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.
Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.Do you mean you'd like there to be a basis, i.e. you'd think the supernatural does or should exist...
AmenGhosts are real.
God says it, that settles it.
In fact, God himself is the Holy Ghost.
But that doesn't mean the supernatural does or should 'exist'. Have you considered that it might be the concept of 'supernatural' that is vacuous? Trying to define something by what it is not is an admission of ignorance, usually vacuous.Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.
Would you say the same is true of one who says all existing things are supernatural?Surely the point is that if the OP is just defining all existent things to be non-supernatural then his claim is tautologous and vacuous, not to mention pointless. Bias parading as argument.
And that was not the argument. You seem to have missed it entirely, probably because of your own biases. Whether or not the supernatural exists, the OP's argument is non-existent.But that doesn't mean the supernatural does or should 'exist'.
Yes - conflating two distinct concepts without an argument/middle term is a form of irrationality.Would you say the same is true of one who says all existing things are supernatural?
If one assumes that supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive, yes. But if both come from the same supernatural source, then why do we define them as such? Why not call them "usual" and "unusual"? Even empirical evidence only means something we have seen.Yes - conflating two distinct concepts without an argument/middle term is a form of irrationality.
These are all irrational statements; false definitions.
- All supernatural things are by definition non-existent
- All existing things are by definition supernatural
- All dogs are by definition brown
It was just a clarification. I note you didn't address my main point on the concept of the 'supernatural' itself, or the definition of 'existence'.And that was not the argument. You seem to have missed it entirely, probably because of your own biases. Whether or not the supernatural exists, the OP's argument is non-existent.
This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?For example, is the supernatural physical, i.e. capable of physical influence on the natural?
Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?
I agree. However, the fact WE can't make empirical use of it doesn't make it not real, only not physical.Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?
There's no doubt that the concept is real and has physical effects (e.g. on behaviour), but what about its referent?
OTOH, if it does have physical influence, then it is real and physical, so in what sense is it supernatural? What makes it other than natural?
We dont know in what sense its real. And we dont know how it influences the physical world. We just get this literally weird feeling about certain things.Quite - this is my point. If it has no physical influence, in what sense is it real? In what sense does it exist?
....
Unless we go the route that "supernatural" is in the realm of pure faith, things we cannot predictable perceive.This seems to be where we are. And physical gets wider to include abstractions. What do we mean by supernatural? Unusual? Nonphysical?
You worry that "supernatural" is ill-defined? If it is ill-defined, then obviously it makes no sense for the OP to make positive claims about it.It was just a clarification. I note you didn't address my main point on the concept of the 'supernatural' itself...
...I would say it is more often used in the sense of being beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc.
Perhaps Merriam-Webster's approach is instructive, which restricts itself to phenomena and appearances: "2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."
Not sure what you mean by "make empirical use of". I guess what I'm asking is whether there are mutually coherent and consistent definitions for 'physical', 'natural', 'exist', 'real', and 'supernatural'.I agree. However, the fact WE can't make empirical use of it doesn't make it not real, only not physical.
I don't think this is a useful or coherent idea - unless you think your parents are more real than you, a house is less real than the concrete and bricks that made it, and uranium is more real than lead... But perhaps I misunderstand what you meant?One of the simplest logics is that everything we see came from something else. While it may be an awkward way to put it, that something else is therefore more REAL than what we see.
So what is this reality that is not based on our notion of reality? What does that even mean?The fact it is not based on our notion of reality (empirical, or, falsifiable) doesn't mean it is less real, or, at least, less "fact".
That's not at issue here.I'm not going to spend time here defending the idea that everything we see came from something else, except to mention that "Everything that is BECOMING, comes from something that IS."
Physical influence implies physical existence, i.e. material reality.There are several reasons to believe that God had physical influence, and, philosophical reasons to believe that, in fact, the physical is completely dependent on God for its continued existence and actions.
I don't recall suggesting that - there are plenty of unusual things that I consider to be natural, i.e. part of the physical world. My point is that 'supernatural' or 'beyond natural' seems to me ill-defined, incoherent, and unsupported.So, what is "supernatural" might only mean, "beyond what we consider 'natural'". Like you, I think it was, said, "unusual".
Does having unexplained weird feelings really justify invoking physical influences that are not natural?We dont know in what sense its real. And we dont know how it influences the physical world. We just get this literally weird feeling about certain things.
Well, the idea was to clarify what we mean by 'exist', 'real', 'physical', 'natural', & 'supernatural', so logic seemed appropriate.I see no need to exert logic over things where the basic premises are so speculative. We should keep this discussion in the realm of myth, poetry, story, & faith for now - until we know more.
So roughly, 'unusual or seemingly inexplicable'...You worry that "supernatural" is ill-defined? If it is ill-defined, then obviously it makes no sense for the OP to make positive claims about it.
There are different definitions of supernatural. Here are some I have given in the past:
"...beyond common experience or the mundane, beyond the laws of nature, etc."
"...Merriam-Webster ..."2a. Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."
QED.That which is most obviously supernatural is God.
As a last resort possibility. "Mundane" material explanations for things, sense experiences, feelings have proven very powerful and reliable, so thats the first place to look. But if something stubbornly resists material explanation, it seems presumptive to rule out an explanation that isnt material at all.Does having unexplained weird feelings really justify invoking physical influences that are not natural?
Sure, for the purpose of using shared terms in discussion. But I dont think we should leverage the meaning of words to constrain reality.Well, the idea was to clarify what we mean by 'exist', 'real', 'physical', 'natural', & 'supernatural', so logic seemed appropriate.
But this is just your silly strawman, which is apparently all you have to offer nowadays. Heck, you are leaning on a made-up definition ("seemingly inexplicable"). No one said that but you. This is overt laziness.So roughly, 'unusual or seemingly inexplicable'...
It seems odd that rather than simply admitting to ignorance of the nature of some phenomenon they find inexplicable, people will use 'supernatural' as if it was an explanation, with an ontology of imagined causes or agents that they treat as real; IOW, a spurious assertion of knowledge. As if even an invented and/or incoherent explanation is better than accepting, or admitting to, not having an explanation.
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?