Science can mislead just as religion can; both can lead to falsehoods and thus both can mislead.

[Falvlun]

And I am saying that your description is useless. You are simply making up a description, and slapping the label "supernatural" on it, with no explanation of why this must be so.

that's false because I clearly gave conditions that would satisfy what superntural is. One is not being from nature, another is not being limited by the laws of nature. Then I went on to give scenarios with using known laws of nature and simply came up with a scenario where it is violated.

I just wanted to comment on this part.

Ok, let's dissect the two conditions that you state could identify the supernatural.
1.Not being from nature
How can you know whether it is from nature or not? Isn't this criteria rather circular: A supernatural thing is something that is not from nature, and you will know that it is supernatural because it is not from nature. How is that telling us anything? You need some other description that let's us know what exactly something that is not from nature looks like.

2. Not limited by the laws of nature
Do you know all of the laws of nature? Does science know all of the laws of nature? Of the laws of nature that we know, how many of those are above questioning and revision? The answer to those questions is no, no, and none. Since the "laws of nature" are not complete or final, there are, I repeat, there are laws of nature out there that we have not even dreamed up yet. There are laws of nature that we have dreamed up that have crumbled in the test of time, and there will be other laws of nature that will crumble.

If a verifiable event happens that defies the laws of nature as they are now known, science will study this event and revise "laws" when an understanding-- or at least, an explanation-- has been discovered. Thus the "supernatural" event will actually be shown to simply being a hole in our knowledge, or a mistake in our reasoning. Nothing more or less.

So your second description doesn't help us either, since it is essentially based upon the idea that the known laws of nature are immutable and complete.

 

[Realist]

What experience lead you to believe that god exists?

One experience was that I used to experience several apparitions when I was a kid. As a young adult, I oftentimes looked back to critically examine the memories of those experiences just so I can understand more of what was going on and basically even after that, I still found no reason to rule those experiences as being unreal. Long story short, a family member bought a book that was from an occult or psychic affiliation. It was about dream interpretations. For some reason that book had a large snake portrait on it's cover. While that book was in the house, I saw several apparitions that resembled the family member who owned the book, but it wasn't her because these things were much smaller, whoever they were. Anyways, what convinced me it wasn't just a vivid dream, was that these things used to leave drawings on the wall, which I used to get accused of doing, and I never made those drawings on the wall. I figured if this was a dream, then there wouldn't be any outside sign of these things and yet there were. I once thought well maybe someone else drew these things but then again I was living with an adult family member and my grandma. It's unlikely they would draw on the walls which is something a child would do, and especially FALSELY blame me for it. My grandma did not play, she was very strict and disciplined me plenty. So I concluded, these things left drawings on the wall as a sign of their presence.

There are 2 or 3 more experiences I had involving someone telling me something during a Church service that I knew no one else could've known. They told me about some thing that I did in private and this person was known for having spiritual gifts, like the gift of prophecy. So I believe that God revealed her about these things I was doing. I'd rather not mention what it was, because it's too personal and not right.

How can you honestly believe something that you don't
know?

That's why it's called belief. As I mentioned before, beliefs don't have to be logically justified. We all somewhere down the line have those types of beliefs; this is not just limited to religious folks.

 

[Realist]

I just wanted to comment on this part.

Ok, let's dissect the two conditions that you state could identify the supernatural.
1.Not being from nature
How can you know whether it is from nature or not? Isn't this criteria rather circular: A supernatural thing is something that is not from nature, and you will know that it is supernatural because it is not from nature. How is that telling us anything? You need some other description that let's us know what exactly something that is not from nature looks like.

I referenced a definition of "nature" earlier in this thread that mentioned nature as being a force in the "material" world. So if nature is just comprised to the material world by definition, then immaterial or spiritual things would be outside of the domain of nature, and by definition that's supernatural.

