Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Movie Paranormal Activity
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 91 of 285 (613029)
04-21-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Straggler
04-21-2011 8:18 AM


Re: HUH? Who is inconsistent?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
You admit that there is no way to test the supernatural and so claiming something is supernatural is worthless, it tells us nothing.
Do you believe that GOD is supernatural?
Note - I am not asking you if GOD actually is supernatural. I am asking you what you believe.
Can GOD be scientifically investigated and understood?
No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood.
Yes I believe that GOD is GOD, but I also understand that it is only a belief and may or may not be true.
That is why I do not ever try to prove GOD exists.
Maybe, just maybe, after I am dead I may be able to answer that beyond simply a personal belief.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 8:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 10:42 AM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 92 of 285 (613030)
04-21-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
04-21-2011 8:37 AM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
jar writes:
I can't know how being dead might expand my knowledge until after I am dead.
You can't know how experiencing biblical Armageddon might expand your knowledge until you experience that can you?
jar writes:
If your fictional Armageddon happened while I was alive then I would be unable to explain it, it would go into the Unknown folder.
Unless it expanded your knowledge in the same way that you are suggesting being dead might.
Are you advocating one scenario over the other because of personal preference alone? Or is there a more reasoned explanation for the inconsistent approach you are taking here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 8:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 11:37 AM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 285 (613035)
04-21-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
04-21-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
And what if the supernatural claim is evidenced?
As per Message 45 or Evidencing The Supernatural (Message 46)
Without a scientific explanation for it, its not going to count as being evidenced. If its evidenced, with a scientific explanation, then its not going to count as being supernatural.
From Message 46:
quote:
Let's say a baby boy is born to a virgin. Tests are conducted. He has the same DNA as his mother. Scientists scratch their heads but cannot explain or replicate this phenomenon no matter what tests are undertaken. It seems to defy all the biology that applies to every other living thing. The boy grows up. He seems to be able to do some remarkable things. He can raise the dead and does so regularly. One sunny afternoon he transforms the water in the river Thames to fine Sauvignon Blanc and feeds the entire population of London on a pilchard and a bagel. Chris (that's his name) starts preaching love, peace and devotion to an omnipotent being that he refers to as "father".......
Now I am not saying that science should just give up on a natural explanation for the above at all. But under these circumstances it would be difficult to continue to justify the claim that there exists no positive evidence in favour of the supernatural at all wouldn't it?
If that does count, then so should the experiences of ghost-like things. Or the prophesies of Jim Jones to his followers. Those believers would have just as much positive evidence. And thus, we'd have a source outside of their imagination.
But that doesn't count as a "known" source, because it lacks scientific explanation. If the scientists were not scratching their heads and unable to explain or replicate it, but instead they had an explanation and could replicate it, then it wouldn't be called supernatural anymore. But them scratching their heads, and unable to explain it, doesn't mean that it should be called supernatural. Why not leave it as unknown? What evidence is there that it is supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 7:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 285 (613036)
04-21-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
04-21-2011 8:40 AM


Evidencing The Supernatural
jar writes:
No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood.
Right. Then it seems that the object of your belief qualifies as "supernatural" by most common definitions and usage of the term (as per those linked to by Slevesque in Message 44). It seems especially nonsensical for you to say that Slevesque's definitions are meaningless and irrelevant given that the object of your own belief is accurately described in this way.
When people use the term supernatural they are referring to things which are inherently inexplicable. They are not talking about the unexplained. They are talking about the unexplainable. The fact that people have persistently wrongly believed things to be inherently inexplicable doesn't change this meaning or give you the right to start inventing some sort of silly folder system that only applies whilst alive for some bizzarre reason.
jar writes:
That is why I do not ever try to prove GOD exists.
The question here is not whether or not GOD exists. The question is what is meant when we say that something is 'supernatural' and what legitimately constitutes evidence of the supernatural. It seems that this GOD of yours does indeed qualify as supernatural. As does biblical Armageddon invoked by the divine will of Yahweh.
