You should still believe in ghosts. Ghosts do exist. There’re many witnesses encountered it every now and then all over the world. I agree with you on your definition of supernatural. However there are always unsolved mysteries happening here and there, including ghosts. They are qualified to be named with “ supernatural phenomena” . Supernatural phenomena do exist, but we don’t know principles behind them. Pondering causes of them is not jumping the gun, but seeking progress.
There are supernatural events as much as there are events that we do not understand. However, if there was any certainty that the events existed, they wouldn't be considered supernatural. Furthermore, let's assume ghosts do exist, but that they aren't some remnants of the minds of the dead, but rather are a product of places where the divide between our dimension and another is weaker, or something else such as that. They would exist, yet not be the deceased. I do believe that people are experiencing something when it comes to ghosts, though I know not what, could be a product of paranoia and a variety of other things. I just don't believe that ghosts are anything specific; certainly not the deceased.
Sometimes we need to follow a tendency to imagine a clue, whenever we don’t find evidence supporting its true state. Many scientists relied on their imaginations at the very beginning of founding a theory, finding a scientific law or inventing some devices or new things. Our science is still too limited and weak. It seems there are infinite unknown things waiting mankind to discover. Since perfection doesn’t exist in the flawed world caused by our sins, I doubt we would be able to discover them entirely. Every new law or theory discovered was ever supernatural things for humans before. Yet if you hadn’t explored them with vastly pondering and reasoning, you wouldn’t have found them.
No, laws and theories are human constructs. We do not "discover" them, as if they are an inherent part of the universe. We ourselves produce them. Theories and laws in science are tools by which we understand the world around us better, not actually items that are a part of the universe. The fact that said theories and laws are imperfect at their job and don't always represent the universe very well is evidence enough of that.
As for the two items of “happening” and “evidence”, there’re some simple similarities in our ordinary life.
a. There is a drawing on a paper. If a person’s congenitally blind, you can’t persuade him that the drawing is made and how it looks like, what colors are in it and so forth. For him, persisting on inexistence of the drawing is his personal taste and correct, and you’re not able to show him more evidence, should you agree with him and tell the world that the drawing’s not existing?
You must not have touched paper very much; it feels different in spots that are drawn on versus parts that aren't, especially if you use crayon. Furthermore, we use machines to expand beyond the limits of our senses, and there are plenty that objectively detect color and patterns.
b. There’s a music being played. If a person’s congenitally deaf, you can’t persuade him that the music is composed and how it sounds like. For him, persisting on inexistence of the music is his personal taste and correct, and you’re unable to show him more evidence backing it, should you agree with him and announce to the world that the music’s not existing?
Deaf people can still detect sound, because you can feel the vibrations. They might not hear it the same way, but they can usually tell the beat of it, and how low or high pitched it is. How do you think Helen Keller, a woman who was both blind and deaf, learned how to speak if she could not make any distinctions concerning sound?
c. In a primitive tribe, there are broadcasting through a channel of frequency modulation in the air and data from internet via wifi in the air. People don’t have a radio to receive the FM signal and a smart phone etc. to use the wifi. If your devices are all broken, so you can’t persuade them to believe existence of those things, should you admit the radio broadcasting and the data of internet are lies?
Bring them to the technology if you can't bring it to them. There are ways to demonstrate that it exists, and honestly, they should NEVER believe you on your word alone. Think of all the crazy lies you could mix into the truth, or how inaccurate your own understanding could be. Just trusting someone to observe on your behalf alone is foolish.
Mathematical, physical, chemical laws can’t be created, and all of them were just discovered by people.
Made by people, they have inventors for crying out loud. Ever heard of Pythagoras? He invented the equations and rules by which right triangles are measured. Prior to him, people did not have standardized equations for that, but they still measured the sides of triangles, it just wasn't as efficient.
All the inventions and technologies we’re utilizing in every realm were brought to existence by the inventors and founders based on discovered scientific laws and already-existing matters and energies, adding all the dimensions already sensed and discovered by calculating and reasoning and the concept of hyperspace. No man has created anything from nihility up to now.
-_- we base scientific laws and theories upon observations, of course they aren't based upon nothing. However, that doesn't mean that there is a single law or theory that WE as a species have made that perfectly represents reality. In case you haven't noticed, theories and laws have CHANGED over time as our understanding of the universe has grown. The universe itself hasn't changed, but our understanding of it has.
Aren’t all the known science system too complex, accurate and smart enough to existing by chances?
-_- they don't exist by chance, we make them, we know we make them, and if our universe was entirely inconsistent and without pattern, it wouldn't be a universe in which life could develop. Consistency is not an argument for design (not to suggest that the universe is perfectly consistent to begin with, but it is in a general sense mostly consistent).
If there isn’t a creator who arranged all of them, why can they function and interact so logically?
