marduc

Supernatural

1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

what we are discussing, under definition 1, could very well, and most likely would be explained by natural law, although this natural law is as of yet (and perhaps will always be) unknown to us. Just because we cannot explain it with our limited grasp of natural law does not mean it cannot be explained by natural law.

In fact, lets revisit what i quoted of you above:

You would agree that light is natural and adheres to natural laws I would assume?

If in fact The theory of relativity is true (and it seems to be holding its own on this account) than at the speed of a photon of light traveling - within the "laws of nature"- time stops, that photon of light is eternal, existing outside of the constraints of time, is it supernatural?

As you were called on quite early on in this argument, you are arguing semantics, as well as throwing in a heap of appeals to authority. There is no advancement, support or development of your position here, it is just the same circular logic hinging on the same faulty definition of the word supernatural.

now if you really want to use def. #2: -of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.- say so, instead of obfuscating that this is the working definition you are trying to prop up on itself to declare. viola! it is attributed to god, therefore it is attributed to god!

__________________
Cops say legalize drugs! ----->Law Enforcement Against Prohibition<----- click the link to see why

Tashah

Science does not say whether this occurrence was unique, inherited, or cyclical.

__________________

roderic

That's all you got from years of debating? lol
I recommend you inform yourself what atheism is - the wiki blurb is quite good, and about.com has a largish section with articles.
It is quite rare that an atheist claims to be 100% certain that no gods exist, even Dawkins does not go this far.

Tucker Case

But you didn't give her respect and admiration for her accomplishments. You actually disparaged them when you said:

That's definitely disrespecting her credentials without actually having any knowledge of her credentials.

roderic

I agree this far.

There isn't necessarily anything outside the known universe, it could be a cyclical metamorphosis of energy into matter and matter into energy, in which case the universe in time, the before and the after are different states of the same 'being'.

To get philosophical rather than religious or scientific:
The concept of time is difficult to grasp, one cannot say something outside time always exists, "always" is a reference to time, so is "existence" - the whatever something which exists as the universe, the universe has come from or the universe is part of, does not "exist" before or after, it is non-existent, yet it is not "nothing".

And we do not know if there are other 'dimensions' in which there is formless, non-material existence in something akin to time, this is the stuff religions and 'supernatural' beliefs are made of.

misterman

Yeah, well, you should have worked on it a little longer, it kinda sucks.

misterman

Why?

It has?

But what brought into existence the thing that brought everything into existence?

Fine, it's supernatural. Yet you started this out with a claim about science. You can't use science to prove the supernatural exists.

Tucker Case

I was in a hurry because I had no time at the time.

misterman

Yeah, well, you can have some of our 14 billion years if you want.