Gyrannon
Agnostic Necromancer
I'd be happy to reconsider if you can provide an event that is suoernatural.
If I could provide proof of his existence, I wouldn't be agnostic.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'd be happy to reconsider if you can provide an event that is suoernatural.
For the natural sort of theology is the speculation in the defining nature differently?But all of them are speculative.
Would you mind elaborating?Too many aspects to define his form of being. I would not contradict when i say both.
That does seem sort of odd to me, as if that should be the only way to think of god, that gods spliced into the very definition of supernatural.I think all versions of God are supernatural according to those definitions.
Even a natural god wouldn't be much of a god without at least some sort of omniscience. Otherwise it would be quite a powerless universe and a product of its own limitations.I really see two types of pantheism. The first is where matter/energy is everything. This is what Richard Dawkins calls 'sexed-up atheism' and this would be one of the rare times I agree with him. The second type of pantheism (which is the type I believe; Advaita) holds that God/Brahman is pure consciousness and the universe is a great thought-form of this God/Brahman.
That reminds me of ancients and how they might consider what we do today sorcery.We have a tendency to think "supernatural" means anything we can't do, but that doesn't mean OTHERS can't do them naturally, like flying or seeing ultraviolet or ...
Ok, ya. I'm not clear how that relates to my post though?Even a natural god wouldn't be much of a god without at least some sort of omniscience. Otherwise it would be quite a powerless universe and a product of its own limitations.
Well I included two definitions and neither are sufficient? Do you think its possible for things to exist outside of any possible understanding and beyond the laws of logic and reason?I can't make sense of what you mean by "supernatural".
The first definition speaks to our current scientific understanding; I've never seen anyone use the word "supernatural" in this way.
The second definition speaks to the "laws of nature." Since we're still figuring out the laws of nature, it seems to me that this definition needs either omniscience or unjustified assumptions.
Its in response to "sexed up atheism". I am not sure relabeling an atheistic outlook would necessarily be theistic. There would have to be more to it.Ok, ya. I'm not clear how that relates to my post though?
Outside of any possible understanding? Sure, but unless you have a time machine, you aren't in any position to say what "any possible understanding" is.Well I included two definitions and neither are sufficient? Do you think its possible for things to exist outside of any possible understanding and beyond the laws of logic and reason?
This makes sense thanks. When some paint god as something that must be outside of logic and reason, there would be no reason we should be able to even think up such a deity. Surely if we can think up the deity it is well within comprehension.Outside of any possible understanding? Sure, but unless you have a time machine, you aren't in any position to say what "any possible understanding" is.
And anything that's "outside of any possible understanding" is, well, outside of any possible understanding... IOW, nothing is known about it. This means that anyone making claims about it is just making stuff up: yes, maybe stuff exists beyond everyone's knowledge, but then it's beyond YOUR knowledge too, so you're in no position to make any claims about it.
If that's your definition of "supernatural", then we can stop talking about the supernatural now, because there's nothing more to say. If it's supernatural, we can't talk intelligently about it, and if we can talk intelligently about it, it's not supernatural.
"Beyond the laws of logic and reason"? No. If there's stuff happening in the universe that is incompatible with our understanding of logic and reason, then this is a sign that our understanding of logic and reason is incomplete and there's more to the laws of logic and reason that we realize.
How can an intangible un-measurable thing even cause anything in the physical? It seems if something is causing the brain and physical body to do something then it can be detected and measured.Just as a soul is not tangible The Supreme Soul is also not tangible , measurable or observable , this is why I think we call Him Supernatural or Metaphysical.
The 'Father Soul' is also a reserve of all powers who refuels and is experienced in the last days when souls have drained out all their energies and become bankrupt.
This seems to go on the premise that the soul and/or consciousness is supernatural, which is fine to believe. Not trying to ask on how it operates or anything but just the fact that it "operates on the physical being" essentially means it is detectable one way or another.The soul is the conscious , if one could determine and explain how exactly it operates on the physical being , we would no longer call it Metaphysical or Spiritual, it would be one or more of the natural sciences.
Religious leaders , scriptures , philosophers and NDE have talked about the presence of a soul or conscious .
I'm not sure we would be looking for blood, tissues samples or anything. I think a lot of folks feel that god is spiritual in nature and not necessarily a guy in the sky waiting to reward or punish based on fellowship. I suppose if God were similar to some alien being creating things and taking off, then this being could be harder to find than a god that is more like an ether force of some kind.If its a Deity, then yeah that being is Supernatural.
Also, how do you examine a being that is by definition impossible to examine? What could Science look for when hunting for God? Its not like we can get a blood, tissue, or urine sample from him.
And say God has complete & utter control of Science & don't want to be found via Science? Sure, we can disobey him (Free Will an all), but I doubt we can alter the laws of the universe just to prove or disprove the existence of God.
My Opinion: Unless God simply shows up and yells to the entire world "Yes I'm real, talk about something else!" the only way to prove that God is real, is to somehow die, and somehow come back to life WITH irrefutable evidence back from death.
Other than that, this God debate could last all the way to the extinction of the human species.
How do you figure?If its a Deity, then yeah that being is Supernatural.
"By definition"? What definition?Also, how do you examine a being that is by definition impossible to examine? What could Science look for when hunting for God? Its not like we can get a blood, tissue, or urine sample from him.
So then belief in God is necessarily unjustified foolishness.And say God has complete & utter control of Science & don't want to be found via Science? Sure, we can disobey him (Free Will an all), but I doubt we can alter the laws of the universe just to prove or disprove the existence of God.
My Opinion: Unless God simply shows up and yells to the entire world "Yes I'm real, talk about something else!" the only way to prove that God is real, is to somehow die, and somehow come back to life WITH irrefutable evidence back from death.
Other than that, this God debate could last all the way to the extinction of the human species.
Do you think that all theists are necessarily irrational? Because that's the implication of your argument.
"By definition"? What definition?
For the natural sort of theology is the speculation in the defining nature differently?
You used the word "imagine" a deity as natural/un-natural. Though if someone is seeing a god is natural, is that just a relabeling of nature in your view? Since your saying a more naturalistic view is at least more sound.Could you rephrase you question, please? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
You used the word "imagine" a deity as natural/un-natural. Though if someone is seeing a god is natural, is that just a relabeling of nature in your view? Since your saying a more naturalistic view is at least more sound.
I can see that. It would depend on whether there is a significant difference in how someone is describing nature itslef. In which case I do see where speculation would come into play.Thanks for the clarification. I think that in some instances, seeing god as natural could be a mere re-labeling of nature as "god". But it would depend on precisely what one meant by "nature" and "god". For instance, would it be a mere re-labeling of nature as we commonly understand it if someone were to say something along these lines, "While not beyond nature, God is an emergent property of nature", or "The universe is sentient, and its sentience is God"?