Does 'supernatural' mean 'imaginary'?

[blü 2]

Science stops where the Bible does, the beginning, creation of everything as we can possibly ever know it.

Be careful of absolute statements. Time has a way of showing they're wrong.

 

[Grandliseur]

‘outside reality’ – by definition there’s no such real place. so there can only be an imaginary one.

I see, and what do you then call eventual life in a multiverse that resides outside our own universe? Because, that is what things are about. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, as is said; you cannot claim that the multiverse might be real, and at the same time reject the claim that God and his angels live in a reality that is not ours.
Since another universe than ours in a multiverse might have natural laws totally different than ours and is such that we cannot verify its existence, the word natural doesn't quite do the job for us for whatever goes on in that reality.

. . .supernatural’ means ‘things that cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature.'

Let me use a stupid example to illustrate something. If I pour a cup full of coffee, that is natural and a common event. What now if the coffee was seen to be poured as if by a person, exact same thing as previously mentioned, but nobody is around who pours it (of course it is being seen) - would that qualify as a supernatural event in your book?
What I am trying to do here is to quantify, qualify, define what a supernatural event would have to be. It would have to affect some natural object in our reality but doing so in a way that we consider impossible. Is that more or less correct? Please feel free to improve on my definition.
Would you consider the resurrection of Lazarus, dead for four days, a supernatural event if it happened?

(I may not share the conclusions of others here)
While I do this, please think about the following and what to call them:
1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg - Wikipedia
UFOs of Alexander the Great?

The material I wanted is no longer. Instead, please comment on the things happening in this short video;

 

[DavidFirth]

That story is found in the NT, where there are six accounts of it. None of those accounts is by an eye-witness, or is contemporary withing 20 years, or is independent. All six accounts contradict the other five in various important ways.

That evidence is simply not credible.

We have videos of statues of Ganesha drinking milk, hailed as a miracle by the faithful , but only the faithful think they show anything supernatural. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection as a fact of history isn't even 1% of that quality.

Opinion noted, and, as usual, rejected.

 

[DavidFirth]

Circular reasoning.

Opinion noted.

 

[blü 2]

what do you then call eventual life in a multiverse that resides outside our own universe?

If it's derived from hypotheses consistent with physics, I'd call the existence of a multiverse an hypothesis or conjecture. Life in such a place, though, is drawing a much longer bow.

If it's derived from stories and folktale, I'd call it stories and folktale.

you cannot claim that the multiverse might be real, and at the same time reject the claim that God and his angels live in a reality that is not ours.

First, I don't claim the multiverse is real. I note it as an hypothesis.

Second, the multiverse is a speculation derived from consideration of the physics, The closest I can recall religion getting to that was at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century, when spiritualism was in full flower and the popularization of Riemann's notions of spaces of n dimensions led some to claim that God was a being whose superiority to us was based on his existing in more dimensions than we do. (Edwin Abbott's charming little novel Flatland is from 1884.) But my own view is that no one wants to worship a superscientist. To be successful, a god has to be unexplained, mysterious, answering prayers by magic, and so on.

What now if the coffee was seen to be poured as if by a person, exact same thing as previously mentioned, but nobody is around who pours it (of course it is being seen) - would that qualify as a supernatural event in your book?

I'd immediately think of CG, like the spoon stirring the saucepan in Molly Weasley's kitchen. But even if it happened in my study, and gave me a fright, when I settled down I'd be looking for natural explanations, starting with, Am I deluded?

What I am trying to do here is to quantify, qualify, define what a supernatural event would have to be.

If it's an event demonstrated to have occurred outside of imagination in our universe, then it's real, and therefore its explanation will be real.

 

[blü 2]

Opinion noted, and, as usual, rejected.

And, as usual, with no reasoned reply.

 

[Sapiens]

Opinion noted.

That is not an opinion, that is a fact, your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[blü 2]

I)
1561 celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg - Wikipedia
UFOs of Alexander the Great?
[...] please comment on the things happening in this short video;

Suitably weird, but a whole lot of explanations are vastly more probable than mischievous supernatural beings with nothing better to do. A skilled prankster, for example. A group hoax. CG. The information is simply insufficient.

