If ghosts are real, then they aren’t supernatural

[JohnEmmett]

I talked to a ghost…


Decades later I heard she is haunting a house

 

[AV1611VET]

I talked to a ghost…


Decades later I heard she is haunting a house

Satan has an infrastructure set up on the earth.

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Satan has an infrastructure set up on the earth.

ghosts are unrelated

 

[AV1611VET]

ghosts are unrelated

With one exception (the Holy Ghost), ghosts are angels.

There are two types of angels: fallen and unfallen.

Of the fallen angels, there are two types: chained and unchained.

Of the chained, there are two types: temporarily chained and permanently chained.

Before the earth was even created, ALL the angels were good angels, and even rejoiced when God created Earth.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This included Lucifer.

 

[JohnEmmett]

ghosts are angels.

the ghost realm is below the human realm


the angel realm is above the human realm

 

[AV1611VET]

the ghost realm is below the human realm


the angel realm is above the human realm

Are you saying ghosts and angels are two different beings?

If so, what classroom forged your mindset?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Are you saying ghosts and angels are two different beings?

they’re different kinds of karma


ghosts are miserable

 

[AV1611VET]

they’re different kinds of karma


ghosts are miserable

Okay.

I'm going to assume you're too educated in the ways of the world to know that angels and ghosts are one and the same.

Have a nice degree.

You earned it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Have a nice degree.

You earned it.

I understand and you do not

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand and you do not

Fair enough.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know you lack faith

It's in my profile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea, but I don't see why it must be a non-believer.

"Natural" is broadly speaking things that follow the natural laws explored by science. (In the modern understanding the 4 fundamental forces and the various fundamental fields of particle physics with everything natural being constructed of those.)

The "supernatural" is that which does not fit within the natural laws.


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.

So, many “existed”, but can not be explained objects, features, are supernatural? For example, lightening to stone-age people is supernatural. As a result, many things that are supernatural today, e.g. the soul, could become natural in the future.

If so, these two words are simply meaningless. Are artificial things natural?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no idea, but I don't see why it must be a non-believer.

"Natural" is broadly speaking things that follow the natural laws explored by science. (In the modern understanding the 4 fundamental forces and the various fundamental fields of particle physics with everything natural being constructed of those.)

The "supernatural" is that which does not fit within the natural laws.


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.

Or so says our human mind that considers its parameters substantial. No, I'm not criticizing, really. As someone else said to me, what else can be real to us? How else are we supposed to look at things? We reason as we must.

But I like to think we are at least able to recognize that there are things beyond our ken. WAY beyond.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, many “existed”, but can not be explained objects, features, are supernatural?

Things that don't comport with "natural laws".

For example, lightening to stone-age people is supernatural. As a result, many things that are supernatural today, e.g. the soul, could become natural in the future.

Certainly the line between natural and supernatural has moved in the past. If we could work out how ESP works* and find the associated natural laws (or the application of current ones) then it would be natural. Until then it is supernatural or paranormal.

*as far as we can tell ESP doesn't actually work

If so, these two words are simply meaningless.

No.

Are artificial things natural?

Constructed things made under natural laws are natural. But the "artificial-natural" divide is not the same as the "natural-supernatural" divide and has a different defintion of natural. (That "not-artificial definition" is a subset of the other "natural" that excludes man-made things. In that splitting, a giant termite mound is "natural" and a giant ziggurat is "artificial" because one was made by non-human animals and the other by human animals.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but it is those that are given credence by those who can't follow the math, or won't.

It's reasonable to have differing credences for the various interpretations, according to your criteria for likelihood, but not 100% credence to a particular one.

I meant to refer to someone who demands empirical evidence for everything he is to believe.

That would be an impossible demand. For doubtful claims, it's reasonable to expect evidence beyond reasonable doubt. As Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" - a sentiment echoed by many wise men from Thomas Jefferson to Carl Sagan.

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.

If you abandon logic, you abandon reason. That seems too great a sacrifice just to save a fallacious argument. YMMV.

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:

TLDL, even at 2x speed. But if you think it's worth the effort, perhaps you could summarize his points. Regarding aseity, as I've said before, why not cut out the middle-manGod and have the universe itself be self-existent?

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.

Maybe it makes sense to you because you're so accustomed to the belief, but to me, an entity with superpowers only makes sense in the Marvel universe, i.e. as fantasy fiction.

It may offer you emotional comfort or satisfaction, but as an explanation, it's totally lacking - it has no explanatory power - it isn't testable, has no supporting evidence, makes no predictions, has no specificity, gives no insight or understanding of what it purports to explain, raises more questions than it answers, is not consistent with current knowledge, and can 'explain' anything, so explains nothing.

It's simply a label to hide the lack of an explanation, a hook on which you can hang whatever properties & attributes take your fancy.