2. Not limited by the laws of nature
Do you know all of the laws of nature? Does science know all of the laws of nature? Of the laws of nature that we know, how many of those are above questioning and revision? The answer to those questions is no, no, and none. Since the "laws of nature" are not complete or final, there are, I repeat, there are laws of nature out there that we have not even dreamed up yet. There are laws of nature that we have dreamed up that have crumbled in the test of time, and there will be other laws of nature that will crumble.

If a verifiable event happens that defies the laws of nature as they are now known, science will study this event and revise "laws" when an understanding-- or at least, an explanation-- has been discovered. Thus the "supernatural" event will actually be shown to simply being a hole in our knowledge, or a mistake in our reasoning. Nothing more or less.

So your second description doesn't help us either, since it is essentially based upon the idea that the known laws of nature are immutable and complete.

Well if you continue down that line of reasoning, you may as well say that science is not certain about how anything works, if all you're going to do is just call all of my examples as being unknown laws of nature. I await the time when scientists think more like you, so that when I tell them about talking snakes and talking donkeys as mentioned in the Bible, they won't laugh at me and tell me that donkeys or snakes can't speak which presumes they are certain about how the physiology of snakes and donkeys and the laws of nature that guide them.


I think the 3rd condition that I offered would help explain this in general. That is that a supernatural occurrence or whatever can not be explained away as a law of nature. Otherwise, it wasn't supernatural to begin with. If nothing else, God would serve as the best example for the supernatural. That is because He's not from nature since if He created it, that means He was outside of it before it was made. Also, because of His omnipotence. That means that He's not necessarily bound to any law of nature. With a law of nature, only certain things are possible, that is whatever that law says is possible for the situation it applies to, but when it comes to omnipotence, virtually all things could be made possible.

 

[Realist]

The problem is that you're assuming it's a question of proof or lack thereof. It's not. It's like me showing you an apple and me calling it an apple, and you telling me to prove it. Proof is a nonsensical thing in that case.

The fact is that the supernatural is simply things we don't understand. Once we understand it, we say it's perfectly natural.

I wouldn't ask you to show me proof that it was an apple, since there's only one meaning or label for it. Whereas, our disagreement is due to there being more than one classification or definition for the word "nature" and that's why this is not as clear cut as your apple analogy. So are we to just pick-and-choose which definition to accept? No. Bottom line is, you can't say your definition actually applies to how the universe is (which is going beyond just definition but also *asserting* how reality is), unless you're willing to prove that statement of fact or assertion, just like any other statement of fact would have to be proven.

If naturalism actually applies to how the Universe is, then you're correct, there is no supernatural. If the non-absolute definition of "nature" applies to how the Universe is, then there's room for the supernatural.

 

[Falvlun]

I referenced a definition of "nature" earlier in this thread that mentioned nature as being a force in the "material" world. So if nature is just comprised to the material world by definition, then immaterial or spiritual things would be outside of the domain of nature, and by definition that's supernatural.

I'm not arguing against your definition in this instance. I'm merely asking you to provide a description of a supernatural event so that I will know one when I see it. (Well, technically, you claimed you had provided such a description, and I'm asking you to back up that claim).

Ok, assume that the supernatural exists. How do you tell it a part from that which is natural? How do you know that it is not natural? What are the criteria?

A meaningful description of "supernatural" can't simply be "that which is not natural" because it is begging the question. Describe to me "that which is not natural".

Well if you continue down that line of reasoning, you may as well say that science is not certain about how anything works, if all you're going to do is just call all of my examples as being unknown laws of nature.

Science only offers the best possible explanation given our current level of knowledge and understanding. Nothing in science is 100% positively set-in-stone. It accepts the fact that, as our knowledge continues to grow and evolve, so will our theories.

That said, it takes a very rigorous process to become a new piece of knowledge in the body of science, and even more rigorous process to become a theory. This is not a haphazard "We will simply believe this until something better comes along". It is "We will believe this because all current evidence and knowledge points to this".

So, in a way, you are correct in saying that science is not certain about how anything works; but you are wrong to assume that this uncertainty indicates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the universe.