And the blurry image moving out of the hotel room while floating off the ground ─ if it's not a hoax or video defect, why would it wish to leave, avoiding the guard? If it wished to leave, why did it have to use the door? And it must have some degree of reality to be captured on camera. Very human in design, that effect.

(As for those 'gleaming silver shields' zipping through the air above Alexander the Great, try this.)

 

[Grandliseur]

To be successful, a god has to be unexplained, mysterious, answering prayers by magic, and so on.

While the Biblical God always shall be beyond what we understand, he does not answer by magic.
This is where your 'natural' definition and mine may differ, slightly. Since God is the creator (my belief system) all things are natural to him, whether our universe is a hologram or a different universe from his; in either case, he created it as different from his reality. This means (to me) that while his reality includes ours, ours does not include his. While I am getting old and forgetful, in mathematics you have this:

Where A is a subset of B and B is a superset. (Subset - Wikipedia) Thus having a reality of God's being a superset is totally logical, if that were how things work.

This would also mean that beings from B would be able to access A while beings from A would be isolated from B.

I'd call the existence of a multiverse an hypothesis or conjecture

Here, you somewhat avoid the question asked. If it existed, hypothetically, would things therein be natural or what?

like the spoon stirring the saucepan in Molly Weasley's kitchen. But even if it happened in my study

In the video I left for you, which I would like comments on if possible, that kind of thing is seen happening. There is nothing mysterious about it if one accepts that beings exist that are invisible to our eyes. Then the explanation is all 'natural' and logical. The only question that remains is then, why would these beings be doing what they are!

But, this presupposes that one accepts that such beings do exist. (they don't have to be ghost, and in my book that is not what they are.)
To me, all things about God, angels, and such are real, they are just not part of our reality - as far as where they live. It is not a matter of being real to me. It is a matter of 'were things caused by organisms belonging to our universe?' or, were they caused by beings belonging to another reality, i.e. the supernatural.

 

[Grandliseur]

Suitably weird, but a whole lot of explanations are vastly more probable than mischievous supernatural beings with nothing better to do. A skilled prankster, for example. A group hoax. CG. The information is simply insufficient.

And the blurry image moving out of the hotel room while floating off the ground ─ if it's not a hoax or video defect, why would it wish to leave, avoiding the guard? If it wished to leave, why did it have to use the door? And it must have some degree of reality to be captured on camera. Very human in design, that effect.

My understanding as it is, permits me to know what the motives behind such activity is. This, however, demands a belief in the Biblical explanations, in the existence of angels, fallen angels. You are welcome to it, should you want it. Since I think it beyond your interests I do not include it now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science stops where the Bible does, the beginning, creation of everything as we can possibly ever know it.

Science doesn't stop: It acknowledges its limits in knowledge and works to erode those limits. Just because we don't know today doesn't mean we won't know tomorrow.

In terms of what we both believe beyond that- I allow both natural and creative forces as possibilities, I have no need to banish one to allow the other to prevail

Knowledge has pushed god and the supernatural out of so many things, why is their reason that anyone should be surpised when we learn how the universe was created, and just like illnesses and comets and earth quacks, god had nothing to do with it?

 

[blü 2]

My understanding as it is, permits me to know what the motives behind such activity is. This, however, demands a belief in the Biblical explanations, in the existence of angels, fallen angels. You are welcome to it, should you want it. Since I think it beyond your interests I do not include it now.

I think that's appropriate.

As I see it, 'supernatural', 'angelic', 'demonic' and so on are all at the bottom of the list of possible explanations. Virtually any other explanation is more probable than a supernatural one (or if you prefer to avoid that word, any 'angelic', 'demonic' or 'divine' one).

The logic is the same as before: if the events portrayed were authentic reports, not involving human error, deceit or humor or technical faults or natural illusions, then they'd have occurred in reality and so would have a real explanation.

 

[Grandliseur]

I think that's appropriate.

As I see it, 'supernatural', 'angelic', 'demonic' and so on are all at the bottom of the list of possible explanations. Virtually any other explanation is more probable than a supernatural one (or if you prefer to avoid that word, any 'angelic', 'demonic' or 'divine' one).

