• 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

Just to knit a pick axe...you can say there is no such thing as the supernatural as defined by the Webster's definition. You cannot say there is no such thing as the concept of the supernatural.
Concept - an abstract idea; a general notion.

You can have a general notion of the supernatural whether it is possible for it to exist or not. Just like I have a concept of Schrödinger's Cat despite the improbability or the impossibility of the concept.

The concept of the supernatural in fiction eludes to creatures like the vampire. The vampire was not created within the laws of nature and is not explained by scientific theory (in tales like Dracula at least, though Necroscope my disagree on all fronts).
Ghosts used to be supernatural until the pseudo-science of Ghost Hunters and their ilk. There has always been disputes among those who believe in ghosts of whether they were part of the Natural Order or not, though.

:mrgreen: Not to knit a pick axe... (sorry, couldn't help it :mrgreen: ) but vampirism is an actual real thing. At least as far as drinking blood and being sensitive to sun light. Being sensitive to sunlight can be a system of Porphyria. Some have associated it with drinking blood also. But I think the majority of experts assume that drinking blood is just a mental disorder. It's called "Clinical Vampirism" or "Ranfield Syndrome".
 
In order to measure you need to first know the physics laws. In order to measure everything without exception, you need to first get to know all the physics laws without exception. Since when humans already acquired the knowledge of all the physics laws both inside and outside of our universe we humans subjectively interpret it as a 3D space with a stable time axis? our own science actually speaks the opposite to what our concept is, science says that both space and time are not stable physics quantities, rather velocity is!

Humans don't understand God because they choose to be governed by their own arrogance and stupidity.

As far as we know, god does not exist outside the context of the human imagination. To say that we don't understand "Him" is to say we don't understand ourselves, which is generally true. God's purpose seems to be the pretense of understanding in an information vacuum. My problem arises when one dumb monkey kills another one for his own benefit in magical heaven.

I would argue that human arrogance and stupidity are our natural state and don't need for there to be a god for that to be true. I wish we could judge religions on their merits for the living and not just what they offer to the dead. I'd rather be a live atheist than a dead christian, any day.
 
Christ said God is spirit. Revelation says that the heavens and earth "fled" and no place was found for them. They disappeared.
That seems to point to a dimension science has no grasp of.

Forgive me for laughing when people who reject so much science, as part of their greater attachment to biblical myths, declare science to be impotent to answer any questions. That's like a guy who deliberately wears a bucket on his head all the time declaring that sunglasses are useless. To him they are.

Let's keep it real, the religious don't want to know anything that might upset their stone-age spirituality so they mock, deride and, when necessary, KILL whoever offers that knowledge. That has been their MO for thousands of years.
 
Forgive me for laughing when people who reject so much science, as part of their greater attachment to biblical myths, declare science to be impotent to answer any questions. That's like a guy who deliberately wears a bucket on his head all the time declaring that sunglasses are useless. To him they are.

Let's keep it real, the religious don't want to know anything that might upset their stone-age spirituality so they mock, deride and, when necessary, KILL whoever offers that knowledge. That has been their MO for thousands of years.

Horse manure. A former NASA scientist had a different view:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers
 
Forgive me for laughing when people who reject so much science, as part of their greater attachment to biblical myths, declare science to be impotent to answer any questions. That's like a guy who deliberately wears a bucket on his head all the time declaring that sunglasses are useless. To him they are.

Who are these people who “reject so much science”and “declare science to be impotent to answer any questions”? Identify themplease so that we all can understand your frame of reference.

Let's keep it real, the religious don't want to know anything that might upset their stone-age spirituality so they mock, deride and, when necessary, KILL whoever offers that knowledge. That has been their MO for thousands of years.

How do you define “the religious”? I think you're clumsily painting with an exceedingly wide brush here. Who’s doing all the mocking, deriding, and killing of those who offer knowledge?
 
Back
Top Bottom