I await the time when scientists think more like you, so that when I tell them about talking snakes and talking donkeys as mentioned in the Bible, they won't laugh at me and tell me that donkeys or snakes can't speak which presumes they are certain about how the physiology of snakes and donkeys and the laws of nature that guide them.

Once again, the problem with your examples is that there is no verifiable proof that they actually happened. If I were to bring a talking donkey to a scientist, and they thoroughly studied the donkey, verifying that this actually was a talking donkey and not some sort of trickery, and then they had another lab of scientists check it out and verify their results, and another lab after that, and then their results were published in a peer reviewed journal for the rest of the world to test as well, I can assure you, the world of science would not be laughing at me.

On the otherhand, thankfully, if I just go up to a scientist and tell him that 3,000 years ago, somebody wrote that donkeys talk, and therefore it must be true, the scientist will not go and re-write all the theories of science based upon this extremely tenuous heresay.

Another point: There is no "law of science" that says that donkeys can not talk. There isn't even a "law of science" that says animals in general can't talk. They certainly can communicate through vocalizations, which isn't a stretch to see as a precursor to "talking". Furthermore, recent work with dolphins and whales indicate that they might have a rudimentary precursor to language, complete with different dialects among families.

It seems to me that you might be under the impression that there are more "laws of nature" than there actually are. The term actually rankles me a little bit; it sounds so presumptuous.

I think the 3rd condition that I offered would help explain this in general. That is that a supernatural occurrence or whatever can not be explained away as a law of nature. Otherwise, it wasn't supernatural to begin with.

I think if you re-read this you would be able to tell me what was wrong with it.

Just in case you don't feel like it, here it is: If I claimed I had a duck, and you saw it and recognized it as a goose, could I then rebut your claim by saying "No, it can't be a goose, because then it never would have been a duck." The point is, it never was a duck to begin with. It always was a goose.

If nothing else, God would serve as the best example for the supernatural. That is because He's not from nature since if He created it, that means He was outside of it before it was made. Also, because of His omnipotence. That means that He's not necessarily bound to any law of nature. With a law of nature, only certain things are possible, that is whatever that law says is possible for the situation it applies to, but when it comes to omnipotence, virtually all things could be made possible.

To tell the truth, I am not positive that, if God existed, he wouldn't be supernatural. Maybe you are right there. The problem is that it is not certain that God does exist, so your best example is about as good as proving mythological beasts exist, simply because someone thought up a unicorn.

I'm also not so sure that simply because God created the universe that means he couldn't be a part of nature. Perhaps he is the most natural thing of all, and all of nature then flows from his naturalness.

Lastly, in regards to omnipotence, I really don't see what the issue is with having a law of nature say that "If you are omnipotent, you are allowed to ignore all of the other laws."

 

[Realist]

Ok, assume that the supernatural exists. How do you tell it a part from that which is natural? How do you know that it is not natural? What are the criteria?

A meaningful description of "supernatural" can't simply be "that which is not natural" because it is begging the question. Describe to me "that which is not natural".

I'll give you two points to establish the meaning of supernatural, although I've already given you one. One is in principle and the other is a specific example. The supernatural is defined in terms of what's natural. If the laws of nature really exist despite scientists not being able to accurately understand them, then they'd still be operating in nature. Now if a "real" law of nature was violated, that is what would be supernatural. The only thing about this point is that you wouldn't know when and how this happens because you're not there to see it. Although this is just the principle since we don't have any specific references (other than my God example) to an "authentic" law of nature, although they do exist, eventhough we don't know one accurately enough to know how it works. Let me just say now you also wouldn't be able to call an "authentic" law of nature being broken as being another unknown or misunderstood law of nature since an "authentic" law of nature is an actual, real, or true law of nature. It would also be a contradiction since then you'd be saying that something natural broke a law of nature. For example you couldn't call both someone flying (like Superman) and a "real" or "true" law of gravity as being natural. That's contradictory.