Should positive evidence for either of these phenomena present itself (whether you are dead or alive) it would therefore constitute positive evidence (not proof in either case) in favour of the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 8:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 11:39 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 95 of 285 (613041)
04-21-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2011 10:37 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
CS writes:
Without a scientific explanation for it, its not going to count as being evidenced.
Don't conflate verified existence with scientific explanation.
CS writes:
If its evidenced, with a scientific explanation, then its not going to count as being supernatural.
If it has a scientifically tested explanation then you are right that it cannot be regarded as supernatural. But that is not the same as being scientifically verified to exist.
CS writes:
If that does count, then so should the experiences of ghost-like things.
Nothing resembling ghosts has ever been demonstrated to exist.
CS writes:
Or the prophesies of Jim Jones to his followers.
People believing Jim Jones to have supernatural powers is not the same as him demonstrating that he did have such powers.
CS writes:
Those believers would have just as much positive evidence. And thus, we'd have a source outside of their imagination.
People claiming that they have seen stuff is not the same as the demonstrable actuality I described. Read my example again. Then tell me where I can find Jim Jones verifiably demonstrating such abilities.
CS writes:
What evidence is there that it is supernatural?
You seem to be suggesting that the demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus isn't evidence in favour of the actual existence of the supernatural Christian concept of Jesus. Even the most rabid cynic would have to admit that this is a somewhat overly skeptical approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 11:26 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 96 of 285 (613042)
04-21-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
04-21-2011 7:44 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
If the thing labled supernatural is evidenced and ceases to be a mystery and fully understood and verified by the scientific community; then by all means let's put it in the known folder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 7:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:08 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 285 (613043)
04-21-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Straggler
04-21-2011 11:08 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Don't conflate verified existence with scientific explanation.
Show me the important disctinction and exemplify it.
Nothing resembling ghosts has ever been demonstrated to exist.
What does "demonstrated to exist" mean?
People believing Jim Jones to have supernatural powers is not the same as him demonstrating that he did have such powers.
His prophesies were the demonstration.
People claiming that they have seen stuff is not the same as the demonstrable actuality I described. Read my example again. Then tell me where I can find Jim Jones verifiably demonstrating such abilities.
Jonestown, Guyana, 1978.
You seem to be suggesting that the demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus isn't evidence in favour of the actual existence of the supernatural Christian concept of Jesus.
Depends on what you mean by "demonstrate"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 11:08 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 285 (613049)
04-21-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Straggler
04-21-2011 9:52 AM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
I can't know how being dead might expand my knowledge until after I am dead.
You can't know how experiencing biblical Armageddon might expand your knowledge until you experience that can you?
jar writes:
If your fictional Armageddon happened while I was alive then I would be unable to explain it, it would go into the Unknown folder.
Unless it expanded your knowledge in the same way that you are suggesting being dead might.
Are you advocating one scenario over the other because of personal preference alone? Or is there a more reasoned explanation for the inconsistent approach you are taking here?
I said already that I cannot imagine any way I could identify anything as supernatural while I am alive.
As long as I am natural, part of the natural world, I can only experience natural things.
I may experience something unexplained, I may even personally think it is supernatural, but honest compels me to place all such things in the Unknown folder.
Been over this with you.
That's my position. If you don't like it, that too is fine. No skin off my butt.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 9:52 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:47 PM jar has replied
 Message 110 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:10 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 285 (613050)
04-21-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Straggler
04-21-2011 10:42 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood.
Right. Then it seems that the object of your belief qualifies as "supernatural" by most common definitions and usage of the term (as per those linked to by Slevesque in Message 44). It seems especially nonsensical for you to say that Slevesque's definitions are meaningless and irrelevant given that the object of your own belief is accurately described in this way.
