Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I assume that a natural one that we don't understand yet would be ruled out by any Atheist, too, since that is essentially the basis on which they rule out or refuse to contemplate anything supernatural.Great. So how do you define the supernatural? And how do we go about distinguishing a supernatural cause from a natural one we don't understand yet?
A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.
God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.
Thoughts?
I assume that a natural one that we don't understand yet would be ruled out by any Atheist, too, since that is essentially the basis on which they rule out or refuse to contemplate anything supernatural.
That would be yours to answer no less than mine, right?How do you think scientific advancement works? We find natural causes we don't understand yet all the time, and then proceed to try to understand them. But heck, let's make it even easier. How do you distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause? Case in point:
Now, we know there's a possible natural cause for this: random heat distribution causing a browning pattern that appears, superficially, to resemble a face, combined with humanity's natural pattern-finding reflexes. Alternatively, I'm sure each of us can easily think of at least one (and indeed, I could probably list off a few dozen before getting bored) hypothetical supernatural explanation for how this came to be. So how do we go about determining what the actual cause was?
Not really. I'm not convinced that the supernatural exists, or that there's even really a coherent definition thereof that allows it to be distinguished from "things we don't know yet". Without those things, it's not really possible to have a discussion about the supernatural. You haven't provided such a definition, so I'm trying to work from the colloquial examples often offered and go from there. But I don't see how we could ever conclusively establish something to be or not be supernatural in origin - even things where we can directly observe a natural origin.That would be yours to answer no less than mine, right?
My point is that if one is serious about such an investigation he can't just take a pass on the possible evidence, or some of it, either because "I don't believe in that stuff" OR, in your case, because you're not "convinced" that it exists. The point of research, and certainly of discussing the findings, is to address it and find out before you are convinced one way or the other.Not really. I'm not convinced that the supernatural exists, or that there's even really a coherent definition thereof that allows it to be distinguished from "things we don't know yet".
Well, neither have you, yet you're supposed to be looking into the same question as I am expected to be doing--along with anyone else here who may have the will to join in.You haven't provided such a definition
Perhaps admitting that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural component would be a start.so I'm trying to work from the colloquial examples often offered and go from there. But I don't see how we could ever conclusively establish something to be or not be supernatural in origin - even things where we can directly observe a natural origin.
I'm not taking a pass on any proposed evidence; no evidence has yet been proposed. We're still discussing definitions.My point is that if one is serious about such an investigation he can't just take a pass on the possible evidence, or some of it, either because "I don't believe in that stuff" OR, in your case, because you're not "convinced" that it exists. The point of research, and certainly of discussing the findings, is to address it and find out before you are convinced one way or the other.
You're the one proposing that the supernatural exists. I don't know whether it exists or not. I don't even know if it's possible, because I don't know what the word means to you. I don't really have a coherent or useful definition handy. The definition I most commonly hear usually goes along the lines of "Cause outside of nature", and the examples I most typically hear basically boil down to "things doing things in nature with means we do not understand"; for example, magic. So already the concept is unclear. You seem to think the supernatural exists. Please define the term. Stop dancing around the issue and just give a straight answer.Well, neither have you, yet you're supposed to be looking into the same question as I am expected to be doing--along with anyone else here who may have the will to join in.
Define supernatural. I can't tell you if it's a possibility or not until the term is defined.Perhaps admitting that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural component would be a start.
I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.You're the one proposing that the supernatural exists. I don't know whether it exists or not.
Now, now. Is that they way you want this exchange to go?Stop dancing around the issue and just give a straight answer.
Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?Define supernatural. I can't tell you if it's a possibility or not until the term is defined.
I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.
Now, now. Is that they way you want this exchange to go?
Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?
I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.
Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?
Well, I see that you're not interested in participating. That's all right.
Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?
That's why my point is that 'intentions' matter. We cannot know *why* someone would choose to remain idle while a rape occurs. Until we know, we cannot judge.
I take it you don't judge people, then? At all, ever? Even for the most horrific of evils (watching a child being raped and not intervening)? You satisfy yourself that the person who did such a thing may have good reasons for doing so, therefore it's not your place to discredit him/her?
You've gotta address the issue if you want to debate, that's all.Because someone disagrees with you, they aren't interested in participating!? What a close-minded attitude.
How can you investigate or discuss this issue if you've already ruled out looking at part of the possible factors (and, BTW, one of the most commonly suggested ones)? I apologize if it seems to you that I have been coy about definitions, etc, but to begin a discussion about the cause or meaning of anything while holding one intellectual hand behind your back doesn't make sense to me.I don't have a definition for it. I have yet to find any definition of "supernatural" that is coherent and sensible. But that's okay, because I don't believe in the supernatural.
I understand where you're coming from, but I am not selling the supernatural. What "I am" is reluctant to launch into a deeper discussion on this matter and beginning by taking one of the leading answers off the table only because other participants say, "Oh, but I won't discuss that since I don't believe in it."Pardon the intrusion. I've been watching this exchange, and found myself slightly gobsmacked at the above.
If you're trying to sell something (anything), it's a good idea if you have some information about the item, and an even better idea to avoid asking your mark to explain it in your stead.
On what grounds could this possibility be discussed?I've picked supernatural. Who among us is unafraid to discuss that possibility ALONG WITH purely natural explanations?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?