Sabine Grant

You are just going to need to be tolerant about how some of us non native anglophones may project in English a thought formed in another language.
" en fait, il est possible que l'eau ne puisse se changer en vapeur ou glace soumise a des lois physiques differentes dans un espace different".. maybe your translator will reflect better what I was trying to express.

Starboy

Exactly Biff. I like to call it the "If your aunt had balls argument". Yes it is so that if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. The problem with that statement is your aunt doesn't have balls so that’s why she is your aunt. Until you can show your aunt has balls she will remain your aunt. No amount of speculating about your aunt's balls is going to make her grow them.

So if the supernatural was real it would be natural, but it’s not natural so it’s not real. If it’s not real then who cares about it? It's just some made up BS. Those that insist on saying it could be real are either confused or liars.

So for all you "spiritualist" out there, show some balls or shut up.

Starboy

Biff the unclean

First of I have no earthly idea who Ron serling is.
Famous script writer and host of a long running TV science fiction show called The Twilight Zone

Second " the religious" is quite a generalizing term which again deprives people from their individuality.
It's called a category, and I used it to refer to members of that group and not unaffiliated individuals.

Third, the concept I presented leaves an open door to metaphysical consideration which does not necessarly implies that only the " religious" would meditate on the possibility of other realities yet to be percieved by our senses ( that is visual, auditory, tactile...)
What it does is close the door to reality. Then it flings open the portal of idle speculation. Giving the specutation unearned credibility.

Often the challenge is presented to the " religious" as " do you believe in invisible unicorns"... it appears that confirmation of a possible reality would be affirmed by visual, auditory and tactile senses.
The IUP is a known falsehood. It is used in exactly the same instances that the religious use as proof of God to show that the criteria of the proof is flawed. As it works equally well to "prove" the existence of that which we know to be false.

It is prudent IMO to consider the possibility of other realities yet to be discovered unless one can claim that he or she has knowledge of all possibilities contained in the universe.
It is ridiculous to consider this never-never land you speculate about to be anything other than your own fantasy. Since no evidence exists to even suggest that there are other realities, to base your claims on one existing and then demand that other people entertain your imaginary construct as a "possibility" is the height of arrogance.
One need not know every possibility in the universe to recognize the fact that you are making this other reality up. Just as one need not know every possibility in the universe to recognize that there is no Santa.
If you cannot tell the difference between reality and your own imagination then we have a problem here.

Mageth

First of I have no earthly idea who Ron serling is.
Famous script writer and host of a long running TV science fiction show called The Twilight Zone

Correct, except it's Rod Serling.

Rousseau_CHN

Sabine said:
how is that possible? maybe a clarification of definition is in order to make this clear.

What is man? and what is God?

mortal, temporal, imperfect, carnal, are probably some adjectives that describes man. God on the other hand is immortal and perfect. If this is so, then try as much as he want, he could never be less perfect. It is just absurd that God who is perfect would choose to be imperfect (man), even for a brief time.

Rousseau_CHN

Just a follow up from my last post, supposing there was a righteous man and he wanted to change a group of bandits. Is it prudent that he lowers himself, commit banditry, just so that he could enter the "lairs" of bandit and change them from within?

In the same manner, was it wise for God to lower himself and become man, and live with us so that he could change us.

It is naive to think that this could work. God turning to man so that he could change us is naive. In the same way that progressive people go into conservative government hoping to institute reform from within. The don't change the governemnt; instead they are the ones changed--former liberals are the worst conservative.

It is just impressive that God during his brief stay on earth wasn't changed by us.

Biff the unclean

Well, duh. Look the sign post up ahead! You have entered the middle age zone. For your consideration Biff an ordinary PhD who awoke to find he no longer could spell. Do, do..do, do. Do, do..do, do.