Proof that the supernatural exists

[Incariol]

Sigh...

People used to think that thunderstorms were supernatural. Were they supernatural at that time or have they always been a natural occurrence regardless of our perception?

Speaking of that...

Amazon.com: The Way of Kings (The Stormlight Archive) (9780765326355): Brandon Sanderson: Books

In other news, I think we should clone Brandon Sanderson.
​

 

[Assyrian]

If the law of gravity is that things fall, why doesn't the moon fall down?

 

[duordi]

We were discussing what people thought about gravity early in Man-kinds early history.

The Moon, Sun and stars were magic (supernatural) by my definition because they were not understood. ( There were some who followed the stars and could predict the the stars movements called the magi. Magi looks a lot like magic and is probably where the word magic comes from. )

Gravity was understood from the perspective that it was predictable and repeatable even though there were no mathematical formulas describing it yet. So people would not consider it supernatural (Magic).

This is interesting. Maybe I should change the definition for supernatural from (understood) to predictable.

We do not understand Gravity but it is not considered supernatural because it is predictable.

Duane

 

[duordi]

To God they were natural occurrences because He understood them.
To the people of the day they were supernatural because they did not understand them.

Duane

 

[Assyrian]

predictable like chaotic systems?

 

[duordi]

Due to some discussion about Gravity which brought up some good points I have decided to change my definitions.
It was pointed out by several of you that gravity is not considered supernatural but it is also not understood completely.
It is however understood well enough to be predictable.
Also because Supernatural laws change to Natural laws as soon as they are predictable both must be logical.


I have decided to change my definitions from ............

"Natural laws are physical laws that are understood."
"Supernatural laws are laws which are not understood."

To the new definitions ............

"Natural laws are physical laws that are logical and understood well enough to be predictable."
"Supernatural laws are laws which are logical but not understood well enough to be predictable."

So in mans early history by this definition the sun would be considered to be Natural and lightning would be considered to be Supernatural both being governed by logical laws.

I may still have some flaws.

Any more suggestions?

Duane

PS. for all of you who helped, thanks

 

[duordi]

Please define what you mean.

Duane

 

[philadiddle]

Instead of changing your definitions why don't you try to understand what those words actually mean?

 

[duordi]

The goal is to build on past knowledge, not to get comfortable with stagnation.

The definitions we had are only a beginning and we must try to improve them.
That is the difference between a computer and a person.
The computer can only regurgitate knowledge.
A person can create knowledge.
I am a person.

Duane

 

[Greg1234]

We were discussing what people thought about gravity early in Man-kinds early history.

The Moon, Sun and stars were magic (supernatural) by my definition because they were not understood. ( There were some who followed the stars and could predict the the stars movements called the magi. Magi looks a lot like magic and is probably where the word magic comes from. )

I would disagree.

As you can see the image above is a clock. This is how time progresses if you factor in Creationism. In Creationism, man begins with the most basal form of existence (God). All phenomena spawn from this form of existence and as a result God is a part of everything. Progress is the endeavor to understand everything. To understand everything, one needs to ultimately be in contact with the most basic form of reality. Hence progress ultimately results in that same underlying basis (God). And this is how it proceeded and continues to proceed.

The clock above has man beginning at 12 moving clockwise. At 1 he is considered extremely ancient. At 2 very ancient at 3 somewhat ancient. But this is in reference to time, not ability. Based on proximity and thus ability, 2 corresponds with 10 on the clock and 1 with 11. "Primitiveness" is not 1 and 2 nor is it 10 or 11, but around 5 and 6 and perhaps 4 and 7.

As you can see the above is a ruler. This is how time progresses in Darwinism. Man pops up in some jungle completely ignorant at 1 and he's working his way to 500,000 or something. Hence at 6 or at 30, in fact, any number which is more than 1 is better than 1. With 1 being ancient times, materialists may see themselves (at six) as the epitome of excellence and as long as we're moving away from 1 we are progressing. Hence the onslaught of theories which automatically gains credence due to their relative position to its "primitive" antithesis.

"Magic" is not an insult in Creationism. Higher science always seems like magic to the primitive. It's only a mark of derision if you already conform to materialism where magic is supposedly to be replaced by the "more advanced" materialism. "Ancient texts" is not an insult in Creationism either. In fact, go even further back, go as far back as you want. The "ancient" argument only gains potency after you conform to Darwinism.

We are not advancing towards materialism. Creationism is simply one challenge to materialism since there are more people who are willing to draw a line at that point. Materialists meanwhile are wondering why their credit line was frozen. You will find alot of information regarding the true nature of advancements and you may even see that the ancients were right. But first you would have to penetrate the thick veil of starved theories and hypotheses about the inner workings of reality before you get to any real substance.

Gravity was understood from the perspective that it was predictable and repeatable even though there were no mathematical formulas describing it yet. So people would not consider it supernatural (Magic).

This is interesting. Maybe I should change the definition for supernatural from (understood) to predictable.

We do not understand Gravity but it is not considered supernatural because it is predictable.

Duane

Are you using this def. of natural- "3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical: the natural course of events"

 

[duordi]

I have divided everything into two conditions.

Supernatural is unpredictable.
Natural is predictable.

Philosophically I did not consider original meaning through the ages.

My intention was to define supernatural because without a definition it is
difficult to have a conversation about it.

I enjoyed your movie because of the way a logical accepted idea was extrapolated to its logical conclusion.

In the same way I have extrapolated supernatural and natural to their logical conclusion.

I have found that it is not acceptable to change original perceptions. Just like the movie you posted.

I think the time scale thing was either a lot of text about something very simple or way over my head.

Duane

 

[Assyrian]

I have divided everything into two conditions.
Supernatural is unpredictable.

What happens if people repent and trust in Jesus?

Natural is predictable.

What's the weather going to be in London at 11am the 6th of October? Will panda Mei Xiang in the Smithsonian National Zoo get pregnant this year?

 

[Greg1234]

I have divided everything into two conditions.

Supernatural is unpredictable.
Natural is predictable.

Philosophically I did not consider original meaning through the ages.

My intention was to define supernatural because without a definition it is
difficult to have a conversation about it.

I enjoyed your movie because of the way a logical accepted idea was extrapolated to its logical conclusion.

In the same way I have extrapolated supernatural and natural to their logical conclusion.

I have found that it is not acceptable to change original perceptions. Just like the movie you posted.

I think the time scale thing was either a lot of text about something very simple or way over my head.

Duane

As given in texts, death (a physical law) was birthed by sin (transgression of divine law). So what then is physical law? In the example given above we can see that physical law and divine law are somewhat relative to each other. If death (a physical law) is the result of a fall (separation from certain divine attributes) would it not be better to say that there are laws which govern the combination and interaction of certain divine attributes? And that physical law is only the result or the shadow of certain divine combinations? When defined as such we could say that there are physical laws. But the way you described it is almost as if physical laws are a combination of certain physical attributes and that physicality exists as a law unto itself, not relative to anything, thus excluding the divine. Based on those conditions, that's why I said that there are no natural laws. If physical law is defined as a (lesser) variant of a specific supernatural law, and "physical law" is a term used to simply classify a certain combination of divine attributes within a law, then there are physical laws.

If your definition was used then a resurrection is a physical law and death is a physical law. Not only that but it also supports the idea that physical law is a law encompassing all of reality and has variable attributes, some of which give birth to the divine and some of which do not. I would say that this is backwards and the divine is first.

Can we define the supernatural as unpredictable? A miracle can be seen as a breaking of physical law or a further fulfillment of the whole law. What are God's promises if not laws? The resurrection wasn't unpredictable and in fact He predicted it on multiple occasions. "I am such, hence I can do such." Predictable, but the laws of physics? Hardly. More likely that it is predictable because it is law. Don't do this or you will surely die. Then came sin.

 

[theFijian]

I have divided everything into two conditions.

Supernatural is unpredictable.
Natural is predictable.

This brought a previous thread to mind and after a bit of digging I found it...How to Recognize God?. Same tosh, different thread.

Then, I say, the supernatural aspect of God is unrecognizable. We would see only disorder.

 

[duordi]

You got me.

 

[duordi]

All laws are from God and are of the same category for him. This does not belittle the supernatural or Devine just because God can understand something does not mean you can. The Bible says that God is beyond our understanding which means we will always have the supernatural causing a permanent existance of the supernatural for us.
Can we define the supernatural as unpredictable? A miracle can be seen as a breaking of physical law or a further fulfillment of the whole law. What are God's promises if not laws? The resurrection wasn't unpredictable and in fact He predicted it on multiple occasions. "I am such, hence I can do such." Predictable, but the laws of physics? Hardly. More likely that it is predictable because it is law. Don't do this or you will surely die. Then came sin.
I ecountered this in a previous post. I can ask God to change His universe and He may grant my request. Is it predictable? Yes. Do I understand it? Not personally. That is why I changed the definitions from the word understand to predictible.
By the new definition (predictable) the resuraction would be a natural law by the old definition (understand) the resuraction woudl be a supernatural law. I am not sure which one is more or less acceptable for you.
Duane