Does 'supernatural' mean 'imaginary'?

[blü 2]

Just like Bigfoot..

Or the Higgs boson ─ real after we've had a satisfactory demonstration of its objective existence.

Not before.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Or the Higgs boson ─ real after we've had a satisfactory demonstration of its objective existence.

Not before.

right, so not Bigfoot, multiverses, astrology, string theory, ghosts, global warming, the Loch Ness monster, or Darwinsim

 

[blü 2]

right, so not Bigfoot, multiverses, astrology, string theory, ghosts, global warming, the Loch Ness monster, or Darwinsim

You don't really think you can dump hundred of millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere every year for serious decades and not get a greenhouse effect, do you? You're just making a joke like your one about Darwinism, right?

Or is this your faith in magic again?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus actually rose from the dead. He isn't imaginary.

Where is he now?

Unsupported and absurd claims, which (if true) would be supernatural.

Being labeled "dead" and then "not so much dead" happens all the time. Check any ER.

Read the entire New Testament. Plenty of eyewitness testimony there.

No one except maybe one apostle was there to witness said "death" and no one saw him wake up either.

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

No one was writing the bible at Creation.

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

I stopped watching shortly after it said it wasn't edited and then proceeded with multiple edits.

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).

This promo for Carrie was fun too

If, however, you notice that Adam lived 930 years, and that God wanted them to fill the earth with their offspring, it makes little sense for God to kill Adam right off

Making people out of dirt only works once?

That would make it awful difficult for the two to have children.

There are a few women in the bible with kids from magic pregnancies.

The only reason this is being explained - is to give you are reason that is actually simple for why fallen angels try to make us believe that there are dead humans, ghosts, spirits - who at times interact with people.

Was the bible lying when Dead Sam spoke to King Saul?

in my belief system, it would be an invitation to the demons, fallen angels, that kind of would say, I want to know you, be friends, and that I do not want.

Your faith in God can't easily take care of them?

If we can truly re-create creative intelligence, which we are a long way off doing, then we will have proven that it can be done... WITH creative intelligence.

So we're too dumb to create until we do, and then it proves intelligence was involved?

A complete and perfect fossil history for every animal?

Even though my mom loves genealogy, I'm sure there are gaps in our information. That must mean I was just poofed up in the world, no?

cmon, be honest would you hang this on your wall?

If I worked for Texaco?

Definitely. There are stories of people being dead for hours or even days and then they somehow become alive again.

Magic not required, though.

And conveniently, deaths that have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being reversed. You don't see Jesus resurrecting Headless John, do you?

 

[DavidFirth]

Where is he now?


No one except maybe one apostle was there to witness said "death" and no one saw him wake up either.


Magic not required, though.

1. He sits at the right hand of the Father until His Father makes his enemies His footstool.

2. You're wrong strong. Matthew, John and Peter were there and all 3 saw and ate with the resurrected Christ.

3. Magic would be required for you but God doesn't need it. His word is sharper than a 2 edged sword and can separate bone from marrow.

You clearly are a Christian hater. There were plenty before you and there will be plenty long after you're dead.

 

[blü 2]

1. He sits at the right hand of the Father until His Father makes his enemies His footstool.

Aren't those barbarians cute! They put their feet on their enemies to show them who's boss! I wonder how many get nasty bites on their ankles?

2. You're wrong strong. Matthew, John and Peter were there and all 3 saw and ate with the resurrected Christ.

That depends on who you believe.

In Mark Jesus appears to the disciples at table, but they're in Galilee.

In Matthew they go to Galilee but no one eats,

In Luke Jesus appears at table and eats fish and perhaps bread, but they're in Jerusalem.

In John he joins them in a locked house, apparently in Jerusalem, twice but no one eats anything.

In Acts he doesn't go to Galilee at all.

Paul doesn't know.

God doesn't need it [magic]. His word is sharper than a 2 edged sword and can separate bone from marrow.

Endlessly barbaric. But still cute ─ like a Victor Mature sword-and-sandals movie.

You clearly are a Christian hater.

You can't pick 'em, can you. You're being called out on your nonsense. Hating Christianity doesn't come into that.

 

[DavidFirth]

Aren't those barbarians cute! They put their feet on their enemies to show them who's boss! I wonder how many get nasty bites on their ankles?
That depends on who you believe.

In Mark Jesus appears to the disciples at table, but they're in Galilee.

In Matthew they go to Galilee but no one eats,

In Luke Jesus appears at table and eats fish and perhaps bread, but they're in Jerusalem.