But I prefer to suppose no anthropomorphism at all, concerning God, whether or not I am capable of conceptualizing such a thing. I do hope you can agree that IF God exists, no anthropomorphism is capable of describing him.

You say you prefer to suppose no anthropomorphism, but you use the capitalization generally reserved for the anthropomorphic Christian God, and you refer it with male-gendered pronouns... As I said above, God (or god) can be whatever you imagine it to be - if I had to choose, I would choose Einstein's god, the natural universe.

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.

That's why it's important to test their validity and treat truth claims with scepticism and always as provisional - i.e. the methodology of science & critical thinking. Experience suggests we should prefer parsimonious explanations and avoid the temptation to invent untestable ideas about the world outside our current framework of knowledge or make truth claims about them. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't know or we're uncertain.

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.

We are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We have a model that describes all their significant interactions and all the forces that significantly influence them as far as the everyday world of human activity is concerned. This model has been tested and confirmed literally millions of times - it does allow that there may be unknown particles or forces that can have influence, but they must be either too short range or too weak to have significant influence or we would have detected them.

So if you want to suggest a physical influence that is outside this model, you need to do more than simply assert it, you need to show how the current model is wrong, how this novel interaction can occur, how such interaction can produce results consistent with reported claims of non-physical influences, and how your new model accounts for everything the current model describes including this novel interaction that breaks the current model.

Until then, I'll continue attributing reported claims of non-physical influences to well-known, but mundane, human failings (of perception, interpretation, memory, etc).

 

[juvenissun]

Things that don't comport with "natural laws".

Certainly the line between natural and supernatural has moved in the past. If we could work out how ESP works* and find the associated natural laws (or the application of current ones) then it would be natural. Until then it is supernatural or paranormal.

*as far as we can tell ESP doesn't actually work

No.

Constructed things made under natural laws are natural. But the "artificial-natural" divide is not the same as the "natural-supernatural" divide and has a different defintion of natural. (That "not-artificial definition" is a subset of the other "natural" that excludes man-made things. In that splitting, a giant termite mound is "natural" and a giant ziggurat is "artificial" because one was made by non-human animals and the other by human animals.)

Simple idea made you so busy. Something is wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you abandon logic, you abandon reason. That seems too great a sacrifice just to save a fallacious argument. YMMV.

We always argue from OUR human, temporal, ignorant perspective. It is never done without presupposition.

The fallacy disappears, if the assumption is correct. Assuming first cause, first cause is the default principle from which everything else descends. Thus, even what has been assumed as a reliable method is only useful for temporal knowledge, and is not the basis for measurement of reliable argument.

TLDL, even at 2x speed. But if you think it's worth the effort, perhaps you could summarize his points. Regarding aseity, as I've said before, why not cut out the middle-manGod and have the universe itself be self-existent?

Because if God/ First Cause exists, then the universe is below him, not above him. He's not middle-man. The "omni" is even below First Cause. If First Cause exists, existence and reality itself, are caused to be what they are by it.

Maybe it makes sense to you because you're so accustomed to the belief, but to me, an entity with superpowers only makes sense in the Marvel universe, i.e. as fantasy fiction.

But if he is God, i.e. omnipotent, first cause, he is not just an entity with superpowers. He's not just "wow". He is the source of very reality.

It may offer you emotional comfort or satisfaction, but as an explanation, it's totally lacking - it has no explanatory power - it isn't testable, has no supporting evidence, makes no predictions, has no specificity, gives no insight or understanding of what it purports to explain, raises more questions than it answers, is not consistent with current knowledge, and can 'explain' anything, so explains nothing.

BUT, it does explain existence, as nothing else does —begging the question or not. And the problem with the notion that this is begging the question and therefore a logical fallacy, is that saying so assumes validity to the humanocentric (or temporal) value of concept, phrase and argument. IF God exists, the argument starts there, and not with our method of testing. GOD is default fact (if he exists).

You say you prefer to suppose no anthropomorphism, but you use the capitalization generally reserved for the anthropomorphic Christian God, and you refer it with male-gendered pronouns... As I said above, God (or god) can be whatever you imagine it to be - if I had to choose, I would choose Einstein's god, the natural universe.

The Christian God is too often described anthropomorphically —with that I agree. But the Bible's descriptions are toe to toe with good philosophy.

As for the "male-gendered pronouns", males are only one of the many things that are masculine. It is a masculine pronoun. And I have no problem accepting the notion that God is considerably more masculine than any male. But I will admit that is only my impression. I do, after all, insist that the Omnipotent does not answer to form.

