- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,262
- 52,668
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
What about "wicked" spirits, I assume they are demons, yes?
Yes, that's what I assumed.Yes, indeed.
Also known as: "fallen angels".
I think it exists. So ghost is natural to me.
Do you know if ghosts exist? I haven't thought about ghosts since reading the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, but it is an interesting question. It is likely something that we will never know for sure or maybe if there is an after life we will know then.I think it exists. So ghost is natural to me.
You do not think it exists, so ghost is supernatural to you.
Make the logic clear first. It saves a lot of time and energy.
Yes; it has conceptual & abstract reality.Well, there's math. It has material representations, but not material reality.
The only scientific description of quantum physics is a mathematical one. The various 'interpretations' of QM are hypotheses of arguable scientific merit.But a sort of a parallel is seen in our descriptions of quantum physics, where we sound more philosophical than scientific, but insist it is scientific. If the claims are in fact valid, then what is conceptual and abstract is valid. And again, granted, I don't put those on the same level with what we are talking about, so maybe this isn't fair.
Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. A scientific and/or critical thinker looks for 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'. Long experience tells us that just thinking that something is 'altogether valid' is not a reliable guide - which is why the methods of science have been developed.I'm a bit hamstrung in my arguments because something that I think is altogether valid, I can't prove to someone who claims to need empirical proof.
Infinite regression vs first cause is a false dichotomy, and first cause is special pleading. But we've been over this ground. In any case, what you or they might like is not a reliable guide to what is real or true.To me, the empirical evidence of the fact that there IS fact, and existence, is proof of God, through the simple logic I tried to describe below, and several other ways, but I am told repeatedly that if they are sufficiently explained by naturalism, (and apparently they are happy with that for absolute origin), there is no need for a supernatural explanation. So they like infinite regression and I like first cause.
This sounds like an echo of Aristotle's principles of change and being at rest... but his ideas were less ambiguous. I think you're begging the question by asserting what IS as something different from what is becoming. Everything we know is changing over time; in that sense what IS and what is BECOMING are different descriptions or views of the same things.Mark Quayle said:
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.
I continued the point below, in the two categories —what IS and what is BECOMING. Many things that are becoming come from other things that are also becoming, but in the long run it all begins with what is not Becoming, but IS. This ("IS") may sound like stasis, but it is the only source of NEW. This "IS" can be the only brute fact, therefore of a reality beyond what we are familiar with.
You simply assert God as the source, but nothing you've described so far implies or requires the supernatural, let alone a particular anthropomorphic deity.So, to me, anyway, this first cause, that IS, is the default fact, and as a result, our very thoughts are subject to its causation, whether they result from concepts or empiricism. And this, to me, at least, demonstrates a similarity between what what we see and what we don't see. It all comes from God. God need not be measured by us. It is we who are measured. We like "objective existence", but we are not the only ones looking. I can imagine angels having the discussion of whether the universe, and particularly, humanity, exists!
It's a question of definition; we can be mistaken about whether something fits our definition of reality or not, but you need to justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition or provide a reasonable alternate definition of reality. To justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition reality, you need a reasonable definition of that thing - and, as I said earlier, I don't think defining something in terms of what it isn't, i.e. 'not natural, is adequate. So, I'm asking for such a justification from those who apparently think there is one.Mark Quayle said:
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".
The fact we call something real doesn't make it real. It only means we think it is. It is real TO US. But there is more than just us, to observe fact, if there is this default self-existent First Cause, and its view of fact is more full and accurate.
It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of definition - something that produces an effect on a physical system is a physical influence on that system. We may not know what it is, but it's a physical influence. The non-physical (concepts, abstractions) can influence the physical indirectly through their physical representations (e.g. via human behaviour), and the supernatural certainly does that, but that applies to all products of the imagination.That can't be proven. But we trust and use it for fact every day. But we have no explanation for existence. We don't know why it is trustworthy fact.FrumiousBandersnatch said:Physical influence implies physical existence, i.e. material reality.
Whether or not God exists, if everything is natural or everything is supernatural, then there is no way that one can 'intrude' on the other.... if God (first cause) exists, then whether supernatural or material, the separation seems to me to be a point-of-view thing —our categorization— but both being of one source makes them both natural, or if you wish to say that all that descends causally from first cause is supernatural, then everything is supernatural. I'm just saying that where what we call supernatural intrudes on what we call natural, which intrusion we call 'miracle' or such, maybe is only SEEN as such by us, but in fact is more accurately merely unusual.
I think, "Unusual or seemingly inexplicable", is a reasonable abbreviation of, "Departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature". YMMV.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.
which is why the methods of science have been developed.
Do you have a demonstrably better alternative?