-_- they don't. What makes a black hole logical, exactly? Why would a designer put them in a universe, or make a universe that produces them? Why is the majority of the matter in the universe dark matter that doesn't compose living organisms?
Besides, our science is just a tiny corner of the logical system. There are far more laws and existing things of the universe we humans haven’t known or even haven’t contacted.
There are laws and theories that will be devised in the future, but again, we make those, they aren't out there for us to find through a telescope, but rather an extension of our observations.
Why can’t we reason and conclude that all those things inside the infinite logical system as a whole has incredibly greater intelligence?
Lack of evidence for it.
We could say a computer program intelligent, we could say a smart mobile phone intelligent. There is already artificial intelligence that may evolve consciousness out soon. However, without the inventors’ and technicians’ works, do you expect them to be born by natural chances?
Irrelevant comparison; machines aren't alive, there are no natural processes that produce them, they do not reproduce to pass on genetic material and change through mutation. We make machines. The origin of machines has nothing to do with the origin of life. Absolutely nothing, it's like comparing apples to rocks.
Let alone human brains are far more complex than these. There’s a great blind zone in brain science. Scientists still don’t know a lot on human brain.
While it is the organ in our body with the most unknowns compared to the other organs, that does not mean that our understanding of brains isn't expansive. We know so much, that I could poke a part of your brain and, before doing it, predict your reaction to it (the organ feels no pain itself, so any pain would be from stimulating a part of the brain that processes pain). But hey, no shock that we understand the functions of the heart better than the brain, when all a heart does is pump blood.
The blind zone has been without explanation, and it should be an admission scientists don’t know how it works. It’s qualified being supernatural, isn’t it?
But we know that brains exist, and most of how they work, actually. If you make a thread about brain functions in the Physical and Life Sciences section, I'll gladly walk you through it. Furthermore, to be supernatural, you have to have no understanding at all of how it works, or if it even exists. Brains are not supernatural, they are a measurable part of nature.
Furthermore, the functioning of the universe itself, macro or micro, are far more complex than human brains. No inventor and technician for that?
Complexity makes for no indication of design. It never has. Arguments from complexity are fallacious from their very core. It is not the complexity of a computer that makes it designed, and a computer is no more designed than an arrow head (which is far less complex).
No. I disagree. In this simile, you assume the ultimate entity’s intelligent and controlling power are similar to human’s too. As I said above, human intelligence, sensations, comprehension etc. are too weak to compare to the ultimate entiy’s. Ours are so limited that could be negligible.
If we can never interact with the overall intelligence of the universe or measure that it exists, then the null hypothesis that it isn't there will always be the more logical conclusion. Always.
Don’t neglect the merits of a single cell or a single structure in side a cell. They just feels extremely tiny to the gigantic whole body of you, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important in the micro scale. Every disease, disability or even death of a man is caused by lots of his/her cells having problem or dead. If a cancer sell survives killing of a person’s immune system, it can grow to be a lethal organization and destroy the person as a result.
Never does a person die as the result of the life or death of a single cell. Even the cell that starts a cancer would never kill you by itself. Furthermore, you have failed to answer my question: do you notice the many cells within you that die? Heck, have you even noticed that the majority of the cells in your body aren't even human, but are symbiotic bacteria?
For a person, many functions of his body cells aren’t under control by his will deliberately. Most of the activities of body cells or body tissues are controlled by vegetative nerves, brainstem or cerebellum unconsciously or subconsciously. That’s the main reason why you can’t communicate and respect every cell of you. The relationship between a person’s body cells and his/her consciousness are too primitive to compare to the ultimate entity of all worlds. Once you’re able to do so, that will be a kind of supernatural power.
You could only claim that it wasn't comparable if you could actually measure this ultimate entity and thus make solid claims about how it functions. As it is, you honestly can't make these claims and expect anyone to care, since they are entirely baseless. At least I have the basis of existing living things as a comparative tool, if only for the sake of debate, since I don't believe in this ultimate entity to begin with.
We’re restricted in 3.5 dimensions( we’re passive in time dimension and we can’t control it). However, a dozen of dimensions has been proved existing, yet we’re not able to sense them let alone control them, while we’re just right within them. Scientists do expect to discover more and more dimensions following this trendency. In many scientific concepts, predictions or novels (many depictions of which became prototypes of modern theories or inventions), some people can command their body cells to cast magic-like supernatural powers. There’re numerous types of supernatural powers that can almost break every current limit of human body to change or control things. They can have sixth sense, seventh sense, eighth sense, and so on, continuing to add up. They can receive more signals you think inexistent increasingly. Those will be like your body parts, besides your brain, become more and more intelligent, and your cells become more intelligent and able to communicate and have more functions. The trend can go on until your cells have independent consciousness and free will, by then the relationship becomes nearer between mankind and the ultimate entity. By now, imagine that the ultimate entity has no limit at doing anything, except for those he thinks they’re bad to do and would break some good balances. And time won’t bother him, so he can achieve anything instantly. Every happenings in past and future are right before him at any moment. He also surpasses any limitation of the dozen of dimensions we found and surpasses any limitation of the other dimensions we haven’t detected yet.
