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.
True, that would be the most likely explanation, but until we had established that, we'd be forced to consider the possibility, however unlikely.
True, that would be the most likely explanation, but until we had established that, we'd be forced to consider the possibility, however unlikely.
I think one apparently discerns non natural things through discernment. I think it is supernaturally inspired, or so the story goes.I understand what you are saying, but I still don't know how one discerns the non-natural nor do I know what I should expect to observe or even how one observes with doing so through our senses.
Non naturally, through discernment.If there were a non-natural event, what would it be like? The impact on my senses is natural. How am I detecting the non-natural aspect of the event?
You will have to discern that for youreself (with a little help from above).Does my brain get a tickle in some portion thereof that is only tickled by non-natural things?
So it is notpossible that scientifically predisposed thinkers have a predisposition that might make them miss conflicting views. So everyone but science fans have confirmation bias, but science fans are exempt? I am not saying scientists who have the rigors of journal life to assist them, but science fans who are not participating in science as such.I would have to answer your question "Is the question valid" with no.
It's the idea that only the natural exists.As to the chicken and the egg, I don't know what metaphysical naturalism is.
How do you know the "natural" is natural, naturally existing, and not for instance created?All I have ever observed is natural.
But are you excluding them on principle or observation or what? You can't argue "I have defined obserbved things as natural, therefore things are proven by observation to be natural".What reason do I have to incorporate the imaginings (as I perceive them, rightly or wrongly) of other people?
I guess that is right. At least I'll take your word for it at present.No, science is not built to test the untestable.
If you have an unfalcefiable belief it is not in the realm of scientific inquiry.
Well idf creation is creation, I suppose it doesn't exist naturally. Therefore there is a scenrio wher observed things are not as natural as they are supposed to be.I want to return to something I was hinting at earlier: If we can observe something, isn't it de facto natural? What would it mean to observe something that isn't natural? In that context, observation doesn't even seem like an applicable term. And if we cannot observe it, did it happen at all?
I agree but a genus and species definition of the supernatural is beyond me at present.I.e., I think those that suppose that the non-natural can happen should both define what they mean by the term. And, I think that certainly doesn't mean something merely outside our experience.
I want to return to something I was hinting at earlier: If we can observe something, isn't it de facto natural? What would it mean to observe something that isn't natural? In that context, observation doesn't even seem like an applicable term. And if we cannot observe it, did it happen at all?
I.e., I think those that suppose that the non-natural can happen should both define what they mean by the term. And, I think that certainly doesn't mean something merely outside our experience.
Tiberius your message box is full. I think its funny that in nearly every instance in the last 6 posts or so we could remove the words "non-material" or "non-natural" and replace them with the words "non-existent" without changing the meaning or context of the sentences significantly.
Given that I have no examples in the history--so far as I know--of a non-natural event, I don't know why I must consider the never-occurring as a possibility.
If I can't establish what actually happened, must I consider that Iggy the magic elf is a possibility? I don't think so.
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?