• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

There is no such thing as the concept of supernatural

A

akrunner88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
2,171
Reaction score
970
Location
Pennsalvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

That depends upon how one defines "nature." If we're limiting that definition to just the our universe, and the laws of physics which govern it (as most scientists do, at present), then "God" could quite easily exist outside of those bounds. In that case, he would be "supernatural."
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking of, and have an image of, an elephant.

How do propose we measure that elephant.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The concept exists. However, the concept might not be meaningful.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

ok so that leaves us with the made up and the not proven and the natural
 
The real problem with the word “supernatural” is the implication that it exists outside any physical rules/laws/principles and therefore never needs to be understood or explained on that basis. The entire concept was invented for exactly that purpose, so the early priests never needed to answer difficult questions.

In reality, if it turns out there is some different place where things exists which can act against the laws of physics as we currently understand them, that would just change our understanding of those laws. It’s absolutely no different to any other fundamental scientific discovery humans have made throughout history. Nothing about the existence changes, we just gain a different understanding of it. For example, we once thought atoms were the smallest indivisible form of matter but we later learned they could indeed be broken down in to smaller parts. It had always been true that atoms could be divided, indeed it has always been happening (in stars for example). Nothing changes other than our understanding.

If any kind of god exists, their existence and whatever they can do will be encompassed by the fundamental laws of physics as they apply to the whole of existence (even if that just involved lots of “… unless it’s god” conditions). If humans ever discovered such a thing existed, we would just have to adjust our understanding of the laws of physics. The concept of “the supernatural” would remain irrelevant.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.
Click to expand...

So lets take this in another direction. Supposedly dark matter exists according to scientists, however they can't measure let alone even see it.
so according to your logic it can't be measured so it is either unknown or non-existent.

so which is it.

Again if we are talking about God he is an omnipotent being. therefore he doesn't have to exist inside your definition of nature.
he can exist outside the realm of physical time and space. you fail to take that into account as well.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

that is your faulty opinion on the matter. An omnipotent and omniscience being can exist anywhere he would like.

even as Christ stated my kingdom is not of this world. this would imply that Heaven, God, etc ... does not exist in a physical world but a spiritual one.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.
Click to expand...

So lets take this in another direction. Supposedly dark matter exists according to scientists, however they can't measure let alone even see it.
so according to your logic it can't be measured so it is either unknown or non-existent.

so which is it.

Again if we are talking about God he is an omnipotent being. therefore he doesn't have to exist inside your definition of nature.
he can exist outside the realm of physical time and space. you fail to take that into account as well.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

that is your faulty opinion on the matter. An omnipotent and omniscience being can exist anywhere he would like.

even as Christ stated my kingdom is not of this world. this would imply that Heaven, God, etc ... does not exist in a physical world but a spiritual one.
 
laska said:
Sound logic to me.
Click to expand...

When someone is trying to use their own definition to define things they can make it sound logical, but when looked at
there are flaws in what he is saying.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you are proposing one of three things:
1. Nature should be defined in such a way that it encompasses all things that exist; so that anything that can be said to exist is therefore, by definition, natural.
2. A positivist/empiricist world view.

The problem with the first proposition is that it renders the word "nature" synonymous with "reality" and thus robs it of any utility. Any questions about whether something is natural turn into tautologies of no real value.

The problems with the second proposition are many-fold and if you study the trajectory of the Vienna Circle, you'll see why logical positivism/empiricism was abandoned and gave way to post-modern views. Probably the simplest way to show why a claim of positivism/empiricism is problematic is to examine what that claim rests on. What is the basis by which we can say that the only things that exist are those things that can be measured empirically?
 
ludin said:
So lets take this in another direction. Supposedly dark matter exists according to scientists, however they can't measure let alone even see it.
so according to your logic it can't be measured so it is either unknown or non-existent.

so which is it.

Again if we are talking about God he is an omnipotent being. therefore he doesn't have to exist inside your definition of nature.
he can exist outside the realm of physical time and space. you fail to take that into account as well.



that is your faulty opinion on the matter. An omnipotent and omniscience being can exist anywhere he would like.

even as Christ stated my kingdom is not of this world. this would imply that Heaven, God, etc ... does not exist in a physical world but a spiritual one.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the issue, now isn't it. The concept of 'dark matter' came up because of the measurement of gravity ,and the observation of the cosmos. The entire basis for the 'dark matter' is observation. So, when it comes to your criticism about science, and the basis in which you are trying to dismiss things, it falls flat on it's face.
 
akrunner88 said:
One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

OMG. There is material evidence of everything in nature.
There is no material evidence whatsoever of what we describe as "the supernatural." In fact, that's practically the definition of "supernatural."

The existence of the supernatural depends on belief. Faith.
The existence of nature only depends on our senses.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

The supernatural / miracles have now been documented.