The logic is the same as before: if the events portrayed were authentic reports, not involving human error, deceit or humor or technical faults or natural illusions, then they'd have occurred in reality and so would have a real explanation.

It seems you want the explanation. Here it is:

When satan masquerading as the original serpent in the Garden of Eden deceived her, he told her that they would never die, though God had told them they would die.

Genesis 3:4 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “YOU positively will not die.
God's promise: Genesis 3:19 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”​

Since that time, by means of erroneous church doctrine that teaches that the dead either go to heaven or hell, this lie has been continued, likewise, the fallen angels under satan's control (there are others not under his control) keep perpetrating the myth that death is not really death, but that people live on as spirits, or whatever. Thus, the fallen angels have an agenda, namely through ghostly visions, trickery, moving of objects without human interference, to make people believe in ghosts or spirits.

This is why you find nowadays - on business cams, security cams, ghostly events happening at times. In this way, the myth of life after death is continued, strengthened. Death as taught in scripture is simply Hamlet's 'to be or not to be', and when you die, you ain't no longer. (poor phrasing perhaps) Death is destruction, nothing left, except God's database records of us.

Thus, there is a real explanation. It is just not what can be accepted by many as real.

​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is why you find nowadays - on business cams, security cams, ghostly events happening at times.

I have never seen a convincing bit of evidence to come from camera recordings, white noise, or any other similar electronic "communicating."

 

[blü 2]

It seems you want the explanation. Here it is:

When satan masquerading as the original serpent in the Garden of Eden deceived her, he told her that they would never die, though God had told them they would die.

Careful with the text here. God said, You will the die the same day. And the snake said, No you won't. And the snake was correct.

Thus, the fallen angels have an agenda, namely through ghostly visions, trickery, moving of objects without human interference, to make people believe in ghosts or spirits.

I don't think I can make a polite reply to that, so I'll say nothing.

 

[Grandliseur]

I have never seen a convincing bit of evidence to come from camera recordings, white noise, or any other similar electronic "communicating."

The video in the link is fairly good, particularly from about 2:17 on. But, it is up to you.

 

[Grandliseur]

You will the die the same day. And the snake said, No you won't. And the snake was correct.

Here it comes down to how people interpret the 'day' that God mentioned.
Scriptural evidence shows that the days mentioned in chapter one of Genesis are at least 7000 years each, if not much longer. Psalms says that a 1000 years is a one day to God. Thus, Adam died at our 930 years, or just before God's day in Psalms ran out.

Another way of viewing it is very simple, the walking dead. Once a mortal wound, damage has been inflicted, God has shown in some places that he considers the person dead since the damage inflicted assures death. But, you are into interpretation here, and as I said, (to you?) only through a Harmonious Interpretation of All Scripture, (OT & NT) can scripture be understood as intended.

 

[blü 2]

Here it comes down to how people interpret the 'day' that God mentioned.
Scriptural evidence shows that the days mentioned in chapter one of Genesis are at least 7000 years each, if not much longer.

In the Garden story it makes no sense for Yahweh to say, 'You'll die at some time in the next 7000 years.' Adam and Eve were always going to die: Yahweh says very specifically that he's expelling them from the Garden to stop them from eating the fruit of the Tree of Life and thus living forever. (Not a syllable about disobedience, Fall of man, sin, original sin, death entering the world, anywhere in the story.)

only through a Harmonious Interpretation of All Scripture, (OT & NT) can scripture be understood as intended.

Only through paying strict attention to the words of the text can we hope to know what the authors intended to say. Wishing meanings on their words long after they were written, meanings that are wholly alien, novel and external, is to pervert the text.

If you can do that, you can rewrite the Gallic Wars and have Julius Caesar invading Tahiti.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The video in the link is fairly good, particularly from about 2:17 on. But, it is up to you.

Honestly, I've seen better and more convincing, things that looked less staged and less possibly something else (like the second one, which could have easily been on a cruise ship that a large enough wave slammed into).

 

[DavidFirth]

That is not an opinion, that is a fact, your opinion is irrelevant.

God bless you.