In John he joins them in a locked house, apparently in Jerusalem, twice but no one eats anything.

In Acts he doesn't go to Galilee at all.

Paul doesn't know.
Endlessly barbaric. But still cute ─ like a Victor Mature sword-and-sandals movie.
You can't pick 'em, can you. You're being called out on your nonsense. Hating Christianity doesn't come into that.

That depends on who you believe.

That sums up the argument quite nicely.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You don't really think you can dump hundred of millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere every years for serious decades and not get a greenhouse effect, do you? You're just making a joke like your one about Darwinism, right?

Or is this your faith in magic again?

Actually nature has been doing that long before humans, natural respiration is by far the greatest source of CO2 emission on the planet

the Earth's atmosphere is around 5.5 quadrillion tons. The tiny amount of CO2 we have added comes to a little over 1 extra molecule in 10000 of air

if you believe that this can trap a significant amount of extra heat, you would have to argue that with even most climastrologers

The entire theory relies 100% on simulated feedback loops involving primarily water vapor, which is what actually drives Earth's GH effect.


The belief that bad weather is caused by humans angering nature, is the oldest superstition known to mankind, switching scary masks and dances for scary computer sims does not make the belief any less scientifically illiterate.

 

[Fool]

Paraphrasing my dictionary, ‘(the) supernatural’ means ‘things that cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature.'

‘Nature’ is the place beyond the lens of your eye, where everything with objective existence is found, the same thing as the realm of the physical sciences.

The same thing as ‘reality’, indeed.

Out there in reality we find no gods, spirits, ghosts, souls, demons, familiars, vampires, fairies, not even the headmistress of Hogwarts.

And we can give no useful meaning to the idea ‘outside reality’ – by definition there’s no such real place. so there can only be an imaginary one.

What have I missed?

What real things cannot in principle be explained by the laws of nature? Imaginary things, fine, but real things?

And where is ‘outside of reality’ except in the imagination?

numinous, something that comes from the mental because there is something unnatural occurring. reality is distorted because it isn't obeying what is known vs what isn't understood.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Actually nature has been doing that long before humans, natural respiration is by far the greatest source of CO2 emission on the planet

the Earth's atmosphere is around 5.5 quadrillion tons. The tiny amount of CO2 we have added comes to a little over 1 extra molecule in 10000 of air.

A small amount of iodine in your body chemistry is necessary for good health. Up that just a little, and the health suddenly becomes not so good.

Statistics really is one way to not quite tell the whole truth.

 

[Nous]

The laws of nature covering the entities of biochemistry, their formation and interactions, are what cause the brain, a completely biochemical thing, to choose what acts it and its body will perform

What "laws of nature covering the entities of biochemistry" are you referring to? Name them.

How do these laws of nature know about and choose between the available options?

And how do these laws of nature exercise their power? How do they cause things to happen? (Where are the laws?)

Therefore, the existence of the laws of nature (such as the law of conservation of energy) are "supernatural" according to your definition in the OP. Right?

As I said previously, if my hypothesis that spacetime is a property of energy be correct, that spacetime exists because energy exists, then we have no need to hypothesize supernatural laws, rather only laws of nature which are properties of energy under the circumstances of our universe, as yet unspecified but within the bounds of possibility.

Say what? The laws of nature are "properties of energy"? What does that mean? Cite your source.

Again, in the OP you said that "(the) supernatural’ means ‘things that cannot in principle be explained according to the laws of nature." So exactly what law of nature explains the existence of the law of conservation of energy? I've never come across any such claim in any scholarly work.

And if there were some law of nature that explains the existence of the law of conservation of energy, what law of nature explains the former law of nature?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A small amount of iodine in your body chemistry is necessary for good health. Up that just a little, and the health suddenly becomes not so good.

Statistics really is one way to not quite tell the whole truth.

tell that to the IPCC!

Nobody on either side scientifically, believes our tiny contribution of CO2 can trap a significant amount of heat. That's just what is strongly insinuated in the IPCC 'summary for policy makers' for journalists, politicians and celebs

You are smarter than that!

 

[Nous]

What are the laws of nature? List them.

I'm curious as to why you'd ask that? Is it an attempt to shut down debate through sheer bluster?

My question asking what are the laws of nature is "an attempt to shut down debate through sheer bluster"? How did you come with that?

Obviously, according to Blu's definition, in order to know what is "supernatural," one must know what are the laws of nature and what they supposedly explain. Don't you want to know what is supernatural and what is not?