When people use the term supernatural they are referring to things which are inherently inexplicable. They are not talking about the unexplained. They are talking about the unexplainable. The fact that people have persistently wrongly believed things to be inherently inexplicable doesn't change this meaning or give you the right to start inventing some sort of silly folder system that only applies whilst alive for some bizzarre reason.
jar writes:
That is why I do not ever try to prove GOD exists.
The question here is not whether or not GOD exists. The question is what is meant when we say that something is 'supernatural' and what legitimately constitutes evidence of the supernatural. It seems that this GOD of yours does indeed qualify as supernatural. As does biblical Armageddon invoked by the divine will of Yahweh.
Should positive evidence for either of these phenomena present itself (whether you are dead or alive) it would therefore constitute positive evidence (not proof in either case) in favour of the supernatural.
As long as I am part of this natural world I can not imagine any positive evidence for the supernatural.
Period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 10:42 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:58 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 100 of 285 (613052)
04-21-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2011 11:26 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
CS on Jim Jones writes:
His prophesies were the demonstration.
What did Jimmy prophecise?
CS as an example of JJ's supernatural powers writes:
Jonestown, Guyana, 1978.
Huh? What is materially inexplicable about killing lots of people? Your comparison seems rather weak.
CS conflating verified existence with scientific explanation writes:
Show me the important disctinction and exemplify it.
In my scenario the existence of Chris, his biology defying DNA and his abilities, are objectively verifiable and essentially indisputable. But a scientific explanation for these things remains elusive.
CS writes:
Depends on what you mean by "demonstrate"...
Take Chris and put him in a lab if you want. Study his DNA. Get him to turn water into wine or to walk across the swimming pool without getting his feet wet. Bring some long dead corpses in and get him to do his resurrection thing. In the scenario I described the existence of this person and his abilities are indisputable. But there is no material explanation.
So - Is the demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus evidence in favour of the actual existence of the supernatural Christian concept of Jesus?
How can it not be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 12:21 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 285 (613053)
04-21-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by 1.61803
04-21-2011 11:24 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Why can't it be both known to exist and supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by 1.61803, posted 04-21-2011 11:24 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by xongsmith, posted 04-21-2011 10:34 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 120 by 1.61803, posted 04-22-2011 12:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 285 (613057)
04-21-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Straggler
04-21-2011 12:02 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
See Message 402 for my response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:02 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 285 (613073)
04-21-2011 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
04-21-2011 11:37 AM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
jar writes:
I said already that I cannot imagine any way I could identify anything as supernatural while I am alive.
You could equally legitimately say "I cannot imagine any way I could identify anything as supernatural unless experiencing biblical Armageddon as divinely invoked by Yahweh himself"
The distinction you are making boils down to nothing more than your personal belief system and that which you want to classify as potentially supernatural.
jar writes:
I may experience something unexplained, I may even personally think it is supernatural, but honest compels me to place all such things in the Unknown folder.
Why doesn't this honesty apply once you are dead?
jar writes:
As long as I am natural, part of the natural world, I can only experience natural things.
On what basis do you assume that being dead might remove you from the natural world in a way that biblical Armageddon couldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 11:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 2:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 104 of 285 (613076)
04-21-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
04-21-2011 11:39 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
jar writes:
As long as I am part of this natural world I can not imagine any positive evidence for the supernatural.
If evidence were limited to what you could imagine humanity would be in a sorry state.
Your inability to imagine and baseless assumptions about death are no basis upon which to make reasoned conclusions about the nature of positive evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 11:39 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 285 (613081)
04-21-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
04-21-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
Again, I already answered. I don't see any way that your imagined Biblical Armageddon would remove me from this natural world. What is the test I apply to determine that it is really divinely invoked by Yahweh himself?
As long as I am alive, I can't see any tests that can be applied to determine that.
As for after I am dead, well, not having been dead yet I can't tell you what is different, which is why I have (I think) suggested that after I am dead I might be able to tell what was different.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 1:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:38 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024