There is a man that has a million US dollar reward for anyone that can demonstrate supernatural powers such as telepathy and the like, under controlled, experimental conditions. In over 30 years, no one has succeeded. Not one person. Some have certainly tried, all found to be frauds. Plenty called out to prove that they were really psychic as they claimed this way that have refused as well, even though they have nothing to lose if they are telling the truth, and so much to gain.
How about everything’s shapes and appearances? And the common sense of aesthetics backing them? Also, there’s the common sense of aesthetics in musics. We all know what melody and rhythm are fine, and what are harsh and disgusting. And there are triggers to different emotions inside arts and musics, and we all have common senses to them respectively. Without careful and accurate designs, how can all of those appear to be in an united, tremendous logical system? Does such a logical system still not count to be intelligent? Or at least I’d say they came from a great intelligence.
How we feel about music is purely opinion. Honestly, when I hear dub-step, it sounds like mostly random noises to me, but others consider it music. Things certainly don't seem united to me. We all exist in the same universe, but that's about it.
Bible has lots of evidence of God’s existence, his interactions with mankind and his words and inspirations to teach and guide mankind. We can’t created anything. We would only learn and utilize what God has created to build our science and better our lifes. God is the creator of all the basic elements and laws of all worlds, humans are one of the creations of him.
And the Hindu Vedas are full of evidence for their gods... seriously, the bible isn't evidence for anything other than the fact that some people in the past could write a mediocre novel over decades upon decades of time.
Why do some things have their burning points? Why do some things have their melting points, and some also have their sublimation points? Why are gravity related to substances’ masses? You know the values existing, but you can’t modify them. You can invent a new material, but you can’t set its attributes of corresponded value. The corresponded value will be distributed automatically according to the existing physical law assigned by God.
-_- we can make compounds with an intended function and chemistry. We can even force the noble gases, elements which normally would not form bonds, to form bonds if we want. We MADE the values, using observations of reality. However, no amount of consistency is evidence for a designer.
I’m sorry to hear your mental encounters. The religions you referred to were those heresies that promote people to suicide. Demons are preying relying on those traps.
Catholicism promotes suicide? News to me. I've also been a member of a Baptist church, a Methodist church, and a Nondenominational church. Little did I know they were all extensions of the Church of Euthanasia (sarcasm, but that organization is a real thing that encourages people to kill themselves).
Christians aren’t allowed to do that. A group of friends without correct worldviews and faith may boost some members to commit suicide. Many suicides are caused by bad relationships and bad treats from others. People should get true faith that refers to the principles of our worlds correctly.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... ha, you thought I had never aimed to be a Christian, that's funny.
Materialists tend to take care of themselves the best. The extremes of them may do anything that’s beneficial for themselves as long as it won’t cause a danger imperiling their lives to some serious extent. They can cherish their every enjoyment to some sick degree. Nevertheless they can be extremely indifferent to other people’s lives, pains or enjoyments, unless they need those people’s supports or helps. Some of them can risk others’ health or sacrifice others’ lives to bring themselves profits even with no guilty. I evidenced a few of those guys around in person or by news.
How can none of this describe a religious person? Why would I care about killing people if I thought I was sending them to heaven? Why would I care about hurting others if I was sure that there would be a next life, and that it would be better for them? Aside from actively deconverting people, there isn't much a person with your type of faith can view as a permanent disservice to other people.
Worrying about my future kid's height
In this thread of mine, the main point is as a future father, I’m trying to make sure whether I’ll be possibly to take extra troubles to my kid/kids. That’s out of a father’s responsibility, isn’t it? Even if I can’t avoid it, I must find a solution as early as possible to reduce the loss to the least. I didn’t say my height is already bad enough, and mine(192cm, about 6’4”) was acceptable and is better now( Average heights for youngsters having increased in my area). But for the places that have poor economics, low educated residents, who’re shallow, rude, blindly arrogant and self-centered, they tend to find ways to slash your dignity by any means, in order to appear your status is lower than them… As if they even enslaved you on their mind… Their aims would be any weaknesses on you that they can laugh at, look down upon or discriminate upon. Excessive tallness could easily be the target. If I should have a boy over 6’5” tall or a girl over 6' tall, I’m not kidding that I would have to take care of them with lots of extra efforts. The difficulty would become quite higher!
-_- the most difficult thing about having a tall child is higher caloric intake (need slightly more food, have a daughter if you are worried about that, sons eat a lot more thanks to higher metabolisms), and larger clothes (a bit more expensive, but since you and your wife are somewhat tall, I think your child could stand to wear a few hand-me-downs). That's about it. Unless your child is freakishly tall, getting near 7 feet or exceeding it, there aren't really any health consequences to worry about. No impact on intelligence either.