What cannot be explained outside of that compendium of knowledge might (I repeat, might) just be supernatural, and again it might not. It might be explainable by natural laws which we have not yet discovered.

Would you say that today that the existence of the law of conservation of energy is explained by another law of nature?

Whether you would or wouldn't, isn't that still going to lead to an infinite regress? As noted above, what would be the law of nature that explains the law of nature that explains the existence of the law of conservation of energy?

 

[blü 2]

The belief that bad weather is caused by humans angering nature, is the oldest superstition known to mankind, switching scary masks and dances for scary computer sims does not make the belief any less scientifically illiterate.

Global warming is a fact. The belief that humans have nothing to do with it and that the now-overwhelming consensus of scientists with expertise in that field is wrong, is the ultimate dumb self-serving fantasy.

Of course, anti-science is the trademark of the creationist.

 

[blü 2]

That depends on who you believe.

That sums up the argument quite nicely.

Your dining-with-Jesus statement scored 1.5 out of 6, or 25%. Still, anything above 1 out of 6 is pretty good for a statement about the resurrection.

 

[blü 2]

numinous, something that comes from the mental because there is something unnatural occurring. reality is distorted because it isn't obeying what is known vs what isn't understood.

Ah, the mighty DC-4 Skymaster! Wunderbar! The Berlin Airlift in New Guinea!

At least the Cargo Cult was reasoned partly from evidence. That puts it ahead of some sects I could name.

 

[gnostic]

I see the supernatural as interesting for storytelling and myths, but in reality, I find them to be far-fetched, unrealistic.

Supernatural is more of fantasy than reality.

 

[blü 2]

What "laws of nature covering the entities of biochemistry" are you referring to? Name them.

As I said to you back in #39,

we observe consistencies of behavior in aspects of the material universe and by observation we express those consistencies as well-founded formulae of general application, called 'laws'. [...]​

As for the particular instances [in this case those relevant to biochemistry], I leave you to list them for yourself.​

How do these laws of nature know about and choose between the available options?

You attribute knowledge to a law of nature? In what sense do you say gravity knows that things fall downwards?

And how do these laws of nature exercise their power?

All of them are about how energy is transferred, or held in statis, in particular circumstances. Those transfers of energy are from regions of higher energy to regions of lower energy (except particular cases in QM where the transfer of energy is initiated without a causal movement of energy, giving randomness within parameters). One way to think of them is as natural selection of the most efficient energy transfer.)

So in chemistry, for example, free oxygen atoms will in general bond in pairs, because when they interact with each other, that's generally the most efficient resolution of the energy states brought to that interaction. (Not always, of course. Up there in the ozone layer where eg UV is ambient, the most efficient resolution of the energy states involved is often O3 ... and so on.)

And as it is with the formation of O2 molecules, so it is when RNA reproduces DNA and so on.

How do they cause things to happen? (Where are the laws?)

One example is with the oxygen above. Or take a game of billiards: we have generalized formulae (laws) for the collision of the balls (spheres of equal radius and mass on a horizontal plane), and the transfers of energy and angles of deflection that result, so that ─ and this is how we say the laws apply ─ if we feed accurate data into that formula we'll get accurate results.

Say what? The laws of nature are "properties of energy"? What does that mean?

It means that energy acts differently under different circumstances: is, in my hypothesis, like Anaximander's apeiron, the universal substance, what matter, and each of the particles and sub-particles of matter, consist of, and what gives rise to the forces (strong weak EM gravity and whatever else may be out there); may be the enabling force of the dimensions (and the energy of the vacuum may suggest this); and so on. Hence all the regularities we observe in nature which we express as 'laws of nature' are, in this hypothesis, properties of energy.

So exactly what law of nature explains the existence of the law of conservation of energy? I've never come across any such claim in any scholarly work.

My hypothetical explanation is above.

And of course an hypothesis that's not busted is sufficient to keep the potential explanation of the origin of the laws of nature, within nature ie not supernatural. Which is where this part of the discussion began.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Global warming is a fact. The belief that humans have nothing to do with it and that the now-overwhelming consensus of scientists with expertise in that field is wrong, is the ultimate dumb self-serving fantasy.

Of course, anti-science is the trademark of the creationist.

I would love to hear your 'scientific understanding' of global warming

 

[blü 2]

I would love to hear your 'scientific understanding' of global warming

Since I have a very strong suspicion that you'll read it exclusively from the PoV of denying it, I won't bother.