That's why it's important to test their validity and treat truth claims with scepticism and always as provisional - i.e. the methodology of science & critical thinking. Experience suggests we should prefer parsimonious explanations and avoid the temptation to invent untestable ideas about the world outside our current framework of knowledge or make truth claims about them. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't know or we're uncertain.

Agreed. But again, the fact WE can't prove first cause, doesn't say the argument is illogical, and certainly not irrational, because of its very meaning. It only says we can't currently prove it. But it does answer all sorts of questions we cannot otherwise answer (admittedly it also induces in us all sorts of merely superstitious notions).

It will sound circular to look at it from our current perspective to say it that way, but from the perspective of the assuming of the existence of First Cause, it does not look circular, unlike with any other item we assume to be true. The argument begins with IT as causal of all other fact.

And no, not because the Cheshire Cat, the Mad Hatter nor the Caterpillar would say so.

We are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We have a model that describes all their significant interactions and all the forces that significantly influence them as far as the everyday world of human activity is concerned. This model has been tested and confirmed literally millions of times - it does allow that there may be unknown particles or forces that can have influence, but they must be either too short range or too weak to have significant influence or we would have detected them.

So if you want to suggest a physical influence that is outside this model, you need to do more than simply assert it, you need to show how the current model is wrong, how this novel interaction can occur, how such interaction can produce results consistent with reported claims of non-physical influences, and how your new model accounts for everything the current model describes including this novel interaction that breaks the current model.

Until then, I'll continue attributing reported claims of non-physical influences to well-known, but mundane, human failings (of perception, interpretation, memory, etc).

The problem with this is, as I mentioned before, our assuming substance to our concepts and words. I love the phrase CS Lewis used in "Till We Have Faces": "...the babble we think we mean." But, it seems we must do what we do. We always argue from OUR human, temporal, ignorant perspective.

And I don't mean that logic is itself invalid or useless in the face of First Cause. It, too, descends from him. WE must answer to logic in our descriptions of him. But he does not answer to it, though it always fits him. Ours? —not so much. We are no purveyors of truth and wisdom. Logic is a tool, but also a governor. Never assume that we don't assume something, nor that we have not failed to assume something that would turn this whole structure we have built on its head.

But, yes, we can only do what we must do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We always argue from OUR human, temporal, ignorant perspective. It is never done without presupposition.

The fallacy disappears, if the assumption is correct. Assuming first cause, first cause is the default principle from which everything else descends. Thus, even what has been assumed as a reliable method is only useful for temporal knowledge, and is not the basis for measurement of reliable argument.

I can't make much sense of that, but a reliable argument is a sound argument, that is, a valid argument (i.e. the conclusion logically follows from the premises), whose premises are true; so, logic is required.

Because if God/ First Cause exists, then the universe is below him, not above him. He's not middle-man. The "omni" is even below First Cause. If First Cause exists, existence and reality itself, are caused to be what they are by it.

That was just a turn of phrase; you can substitute it with, 'redundant entity'. IOW, if the universe is self-existent, there is no need for a self-existent creator entity, and Occam is happy.

But if he is God, i.e. omnipotent, first cause, he is not just an entity with superpowers. He's not just "wow". He is the source of very reality.

Unsupported claim.

BUT, it does explain existence, as nothing else does —begging the question or not. And the problem with the notion that this is begging the question and therefore a logical fallacy, is that saying so assumes validity to the humanocentric (or temporal) value of concept, phrase and argument. IF God exists, the argument starts there, and not with our method of testing. GOD is default fact (if he exists).

Word salad. If you think it's an explanation, perhaps you can tell me what criteria it satisfies for an explanation? You don't have to stick with the criteria I suggested last post, you're welcome to add others, if you can justify them.

You started by trying to make a logical argument for it and when that was shown to be fallacious, you claim that it is beyond logical argument. That's called shifting the goalposts.

Agreed. But again, the fact WE can't prove first cause, doesn't say the argument is illogical, and certainly not irrational, because of its very meaning. It only says we can't currently prove it. But it does answer all sorts of questions we cannot otherwise answer (admittedly it also induces in us all sorts of merely superstitious notions).

The first cause argument you gave was fallacious; the first cause claim is unproven, but as I said, proof is for alcohol, logic, & mathematics - a reasonable person expects evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

In what sense does it meaningfully answer any otherwise unanswerable questions? Maybe you can give an example...

 

[RileyG]

Just as I can explain how the spirit of Samuel was contacted by a witch, or how when the disciples saw Jesus walking on the water and they thought He was a spirit, or how after the resurrection, Jesus told His followers to touch Him because a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone as He did.

They exist, biblically-speaking. Enoch 15 describes that at least some of them are the spirits of the nephilim and are those we refer to as 'demons'

Enoch isn't canonical.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Simple idea made you so busy. Something is wrong.

It would seem to be your understanding of "natural" is the thing that is wrong.