Yes, but it is those that are given credence by those who can't follow the math, or won't.The only scientific description of quantum physics is a mathematical one. The various 'interpretations' of QM are hypotheses of arguable scientific merit.
I meant to refer to someone who demands empirical evidence for everything he is to believe.Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. A scientific and/or critical thinker looks for 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'. Long experience tells us that just thinking that something is 'altogether valid' is not a reliable guide - which is why the methods of science have been developed.
Agreed, except I keep thinking that the judgement, "special pleading", is drawn from a humanocentric POV. That is to say, IF God exists, he is the default fact, and we are at best kind ourselves maybe something like "his imaginations" and our mechanical renditions of logic are rather silly notions. We do the best we can, but IF God exists, then this conversation is child's prattle.Infinite regression vs first cause is a false dichotomy, and first cause is special pleading. But we've been over this ground. In any case, what you or they might like is not a reliable guide to what is real or true.
Give this guy a listen. I would like to hear your take on it. It is, at least to me, a rather fun and engaging talk. RC Sproul, on ASEITY:This sounds like an echo of Aristotle's principles of change and being at rest... but his ideas were less ambiguous. I think you're begging the question by asserting what IS as something different from what is becoming. Everything we know is changing over time; in that sense what IS and what is BECOMING are different descriptions or views of the same things.
But accepting, for the sake of argument, an IS that is the only source of NEW (I don't think these capitalizations are helpful), then, as I've said before, the IS must change to produce the NEW. IOW, the IS is BECOMING by producing. In the case that the IS is all there is, it must also BECOME the NEW.
But such vague and ambiguous terms can be used to argue almost anything, and in any case, the stuff we have knowledge of (your 'BECOMING') is natural and the stuff we don't have knowledge of is unknown, so it doesn't help clarify the meaning or utility of 'supernatural'.
Sure. But it makes sense that he exists, and so far, I've found nothing else to even come close to his existence, to supply valid explanation for the existence of what we experience empirically.You simply assert God as the source, but nothing you've described so far implies or requires the supernatural, let alone a particular anthropomorphic deity.
Seems to me your whole statement there depends on the validity of our words and concepts. We do not HAVE to give our notions credence as though they are more than a walk in space without a suit on. They may be the best we can do, but they are not reliable for substantive truth.It's a question of definition; we can be mistaken about whether something fits our definition of reality or not, but you need to justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition or provide a reasonable alternate definition of reality. To justify why something does or doesn't fit the definition reality, you need a reasonable definition of that thing - and, as I said earlier, I don't think defining something in terms of what it isn't, i.e. 'not natural, is adequate. So, I'm asking for such a justification from those who apparently think there is one.
The influence is physical, yes. But you said the thing that does the physical influence must itself be physical. You can't know that, except in the sense that I tried to show from IS vs BECOMING. IF God exists, he transcends existence, which is to say that existence comes FROM him.It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of definition - something that produces an effect on a physical system is a physical influence on that system. We may not know what it is, but it's a physical influence. The non-physical (concepts, abstractions) can influence the physical indirectly through their physical representations (e.g. via human behaviour), and the supernatural certainly does that, but that applies to all products of the imagination.
Obviously.Whether or not God exists, if everything is natural or everything is supernatural, then there is no way that one can 'intrude' on the other.
So, the ghost, if existed, is a supernatural feature after all (Since we can not prove it).Do you know if ghosts exist? I haven't thought about ghosts since reading the The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, but it is an interesting question. It is likely something that we will never know for sure or maybe if there is an after life we will know then.
Not according to the OP.So, the ghost, if existed, is a supernatural feature after all (Since we can not prove it).
Give this guy a listen. I would like to hear your take on it. It is, at least to me, a rather fun and engaging talk. RC Sproul, on ASEITY:
How do you explain them from a Christian perspective?
Who used the word “supernatural” first? It has to be one who does not believe.Preacher logic hasn't improved (or devolved) since TV went wide screen. This guy seems quite satisfied with his word salad.
You're going to tell me that his reasoning is no better than the average charlatan?Preacher logic hasn't improved (or devolved) since TV went wide screen. This guy seems quite satisfied with his word salad.
You're going to tell me that his reasoning is no better than the average charlatan?
I have no idea, but I don't see why it must be a non-believer.Who used the word “supernatural” first? It has to be one who does not believe.
Speak for yourself, not all Christians. When I was a junior scientist still in training, I was a believer and I absolutely would have separated the "god-stuff" out from the natural world as "supernatural" because it absolutely didn't fit within the natural paradigm. I was certainly not alone is such an assessment.For Christians, nothing is supernatural.
Who is making the confusing salad?
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?