Christian

Autonemesis,

Interesting handle. You are your own worst enemy???

If that is the case, then isn’t it contradicted by the statement on the home page of this web site? It makes a definite unprovable assertion that the natural world is all there is. Do you avoid making such assertions?

OK, at least 4 times I’ve encountered that thought. I would claim that an observed phenomenon which violates a natural law is “supernatural” even though it can be observed. Also that’s just semantics, I suppose. How would you consider such an event if you were to encounter it? As an unexplainable natural event?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Mageth,

I provided an example earlier. The resurrection of Christ is also well documented, but that would be another lengthy thread in itself.

I believe that most supernatural events cannot be reproduced on demand (in short, God chooses not to work that way.) That is why the supernatural will never show up in repeatable verifiable experiential results. If it did, even I would call it a “natural” event.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

Supernatural does not = arbitrary.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

OJ,

I agree that most miracles work that way, but I disagree that it necessarily must be the case. God can completely bypass natural causes when He wants to.

But what if an explosion without any natural cause blows the helicopter up. God could act in that way if He chose to, although He uses natural causes to direct events the vast majority of the time.

Why would supernatural causation have to work that way? I can’t think of any reasons, but I am listening.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Biff,

Everything you said there is an unprovable assertion. A premise that you have chosen to believe is true. Your faith is great!

Why have you chosen to assert such unprovable ideological statements in such a forceful manner?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

JT,

OP is a new one for me. Opinion? Obstinate Position?

The basic reason I created this thread is simple curiosity. An anti-supernatural bias seems to be a core assumption underlying much of what is said at II. And such a bias doesn’t make sense to me. It bugs me when I can’t make sense of someone’s position, so I’m basically trying to understand you folks better.

Not really. I wouldn’t mind adding to my tool bag for defending the Christian faith, but for the most part it just bugs me when I can’t grasp something. Even something that I’m sure I would disagree with.

A coping strategy. Hmmm. My relationship with the Supernatural does help me cope, I can’t deny that. But I am much more interested in whether an idea is actually true than in what the benefits are.

I assume you are talking about naturalism to the exclusion of the supernatural (since there seems to be some naturalists who admit the possibility of the supernatural).

I would say that if you convince me that the natural world is all that exists and that there is nothing that is best explained by the supernatural ... then I would be dramatically less likely to continue getting my meaning and direction in life from the supernatural.

If I am not convinced of such a thing, there would be no change in my behavior.

Yes. (Assuming I understand what you mean by “supernaturalism.”)

Definite conclusion? I think I have to definitely pick one side or the other. I don’t think either side of the issue is absolutely provable. Not until it is too late, in any case.

I agree with Pascal who said that there is too much evidence of God to discount, but never enough to completely prove (or words to that effect.) I admit that when it comes down to it faith plays a role, but it is a rational faith. My faith exceeds the evidence, but it not contradicted by it.

Not really, because my goal is truth. I want to believe in what actually is. Utility is a trivial criteria for me compared to truth.

Widely accepted? That’s not really important at all. Again, my chief aim is to believe is what actually exists, in what is actually true. Wide acceptance may be a hint of what is true, but it would be one factor among many. And way down on the list in terms of importance.

That would be a little higher on my list. Still, the chief question for me is “what is actually the case.” Criteria such as you are listing are only importance to the extent that they can help answer that question.

No. Surely there are some things which are true but are not widely believed and do not have a documented precedent.

Yes.

Hmmm. In the final analysis, not really. This side of the final analysis I think it’s human nature to want to be thought of as rational. But if believing in what is true means that most people think I’m irrational, then that price would be trivial from my perspective.

Interesting questions.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Helen,

LOL X2!

Respectfully,

Christian

HelenM

I'm glad you didn't take offense at my post, Christian

Helen

Marduk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain, just for fun, how I would be able to decide what information from a supernatural source is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Test that information against the written Word of God. If it contradicts, then it is false. We’re chasing rabbits now, but it is “just for fun” and that is my honest answer. You, of course, don’t have to agree



Herein lies the problem, it is your belief that this particular text is of supernatural origin as opposed to other texts of a supposed supernatural origin, which just brings us back to my original question of what criteria we should use to evaluate ‘supernatural’ instruction books of any kind. This is the “Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is” circular argument. It is unverifiable, by humans anyway, whether it is the word of anything but human authors, often retelling stories in circulation in many forms for thousands of years.

Volker.Doormann

I think it is of no value only to belief that what is. There is no more than this. All that, what not is, has no existence.

If one has recognized, that it is only meaningful to accept, that what is, then he can recognize, that it is not necessary to deal with assertions. Assertions without any knowledge about the reality of the subject is recognizable senseless.

Knowledge is a state of the own consciousness, to be aware about that, what is. If the knowledge is not aware in the own consciousness, but in a remote person, it has no meaning at all to the very own self.

One can be aware about the own consciousness and it's contradictions regarding truth. It is not important, if there are possible contradictions in holy books or in a speech of a holy person; it is only important, that there are no contradictions in the own consciousness, because actions caused from the self, which are not aware about these contradictions, ever the very own self is responsible for this actions, but not any remote holy person or god.

A person without this permanent attention for the own awareness of it's acts, is like a slave, which is remote controlled by a master, independent about the ethical quality of the claimed action by the master. He is like a dog, which is directs in the morning down one place by his master, also if the master has forgotten his command to the dog until the evening.

Beyond the common known dimensions of the physical part of nature are spiritual dimensions to discover, which are very different from the physical nature, but nevertheless they are free from contradictions. The whole spectrum of the mentality acting in a character in a person like vanity, craving for admiration, proud, violence, greediness, cowardice, dogmatic, is not beyond nature, but very real part of nature and with an excellent order behind the causality of it's 'dynamical processes' not acknowledged by the natural science of physical forces. The whole spectrum of logic and logical argumentation without contradictions. The whole spectrum of truth beyond time and history. The whole spectrum of love with it's female and male aspects as a challenge to solve the different but not contradictionary polarities of sex as an existing dimension of nature.



The point is, that that, what is called god, is the order of nature itself with it's immaterial laws of physical nature and it's order of spiritual laws containing love and harmony without any contradictions. Each disorder by a miracle is only an imperfection in knowledge about the true laws of nature in whole.



Nature is without contradiction. If one ore more are stating, that there are people, who claim, that they are different because of supernatural claims from other people in their properties, this creates a polarity between these peoples. This created polarity - to be recognized as a result of vanity as an imperfection of the mind - is the seed of war. All man are a part of god. There is no need for a religious vanity, there is only to be found truth of that, what is.



No. That, what happen is ever the imperfection in understanding and acting, never an imperfection in the whole. The sense is not to degrade nature for private comfort. The sense is to recognize the own imperfection in the own consciousness.



No problem. There are only a few, who are free from claims and
satisfied by that, what is . There is a lot of reality waiting for you in this very one nature.

Volker