As for the specific example, God is a supernatural being since He's an immaterial being. So one way to distinguish between the natural and supernatural is having something that exists immaterially in reality. Not to say that He has been proven to exist but this is just a definition and example of if He existed. Also using the definition I mentioned earlier for "nature" only applying to the "material" world, an immaterial thing would be outside of nature since it's not material. Ironically, this would probably be the easiest one to be able to see God so you could notice Him if He made some appearance. I'd tell Him to first materialize and then dematerialize which is similar to what some people claim that ghosts do.
God's omnipotence is also an example of the supernatural, that is because that means by definition He has no limits, and the laws of nature by defintion are limits for some thing that's of nature, so they can't apply to a limitless being. Therefore, the laws of nature don't apply to God, and thus makes Him supernatural.

Edit: adding to immateriality being being one way of identifying the supernatural. Not all supernatural phenomena have to be immaterial, because lets say Jesus walking on water was supernatural. That's clearly an observable event, not an immaterial one. So just to specifiy, everything that exists immaterially is supernatural, and in addition, some things that can be seen can be supernatural as well.

Science only offers the best possible explanation given our current level of knowledge and understanding. Nothing in science is 100% positively set-in-stone. It accepts the fact that, as our knowledge continues to grow and evolve, so will our theories.

That said, it takes a very rigorous process to become a new piece of knowledge in the body of science, and even more rigorous process to become a theory. This is not a haphazard "We will simply believe this until something better comes along". It is "We will believe this because all current evidence and knowledge points to this".

So, in a way, you are correct in saying that science is not certain about how anything works; but you are wrong to assume that this uncertainty indicates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about the universe.

Well in what area does science "know" some thing? I ask that because if they truly knew how something works, then that means they couldn't be wrong. If science is able to know some things, then surely they'd be able to know "some" laws of nature.
Besides that I'll also add, if scientists are uncertain about the laws of nature, then they couldn't even tell if something was even natural or part of the laws of nature. Furthermore, you wouldn't be able to judge if something was supernatural or natural since you don't "know" about not one law of nature. I say that because the laws of nature don't exist only when we know about them, they're already existing regardless of that. So who's to say that a law of nature that we didn't know of, was or wasn't broken? How could you call Jesus walking on water as being an example of natural or supernatural without first being able to "know" of a law of nature? I see two possibilities. One it was done within an unknown law of nature, or two it was done breaking an "authentic" law of nature.

Also, I have years of experience speaking with scientifically inclined folks including atheists. When I tell them about talking snakes in the Bible, they don't just laugh and try to belittle at me and say, well there's no evidence for it. The overall comments from them go as far as say it's completely impossible which presumes they have "accurate" knowledge of what's possible for snakes which would constitute as a law of nature applying to snakes.

Once again, the problem with your examples is that there is no verifiable proof that they actually happened. If I were to bring a talking donkey to a scientist, and they thoroughly studied the donkey, verifying that this actually was a talking donkey and not some sort of trickery, and then they had another lab of scientists check it out and verify their results, and another lab after that, and then their results were published in a peer reviewed journal for the rest of the world to test as well, I can assure you, the world of science would not be laughing at me.

On the otherhand, thankfully, if I just go up to a scientist and tell him that 3,000 years ago, somebody wrote that donkeys talk, and therefore it must be true, the scientist will not go and re-write all the theories of science based upon this extremely tenuous heresay.

Another point: There is no "law of science" that says that donkeys can not talk. There isn't even a "law of science" that says animals in general can't talk. They certainly can communicate through vocalizations, which isn't a stretch to see as a precursor to "talking". Furthermore, recent work with dolphins and whales indicate that they might have a rudimentary precursor to language, complete with different dialects among families.

According to the Bible, a donkey and snake spoke in a language that a human can understand, so that is not the same thing you're referring to.

