What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@failures art,

Quote:

Two steps ahead of you.

Not even close behind me, but I like your optimism. Don't ever lose it...it may be the most important thing you have.

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay, Art...so where have I suggested parity so I can examine what the hell you are talking about?

I quoted you already in the post. Go back and read. I provided the definition, and then analysis of your quotes form.

Are you losing track of what you're saying?
R
T

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Two steps ahead of you.

Not even close behind me, but I like your optimism. Don't ever lose it...it may be the most important thing you have.

Frank I'd like you to address what I called you out on. You pointed out the difference between two statements, but in your own quote, you state your skepticism to both.

I also gave examples about your base assumptions regarding what each statement would mean.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

Are you losing track of what you're saying?

No...you are trying to shoehorn a parity thingy into a place where it doesn't exist.

In any case, what does this have to do with anything?

Use “parity” in a sentence that deals with my arguments so I can understand what you are talking about.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Art, I have no idea of what this game you are playing is...but if you have a disagreement with what I have said...state it and I will defend what I have actually said.

I have no idea of what this "parity" nonsense is...or what its impact is on the discussion. I love the fact that you are bringing it up...rather than dealing with any substantive things I have said, because it shows you are willing to try this kind of thing with me.

But it is like trying to fool's mate a grand master.

Get back to something substantive...and stop with the sentence parsing.

C'mon!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You answer the substantive questions Frank. fa is too easy.

0 Replies

@Tapout89,

Quote:

While this discussion is meant for those who believe in gods, ghosts, and the like, this discussion is (of course) open to anyone who wants to participate.

Being somewhat of a Kantian, I reject the supernatural as being capable of intruding upon the empirical world in a positive or verifiable way, even if it was the case. But setting aside such presuppositions of a system, I don't see "another realm" of different nomological make-up requiring a constant "influential" relationship with nature. Hell, it couldn't be regarded as distinct from nature to begin with if it was. Ergo, a supernatural world would only intermittently interact with the natural world.

The result would be anomalies or miracles that didn't occur often or orderly enough to fit a reliable generalization, rule, or conception of regularity. Surely most of these events / violations would occur at the micro-level and in the vast, empty or unobserved parts of the universe. So in the end, even this virtually amounts to not being capable of intruding upon the empirical world by default -- since the randomness and scarcity of the effects would constantly elude being nailed down to a respectable pattern. Preferable to dismiss them as errors of interpretation or conceive "in-house" explanations (no matter how fringe or unlikely the latter might occasionally have to be, those explanations would at least be workable in a natural framework of principles).

1 Reply

@G H,

Until the late 1800's a "willo-the-wisp" was thought to be a supernatural occurence. We now know these as gas discharges and accompanying phosphorescence all because of a fixed methane/suulfitic compund/oxygen ration

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I prefer will-o-the-wisps. They are more romantic.

But I can well see why you would be attracted to methane/suulfitic compunds.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

@ failures...

Posted by Frank...Sorry, I do not know how to do multiple quotes...

Frank said:

Quote:

You say yourself that you don't believe in any gods. What do you call that?

My reply to failures...A belief! Not a rejection!...

Frank said:

Quote:

Uhhh...saying "I do not believe in any gods" ...most definitely NOT THE SAME as saying "there are no gods."

My reply to Frank, Totally 100% agreed...

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The mist of familiarity obscures from us the wonder of our being.

Shelley.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

You say yourself that you don't believe in any gods. What do you call that?

My reply to failures...A belief! Not a rejection!...

Hence, why they are misunderstood, misinterpreted...And people do not understand them, accurately...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

Frank said:

Quote:
Uhhh...saying "I do not believe in any gods" ...most definitely NOT THE SAME as saying "there are no gods."

My reply to Frank, Totally 100% agreed...

Thank you, SpadeMaster.

1 Reply

I am uneasy with the concepts of natural and its complement, supernatural. The latter only refers to extensions of the natural. This would make "natural" meaningless to me except for its connotation of something that occurs without human--artificial--intervention, like naturally grown--as opposed to laboratory/manufactured food. But it seems that "supernatural phenomena" would require the intervention of supernatural beings or (magical) technology and that is totally unacceptable to me

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Until the late 1800's a "willo-the-wisp" was thought to be a supernatural occurence. We now know these as gas discharges and accompanying phosphorescence all because of a fixed methane/suulfitic compund/oxygen ration

"Spook-lights" and so forth would fall within the territory of being regularities from the outset, rather than isolated one-time anomalies defying conformity to any pattern or underlying theory. As evidenced by people venturing to such areas to witness them and their eventually becoming commercial attractions.

With the supposed possibility of even Boltzmann brains cropping-up naturally within the universe at large, it's not clear that any occurrence could be crazy enough to not be captured by generalized rules these days. Even if such macroscopic entities emerged from the fluctuating energy background millions of light-years apart and only a dozen spread over every 1 million years, that is still a degree of "commonness" from a cosmic perspective. Albeit it one that ordinary humans, limited to their space / time scale, couldn't gather enough empirical data on to confirm as a regularity -- just some of their mathematical ventures in physics spitting-out such possibility. A "detection" of a Boltzmann brain (under those rates) certainly wouldn't be repeated in any surviving civilization's lifetime, and contact with a single instance of one easily written off as nut-reports or erroneous interpretation.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

So if I don't believe in gods... that's a belief?

So if a cup has no water in it, it cannot be empty, it must have something else in it? It must always be full of something?

Silly.

A
R
T

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Look Frank. How do you know that you don't know whether there are gods or not? Why are you not agnostic about that?

Okay you say you know but do you really? Any respectable young lady would deny knowing that the young man had only invited her over to listen to his records so he could shag her. And the young man would deny knowing that she only accepted the invitation in order to be shagged. Or to have a look round his house to see if it might be worth letting him.

You seem to have obsessed with the subject of Gods for a long time. I think your adversarial, antagonist upmanmanship has been best satisfied by having both sides in your sights and which provides you with more opportunities to indulge yourself. Neither side has enough members on its own to be superior to.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Listen JLN--have you any idea what naturally grown food costs in terms of delivering it to 310 million hungry mouths once a day never mind three times with nibbles in between.

Have you any idea what it tastes like?

Have you any idea how long it takes to render it edible?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Look Frank.

I'm lookin'.

Quote:

How do you know that you don't know whether there are gods or not? Why are you not agnostic about that?

Okay you say you know but do you really? Any respectable young lady would deny knowing that the young man had only invited her over to listen to his records so he could shag her. And the young man would deny knowing that she only accepted the invitation in order to be shagged. Or to have a look round his house to see if it might be worth letting him.

You seem to have obsessed with the subject of Gods for a long time. I think your adversarial, antagonist upmanmanship has been best satisfied by having both sides in your sights and which provides you with more opportunities to indulge yourself. Neither side has enough members on its own to be superior to.

Interesting, but nothing on which I would like to comment.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Hey fm--GH wrote that--"it's not clear that any occurrence could be crazy enough to not be captured by generalized rules these days.

That's like that quote I gave you about W.J. Bryan saying that any fool can think up the words to justify anything.

GH is an amateur at piss taking. He doesn't go for the jugular.

1 Reply

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know