Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
29 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,877 Year: 16,913/19,786 Month: 1,038/2,598 Week: 284/251 Day: 12/43 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 79 (299349)
03-29-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by sidelined
03-29-2006 12:29 PM


Re: I would rather bank on a god than ignore the severe contridiction to my logic.
But if the qualities of God are supernatural then how can communication occur with the natural since this implies a natural means of alerting our physical senses?

Yeah, what Jar said. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't always a square.

This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-29-2006 11:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by sidelined, posted 03-29-2006 12:29 PM sidelined has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 79 (299374)
03-29-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
03-29-2006 12:35 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
jar

Can not Supernatural be a superset that includes natural as a subset?

I am not certain that mathematical definition as such applies here. That an object is a subset implies that the subset is contained within the superset by virtue of common members between the two. This would indicate that accessing the subset requires participation in the elements that make up that subset. Now one asks how does the information of the superset become known to the subset.

Now, since the means by which we gain information are through the subset{physical}then the supernatural{magic} cannot be affecting it since this would make it a part of the subset and, by definition, physical.

This does not mean that the supernatural does not exist just that it cannot affect the natural without altering its nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 12:35 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-29-2006 2:36 PM sidelined has not yet responded
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 4:41 PM sidelined has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 79 (299377)
03-29-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
03-29-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
This does not mean that the supernatural does not exist just that it cannot affect the natural without altering its nature.

would you please clarify the ambiguity of what "its" is refering too.

The supernatural cannot affect the natural without altering the supernatural's nature?

or the supernatural cannot affect the natural without altering the natural's nature?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 03-29-2006 2:22 PM sidelined has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 64 of 79 (299407)
03-29-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by sidelined
03-29-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
I don't see that at all, sidelined.

Someone could speak english and canadian, and when speaking to canadians uses just those words.

Also, while we know that natural means cannot do those things we call supernatural, that does not mean that those things we call natural might not be done supernaturally.

It's entirely possible that the whole set Natural is but a part of, a member of a larger set Supernatural.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by sidelined, posted 03-29-2006 2:22 PM sidelined has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 4:48 PM jar has responded
 Message 75 by sidelined, posted 04-08-2006 1:24 AM jar has responded

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 79 (299410)
03-29-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
03-29-2006 4:41 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
Can not Supernatural be a superset that includes natural as a subset?

That would mean it would be accurate to describe everything as supernatural. We would be supernatural beings.

Supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

You can't seem to make the natural a subset of the supernatural without altering the very meaning of supernatural.

This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:51 PM

This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 04:52 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 4:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 5:14 PM Posit has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 66 of 79 (299416)
03-29-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Posit
03-29-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
No, not at all. I said supernatural is a superset.

Supernatural: Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Supernatural: Of or relating to actions or existence that cannot be explained by natural means.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 4:48 PM Posit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 5:52 PM jar has not yet responded

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 79 (299430)
03-29-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
03-29-2006 5:14 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
No, not at all. I said supernatural is a superset.

Which means the same thing as natural being a subset.

Cars are a subset of vehicles. Vehicles are a superset of cars. The two statements are equivalent. They both imply that all cars are vehicles.

If the supernatural is a superset of the natural, then anything natural is also supernatural. It's fundamental set theory.

This message has been edited by Posit, 03-29-2006 05:58 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 5:14 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 03-29-2006 6:04 PM Posit has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1903 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 68 of 79 (299432)
03-29-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Posit
03-29-2006 5:52 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
Perhaps if you consider what you are calling Natural as a subgroup of SuperNatural, with "interaction" as the group operation, you have what Jar is getting at...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 5:52 PM Posit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 6:14 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 79 (299433)
03-29-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
03-29-2006 6:04 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
Perhaps if you consider what you are calling Natural as a subgroup of SuperNatural, with "interaction" as the group operation, you have what Jar is getting at...

Well, a subgroup is just a restricted type of subset.

Now if he means that the supernatural and natural are two non-intersecting sets, with some operation defined between them, that I understand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 03-29-2006 6:04 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 6:54 PM Posit has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 70 of 79 (299442)
03-29-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Posit
03-29-2006 6:14 PM


So I try rewording.
What I mean is not a mathematical relationship. John can read and write fluently in 20 different languages. Paul speaks and reads english only.

John's set of language capabilities is superior to Pauls. John though can also speak and read english, in addition to the 19 others.

Supernatural may well include everything we call natural, but in addition, other things we cannot recognize or understand.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 6:14 PM Posit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 7:22 PM jar has responded

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 79 (299455)
03-29-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
03-29-2006 6:54 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
Okay, I think I see. Just like arms and legs are components of people but are not themselves people, the natural can be a component of the supernatural without itself being supernatural. Is that the idea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 6:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:28 PM Posit has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 72 of 79 (299459)
03-29-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Posit
03-29-2006 7:22 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
yes, kinda.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 7:22 PM Posit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 7:40 PM jar has responded

Posit
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 79 (299463)
03-29-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
03-29-2006 7:28 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
Oh good. Of course, I have no idea where you're going with the idea, if anywhere, but at least we're on the same page now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:28 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 7:47 PM Posit has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 74 of 79 (299464)
03-29-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Posit
03-29-2006 7:40 PM


Re: So I try rewording.
Not going anywhere much. Simply asking sidelined a question about his post.

I happen to believe that GOD was the origin of at least what we call our universe, maybe more, but that is a personal belief, nothing more. It has little to do with cosmology other than the fact I listen to the cosmologists and say, "Oh, that's how GOD did it!"


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Posit, posted 03-29-2006 7:40 PM Posit has not yet responded

sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 79 (302271)
04-08-2006 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
03-29-2006 4:41 PM


Re: Supersets and subsets
jar

that does not mean that those things we call natural might not be done supernaturally.

If they were done supernaturally then would they not, by definition, be supernatural? How would we tell the difference? If we could not then there is no sense in calling something natural correct?
Since we are able to discern natural things as bound by laws and the supernatural implies no such bounds I again fail to see if this holds true at least as natural being a result of the greater operation of supernatural.


Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

Richard Feynman


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 03-29-2006 4:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 04-08-2006 9:55 AM sidelined 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