In response to your point about proof, you have to remember that a definition doesn't have to apply to things that really exist. They can be for things that don't exist or that we don't know if they exist, but while still serving the purpose to at least describe something so we'll have an idea of what or who it is.

 

[Realist]

I think if you re-read this you would be able to tell me what was wrong with it.

Just in case you don't feel like it, here it is: If I claimed I had a duck, and you saw it and recognized it as a goose, could I then rebut your claim by saying "No, it can't be a goose, because then it never would have been a duck." The point is, it never was a duck to begin with. It always was a goose.

Well I agree here. The only thing is that there may be a claim of something supernatural that we wouldn't identify as natural, or worse, we may even classify it as unexplained, or mystery. IN your analogy, this would be like, me calling something a duck, and it actually was a duck which means it couldn't be explained as a goose.

To tell the truth, I am not positive that, if God existed, he wouldn't be supernatural. Maybe you are right there. The problem is that it is not certain that God does exist, so your best example is about as good as proving mythological beasts exist, simply because someone thought up a unicorn.

I'm also not so sure that simply because God created the universe that means he couldn't be a part of nature. Perhaps he is the most natural thing of all, and all of nature then flows from his naturalness.

I think you're applying the wrong definition of nature here and confusing it with the other meaning of nature, which is means the characteristics of a person or thing.... Nature is a force or system governing the world. And with that comes "laws" to guide and regulate the world. Based on the first definition I mentioned, God can be said to have a nature which would basically mean He has characteristics to His being.

Lastly, in regards to omnipotence, I really don't see what the issue is with having a law of nature say that "If you are omnipotent, you are allowed to ignore all of the other laws."

According to the definition of omnipotence you can. Omnipotence is defined as having limitless power. So that means, someone having that power wouldn't be limited by the laws of nature since they can do what they want.

 

[Imagist]

One experience was that I used to experience several apparitions when I was a kid. As a young adult, I oftentimes looked back to critically examine the memories of those experiences just so I can understand more of what was going on and basically even after that, I still found no reason to rule those experiences as being unreal. Long story short, a family member bought a book that was from an occult or psychic affiliation. It was about dream interpretations. For some reason that book had a large snake portrait on it's cover. While that book was in the house, I saw several apparitions that resembled the family member who owned the book, but it wasn't her because these things were much smaller, whoever they were. Anyways, what convinced me it wasn't just a vivid dream, was that these things used to leave drawings on the wall, which I used to get accused of doing, and I never made those drawings on the wall. I figured if this was a dream, then there wouldn't be any outside sign of these things and yet there were. I once thought well maybe someone else drew these things but then again I was living with an adult family member and my grandma. It's unlikely they would draw on the walls which is something a child would do, and especially FALSELY blame me for it. My grandma did not play, she was very strict and disciplined me plenty. So I concluded, these things left drawings on the wall as a sign of their presence.

I still don't follow, even if I believed you. How does this prove the existence of a god? It would seem that this proves the existence perhaps of spirits, but not gods. In fact, the logical extrapolation from the experiences you claim would be to join the occult, not Christianity.

There are 2 or 3 more experiences I had involving someone telling me something during a Church service that I knew no one else could've known. They told me about some thing that I did in private and this person was known for having spiritual gifts, like the gift of prophecy. So I believe that God revealed her about these things I was doing. I'd rather not mention what it was, because it's too personal and not right.

How specific was what she said? There are psychic training courses you can take to learn how to tell people things about themselves that they will perceive as insightful but which are common to nearly everyone or are obvious from their gender, age, or other easily-visible aspects.

That's why it's called belief. As I mentioned before, beliefs don't have to be logically justified. We all somewhere down the line have those types of beliefs; this is not just limited to religious folks.

Beliefs had better be justified if you're going to use them for moral guidance, political actions like voting, charitable choices (to whom you give your money), or anything else that religion causes people to do.

 

[Realist]

I still don't follow, even if I believed you. How does this prove the existence of a god? It would seem that this proves the existence perhaps of spirits, but not gods. In fact, the logical extrapolation from the experiences you claim would be to join the occult, not Christianity.

You're right. This experience doesn't prove God. It is evidence of a supernatural event. So if anything, it at least established in my judgement that a supernatural existed, and that at least gives some opened the door to a god existing, since He's also supernatural.
By the way, what I saw in this experience weren't spirit beings but these things appeared to be physical because they had skin and resembled one of my family members. There were 3 of them at most probably. These things were like a hybrid, like the Sphinx (the creature with the head of a human but the rest of it's body like a lion) in Egypt. They had some type of animal-like body except that their face were more human like, resembling that of one of my family members. I know this is bizarre and makes it harder to believe but that is what I saw.

How specific was what she said? There are psychic training courses you can take to learn how to tell people things about themselves that they will perceive as insightful but which are common to nearly everyone or are obvious from their gender, age, or other easily-visible aspects.

This woman was a pastor actually and she didn't tell me specifically what I was doing in detail but she referred to something that would be involved in what I was doing. She probably didn't want to go into details herself because it was in the middle of a church service with others around, but from what she told me, it convinced me that she had a clue or was giving me a clue so I'd know what she was referring to. I wouldn't have even call this insightful, rather it was embarassing.

Beliefs had better be justified if you're going to use them for moral guidance, political actions like voting, charitable choices (to whom you give your money), or anything else that religion causes people to do.

Well it really depends on your standards in this case. I could understand if it was based on complete blind faith, but although my religious beliefs aren't scientifically validated but they aren't based on blind faith neither. My experiences and millions and perhaps billions of others serve as a sign to each one of us that there is something valid or real to our religious beliefs. Besides that, moral guidance, political actions, charitable choices are based on cultural factors and not proof. There is no "objective" or scientific basis to prove which moral standards are right, or who to vote for, or who to give to. That doesn't mean that they're false neither and maybe truth or false or proof don't have to apply in these situations. They just may be one of those things in life that are just based on preference and our judgement.

 

[doppelganger]

How specific was what she said? There are psychic training courses you can take to learn how to tell people things about themselves that they will perceive as insightful but which are common to nearly everyone or are obvious from their gender, age, or other easily-visible aspects.

Cold Reading

 

[Realist]

Cold Reading

Thanks for that reference. I'll read into that when I can. That does seem to fit exactly what Imagist was referring to what psychics can do regarding giving readings that appear to be insightful but are really common to everyone.

 

[Willamena]

A myth just involves the condition of being unreal...

Okay, I contest that. What is your evidence?

 

[Realist]

A myth just involves the condition of being unreal...

Okay, I contest that. What is your evidence?

The very definition of myth.

Myth: 4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
myth definition | Dictionary.com

Although there is another definition that also mentions some myths as not being able to be determinable as far as if they're real or fiction.

 

[Falvlun]

Realist, I'm still digesting your last response, and I must say that this conversation has been fun, as well as illuminating for me. Thanks.

I did want to comment on your signature (which was, afterall, what this thread was supposed to be about).

A person who thinks everything is natural is just as unreasonable as an unreasonable superstitious person who thinks everything is supernatural. -me

Regardless of everything we have been discussing, re what is natural and what is supernatural, I don't think this claim makes logical sense, simply based upon the intuitive definition of supernatural.

Supernatural literally means "above nature". The dictionary defines supernatural as "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

If someone claims that everything is supernatural, this means that they believe that the natural doesn't exist at all. If the natural does not exist, then the "supernatural" must also cease to exist, since it is defined by nature existing. There must be a nature for something to be "above nature".

Thus, while it is logically possible for someone to believe that everything is natural, it is incoherent to claim that only the supernatural exists.

 

[Magic Man]

I wouldn't ask you to show me proof that it was an apple, since there's only one meaning or label for it.

No, there's not. You could call it a red thing, or un pomme or una manzana or a flibge. Why call it an apple? Because that's what I call it.

Whereas, our disagreement is due to there being more than one classification or definition for the word "nature" and that's why this is not as clear cut as your apple analogy. So are we to just pick-and-choose which definition to accept?

Yes, that's the point.

If naturalism actually applies to how the Universe is, then you're correct, there is no supernatural. If the non-absolute definition of "nature" applies to how the Universe is, then there's room for the supernatural.

It's not about "if" it applies. It does. Everything is in the universe, or nature. Everything is natural. If you want to call certain things supernatural, go ahead.

 

[Magic Man]

This woman was a pastor actually and she didn't tell me specifically what I was doing in detail but she referred to something that would be involved in what I was doing. She probably didn't want to go into details herself because it was in the middle of a church service with others around, but from what she told me, it convinced me that she had a clue or was giving me a clue so I'd know what she was referring to. I wouldn't have even call this insightful, rather it was embarassing.

So, essentially she gave you your horoscope. As Imagist said, you can fairly easily learn things that apply to the majority of people but seem very personal. For instance, I saw an Oprah show recently (yes, my wife made me watch it, and she's not even an Oprah fan). It was about mothers and the truths about being a mother. They had several mothers who've written books and the whole crowd was mothers. The point of the show was that pretty much all mothers have moments where they don't feel like they love their kids, or when they do things like put on a diaper in the car to pee because the kids are asleep in the back and if she stopped, they would wake up, etc. Every mother they talked to had these confessions and thought they were the only one who did those things or felt those ways. The goal of the show was to show that all mothers go through these things, and that they're not alone.

My point here is that I could take this info and make a non-specific comment to almost any mother about something like this and make it sound like I somehow "knew" more about this particular individual than I really do. It's not that hard.

Now, if she told you "You slept with Mary Smith 4 times over the course of a month while your wife was away", that might be something. Obviously not accusing you of anything like that, it's just an example of being specific enough.




Well it really depends on your standards in this case. I could understand if it was based on complete blind faith, but although my religious beliefs aren't scientifically validated but they aren't based on blind faith neither. My experiences and millions and perhaps billions of others serve as a sign to each one of us that there is something valid or real to our religious beliefs. Besides that, moral guidance, political actions, charitable choices are based on cultural factors and not proof. There is no "objective" or scientific basis to prove which moral standards are right, or who to vote for, or who to give to. That doesn't mean that they're false neither and maybe truth or false or proof don't have to apply in these situations. They just may be one of those things in life that are just based on preference and our judgement.[/quote]

 

[Realist]

So, essentially she gave you your horoscope. As Imagist said, you can fairly easily learn things that apply to the majority of people but seem very personal. For instance, I saw an Oprah show recently (yes, my wife made me watch it, and she's not even an Oprah fan). It was about mothers and the truths about being a mother. They had several mothers who've written books and the whole crowd was mothers. The point of the show was that pretty much all mothers have moments where they don't feel like they love their kids, or when they do things like put on a diaper in the car to pee because the kids are asleep in the back and if she stopped, they would wake up, etc. Every mother they talked to had these confessions and thought they were the only one who did those things or felt those ways. The goal of the show was to show that all mothers go through these things, and that they're not alone.

My point here is that I could take this info and make a non-specific comment to almost any mother about something like this and make it sound like I somehow "knew" more about this particular individual than I really do. It's not that hard.

Now, if she told you "You slept with Mary Smith 4 times over the course of a month while your wife was away", that might be something. Obviously not accusing you of anything like that, it's just an example of being specific enough.

This pastor did make a specific reference to the situation I was involved in. When I mentioned earlier that she didn't get specific into the details that meant she didn't tell the whole story or go into it too much. But she did make one specific reference to the situation. This is difficult to explain because I don't want to reveal what the situation was.

Lets use your example so I can describe what the event was and what in effect the pastor told me. You used the scenario, "You slept with Mary Smith 4 times over the course of a month while your wife was away", that might be something.

