able to do so, but until I am dead I can not say for sure.Ask me then and I may be able to tell.Now I tried to keep that to one syllable words.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Because your boxed based nonsense amounted to nothing more than 'That which is supernatural is whatever Xongsmith decides'.Can you answer the following and give your reasoning - Is Voldermort supernatural? Is Thor supernatural? Is Jesus as described in the bible supernatural? Earth's orbit apparently used to supernatural. But are consciousness or Dark Matter or other as yet unconsidered aspects of nature currently supernatural?If there are any criteria beyond "Xongsmith thinks so" I have yet to hear them.

It what way can being dead potentially expand your knowledge in a way that the experience of biblical Armageddon (for example) cannot? If I take what you say and modify it accordingly does it become any more or less legitimate? Why is your original statement any more or less valid or legitimate than the modified one?Is it just because that is what you believe? Or is there a more reasoned explanation for the inconsistent approach you are taking here?

Do you believe that GOD is supernatural?Note - I am not asking you if GOD actually is supernatural. I am asking you what you believe.Can GOD be scientifically investigated and understood?

I can't know how being dead might expand my knowledge until after I am dead.Once again, ask me after I am dead and maybe I will be able to answer.If your fictional Armageddon happened while I was alive then I would b unable to explain it, it would go into the Unknown folder.And the difference in the two statements is that I did not say the latter.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!