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

I also get a kick out of liberals believing in 'karma,' but denying the supernatural in the Bible and elsewhere.
 
Ahhh, continually arguing against something you claim to not believe exists, is that a sign of some sort of psychosis?
 
Casper said:
Ahhh, continually arguing against something you claim to not believe exists, is that a sign of some sort of psychosis?
Click to expand...

Back in college there was an ardent vocal atheist, and he knew the bible better than the rest of the class put together. Maybe not psychosis, but there is always the danger of becoming the beast you fight.
 
Casper said:
Ahhh, continually arguing against something you claim to not believe exists, is that a sign of some sort of psychosis?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just fun. A bit of mental exercise to stop us from being lazy and accepting things on faith.
 
csense said:
I'm thinking of, and have an image of, an elephant.

How do propose we measure that elephant.
Click to expand...

The difference is, we've all seen elephants before. They are real things and not strictly the product of imagination the way god is, and nobody in their right mind imagines a pocket elephant, when you say the word "elephant". Knowing what elephants actually are, we imagine them as very large, gray-colored, lumbering beasts. I would venture, however, that no two believers have the same imagined version of god, even those who claim the same religion. It's a very personal delusion...unlike elephants.

The word "god" to you may bring up visions of a gray-bearded, flowing-robed deity. To me, the word brings up visions of frightened cave men, trying to make sense of the world. God, to me, is like the thumb or some other evolved human trait. The difference being that thumbs don't do as much damage as gods.
 
akrunner88 said:
Supernatural : Unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.

If it exists, it is natural. That one defies the laws of physics does not make one supernatural, it makes the laws of physics wrong.

God, if such a being exists, exists within nature. If it can be measured, it’s natural. If it can’t be measured, it’s not supernatural, it’s either unknown or non-existent.

One cannot exist outside of nature, because by existing outside of nature, you are existing which by default makes you a part of nature. Therefore existing outside of nature does not exist.
Click to expand...

Of course there can be the 'concept' of the supernatural, you are commenting on that 'concept' right now.

What you seem to be posting about is that there is no proof of the existance of the supernatural.
 
Lursa said:
Of course there can be the 'concept' of the supernatural, you are commenting on that 'concept' right now.

What you seem to be posting about is that there is no proof of the existance of the supernatural.
Click to expand...

If we were able to prove the existence of the supernatural, however, then it would no longer be the supernatural, it would be natural.

I think part of the issue is that the concept of supernatural cannot be proven or shown to be true, because as soon as it does then it's no longer, by definition, supernatural. Thus it can only exist as a concept and not as something 'real'.
 
piseRe: There is no such thing as the concept of supernatural

D_NATURED said:
The difference is, we've all seen elephants before. They are real things and not strictly the product of imagination the way god is, and nobody in their right mind imagines a pocket elephant, when you say the word "elephant". Knowing what elephants actually are, we imagine them as very large, gray-colored, lumbering beasts. I would venture, however, that no two believers have the same imagined version of god, even those who claim the same religion. It's a very personal delusion...unlike elephants.

The word "god" to you may bring up visions of a gray-bearded, flowing-robed deity. To me, the word brings up visions of frightened cave men, trying to make sense of the world. God, to me, is like the thumb or some other evolved human trait. The difference being that thumbs don't do as much damage as gods.
Click to expand...

The image of the thing, not the thing itself, and how it relates to the concept that only things which can be measured, exist. I've said nothing of Religion or God, as of yet, and quite frankly, don't intend to given your hostility and lack of comprehension. Oddly enough however, most Religions do have an accepted version of what their God "looks like," so you can't even get your complaint right. But let me take a wild guess in that it's really just one particular religion that you despise and are alluding to here, isn't that right partner....
 
Re: piseRe: There is no such thing as the concept of supernatural

csense said:
The image of the thing, not the thing itself, and how it relates to the concept that only things which can be measured, exist. I've said nothing of Religion or God, as of yet, and quite frankly, don't intend to given your hostility and lack of comprehension. Oddly enough however, most Religions do have an accepted version of what their God "looks like," so you can't even get your complaint right. But let me take a wild guess in that it's really just one particular religion that you despise and are alluding to here, isn't that right partner....
Click to expand...

Wrong, pilgrim, I'm talking about whatever flavor of faith you like. Every medicine is a poison and vice versa. The difference with faith is that even those who overdose won't admit that they're hurting themselves and others. There is an inherent denial that must accompany the idea that an all-powerful entity gives a crap about you.
 
Re: piseRe: There is no such thing as the concept of supernatural

D_NATURED said:
The difference with faith is that even those who overdose won't admit that they're hurting themselves and others. There is an inherent denial that must accompany the idea that an all-powerful entity gives a crap about you.
Click to expand...

I think the denial is on the part of the skeptics / progressives. They're the ones hurting themselves now and forevermore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom