Biff the unclean

I think that thinking based purely on physical observation amounts to thinking in the Physical universe box. I think that breaching the seperation between the realms is an intermediate goal of humankind

What you are doing Hail is rooting around in the ruins of a primitive superstition looking for pieces that weren't broken. Give it up, it's time to move on. "Realms" are the stuff of children's fantasies not reality.
What you are looking for is a confirmation of a "supernatural origin." Well, there isn't any, there's not a shred of evidence that even hits that there might have been one.
This "supernatural" horse manure is left over from primitive cultures who based their understanding of the world on imagination and not observation. Actually persecuting people who did observe.
It's boasted by "clinger's on" of these primitive superstitions that science can't prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. However every one of these supernatural creation stories does not stop at a mere vague claim that there is some sort of thing called the supernatural. All of these stories go on to claim how the world was created, the physical structure of the world, size, shape, materials, supports, mechanics of how nature functions. These are all checkable facts.
The ancient supernatural creation stories have got ALL THE CHECKABLE FACTS WRONG.
If every fact that we can check about a story is wrong why would we even entertain the uncheckable "facts" from the same story?

:banghead:

Rhea

I am starting a NEW THREAD for the suffering topic, as I've gone quite off this one

Walross

Hi Christian

I'm still waiting to hear how one is supposed to, in the absence of any reliable method, evaluate the truth of claims about the supernatural. To be fair, I realize, you have a lot of people to respond to in this thread .

In any case, I have some comments about CS Lewis's angel/mice example. How does one form a judgement as to how likely a supernatural event is? If no one knows how it works, it's impossible to form any such judgement. So how can you possibly say that any given event is more likely to be of supernatural than natural origin? You don't even know enough about the supernatural to be able to tell me how likely such events are. One can certainly form a judgement about the likelihood of natural events however - at least the parts of nature we understand. So even if a natural explanation is wildly improbable, it's still on better logical footing than a supernatural explanation for which no probability is even defined. Are you still willing to say that the angels explanation is "more rational"?

Regards,

Walross

Hail

To offer a response:

What you are doing Hail is rooting around in the ruins of a primitive superstition looking for pieces that weren't broken. Give it up, it's time to move on. "Realms" are the stuff of children's fantasies not reality.
What you are looking for is a confirmation of a "supernatural origin." Well, there isn't any, there's not a shred of evidence that even hits that there might have been one.

I am pretty certain that you don't know what I am doing or better yet why. I'm not seeking a confirmation I am following reason that is genereally accepted in the science community of one thing coming from another. Because scientifc thinking stops at the doorstep of the emergence of the physical universe is not consistent with the rest of it's methodology. It is rejected because it is deemed weird. I don't see why I should see that as logical and it doesn't mean that I have to align with this which I find to be a groundless boundry given convention. It is not consistent with the rest of scientific methodology.
==============
This "supernatural" horse manure is left over from primitive cultures who based their understanding of the world on imagination and not observation. Actually persecuting people who did observe.

There has certainly been those who have been bound and restricted in their theological thinking just as there has been in the scientific arena. My position certainly does not condone either of these restrictions.
There is a high persentage of horse manure involved but it's not 100% just as with anthing else. I do agree with your reasons for suspicion but just because theologians have tried to have you take what the bear hook line and sinker does not make their view the only way it could be. There is more than the purely scientific or purely religious view. I'm trying to get you to look there. One locked in the religious box and the other in the scientific box. That's not good. No box leads to comprehensive congnicence.
========================
It's boasted by "clinger's on" of these primitive superstitions that science can't prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. However every one of these supernatural creation stories does not stop at a mere vague claim that there is some sort of thing called the supernatural. All of these stories go on to claim how the world was created, the physical structure of the world, size, shape, materials, supports, mechanics of how nature functions. These are all checkable facts.

oh boy: Yes therse are checkable facts but you still can't expect say aboroginal cultures to say it the same way others do and especially to their people given their level of knowledge at the time of the creatiion of their version or depiction.
==============================
The ancient supernatural creation stories have got ALL THE CHECKABLE FACTS WRONG.

Sometimes what archeologists think a certain thing means is revised and changed in time. Over time many of these versions have even started to grow in similarity. Add in the generous helping of fear driven horse manure to this and you got a bit of a mess. You were not ment to get out of this useable freewill mess until you reached a point where you can't make good for your world within the mess. Eienstine said we cannot expected the problems of the twentieth century to be solved by the same thinking that created it. He was speaking of the thniking of his day. He's not saying it's dumb but rather that there will be more accurate thought.
I have evn seen more than a few documentaries where places in religious books have been shown by archeologists to have been there and setup as described so I have to wonder about the : ALL THE CHECKABLE FACTS WRONG statement you made. I really don't know where to go with that.

================================
If every fact that we can check about a story is wrong why would we even entertain the uncheckable "facts" from the same story?

That would certainly make sence to me.

Biff the unclean

I have evn seen more than a few documentaries where places in religious books have been shown by archeologists to have been there and setup as described so I have to wonder about the : ALL THE CHECKABLE FACTS WRONG statement you made. I really don't know where to go with that

Where you can go with that is back to my original statement
Now if you have been watching documentaries that have found that the Earth is flat and has corners, that the sky is solid with the stars hanging from it, that there was an ocean above the Earth, etc.,etc., then you've got something.

mike_decock

I think the topic "Why rule out the supernatural?" is really best answered by asking:

"Why rule out the NATURAL?"

We can agree in the existence of the natural world. We can also agree that there are aspects of the natural world that escape our understanding at this point in time. As science has progressed, many things which defied a natural explanation in the past are now widely accepted as natural phenomena because we have a more complete understanding.

When something defies our understanding, why attribute the phenomenon to something which CANNOT be understood?

-Mike...

Hail

Now if you have been watching documentaries that have found that the Earth is flat and has corners, that the sky is solid with the stars hanging from it, that there was an ocean above the Earth, etc.,etc., then you've got something.
================

Is this not some of what they say. How is that to be regarded as ALL. These are oversimplified depictions with the "over" being agin relative to what people were in a position to comprehend. It is the blockage at the emergence that is important to scrutinise. For example there was a time when much of Earth's water was in the form of a mist above the Earth too. They have some info and some we don't understand and dismiss and the horse manure. That is how it is and not the way both the religious and scientific have constructed it. That is how I see it.

Biff the unclean

There seems to be a reading comprehension problem here. I'm talking about creation myths.
That "mist" you are referring to is more supernatural BS. It was pulled out of thin air by modern creationists and the concept is based only in their imaginations and not the real world. It has nothing to do with either religion or science.

What are you talking about when you say that there was a "blockage at the emergence ?" What emergence would that be now?

Hail

There seems to be a reading comprehension problem here. I'm talking about creation myths.

You said ALL and that means all so certainly you are not basing your all on the entirety of what things they say but rather what you would like to focus on.
==================================
That "mist" you are referring to is more supernatural BS. It was pulled out of thin air by modern creationists and the concept is based only in their imaginations and not the real world. It has nothing to do with either religion or science.

Not really even up to the time of the Vikings it was still much heavier than it is today but I am going to let what I already said about it stand and accept your disagreeance.
==================================
What are you talking about when you say that there was a "blockage at the emergence ?" What emergence would that be now?

Refering to that there is no scientific explanation for how the physical universe emerged and from what.

I really must go now so if I don't respond to further posting it's because I may not have been able to read it. All the best Biff.

Mageth

Chrisitian:

You have to know what "natural" is to make such a claim. I'm the one who's arguing for a distinction between what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" among those things which are real.

That's easy; if it's real, it's natural; if it's not real, it's supernatural.