What this pastor told me was just as, "what you're doing in your bed, stop doing it". I'd say that is still quite good even if she didn't go into any further detail and I only think she didn't do that because it would've been embarassing to me since other people were around. As I mentioned before she gave me one clue word that definitely played a part in what I was doing so in my judgement, she didn't have to tell me "specifics in detail" like what exactly I was doing in the bed although it would've been much more convincing, but given the circumstances and the people around I think that's why that didn't happen.


I remember another prophecy or revelation another pastor told me, he told me over the phone that He'd pray with me so that I'd do good on a major test I was to take in school. During the prayer he stopped and told me you have a some problem in your eye and remarkably so, I had been having problems with one eye hurting a lot for some reason. I didn't think much of it at first because I thought it was not really a problem but just temporary allergies or dry eyes. He prayed for me about that as well but the problem is still there till today. I went for an eye exam weeks ago for and an eye doctor told me I may have a sinus infection which is not an eye problem but it can effect the eye. So it turned out I did have something effecting my eye which was remarkably 99.7% what a pastor told me, although it wasn't my eye causing it and instead it may be a sinus infection. I have to have a CT scan done so I can definitely confirm that though, which I haven't got done yet.

 

[Realist]

Realist, I'm still digesting your last response, and I must say that this conversation has been fun, as well as illuminating for me. Thanks.

I did want to comment on your signature (which was, afterall, what this thread was supposed to be about).

Thanks. These types of conversations with reasonable and fair-minded people help me understand how my views are good or wrong. So thanks for the insight as well.

 

[Realist]

No, there's not. You could call it a red thing, or un pomme or una manzana or a flibge. Why call it an apple? Because that's what I call it.

Isn't "un pomme" French for "an apple"? That is also not the same as my point of course since both words mean the same (i.e. an apple), just in different languages whereas my point presents two totally different meanings.

It's not about "if" it applies. It does. Everything is in the universe, or nature. Everything is natural. If you want to call certain things supernatural, go ahead.

At this point, I'm not sure if you don't understand the purpose of me asking you for proof or if there's close-mindedness going on here. You keep telling me what "naturalism" means which has nothing to do with my point. I know what naturalism means, what I want to know is if it applies to reality. Just because a word is defined, that doesn't mean it applies to reality as I've told you many times before. The only way to know if it applies to reality is if you can test it or prove it in which case "naturalism" has not been proven or any other absolute statement for that matter. You've also failed to prove which definition of the word "nature" is correct, whether it be the absolute one or the non-absolute one. The most we have proof for is that laws of nature exist, but we don't have proof for them being absolute or applying everywhere in existence. If you can't show proof, then this conversation is over with you, because I'm not the one to keep arguing on proof-less, and untested claims, *ESPECiALLY, when the person doesn't want to admit that their claim is unproven but yet wants to "misleadingly" use it as if it is.*

 

[Magic Man]

Isn't "un pomme" French for "an apple"? That is also not the same as my point of course since both words mean the same (i.e. an apple), just in different languages whereas my point presents two totally different meanings.

Yes, "un pomme" is French for "an apple" and "una manzana" is Spanish for it, and a flibge is something I made up.

Just like "Natural" is my language for describing anything we experience, and "supernatural" is your language for describing some of those things.

At this point, I'm not sure if you don't understand the purpose of me asking you for proof or if there's close-mindedness going on here. You keep telling me what "naturalism" means which has nothing to do with my point. I know what naturalism means, what I want to know is if it applies to reality. Just because a word is defined, that doesn't mean it applies to reality as I've told you many times before. [/quote]

See, you'd have a point here, if you were talking about literal theism versus atheism. There you can say "Does the idea that there's some intelligent being overseeing all of the universe apply to the universe?". Here, it's not a question of whether it applies. It does, just as "un pomme" applies to that particular red (or green) fruit. You might disagree with the use of that language, but it still applies. That's why proof is irrelevant.