The Movie Paranormal Activity

Straggler writes:I'd prefer it if you answered the questions I am asking. What does being dead have to do with your ability to know enough to move things from the "unknown folder" to a "supernatural folder" as per your argument throughout this thread?

slevesque writes:Hi Phat, I agree that that definition, it is no different from ''unexplained''.The thing is, it is a self-serving definition and not at all how it is defined by dictionaries etc.AbE Grats straggler with the line of discussion you have taken. I find that your insight is very clear in all this but unfortunately, I doubt you will get anything from Jar other then the blatant inconsistency that is here for all to see (which comes, IMO, from the basic fact that he has redefined words to fit his personal worldview)

slevesque writes:I think straggler has done a pretty good job in showing this.In short, you answered that things may be clear ''after you die'' (if there is an 'after'). Straggler asked what made you make such a comment, what would be different 'after you died'. You replied that we should ask you again 'after you die'. This, at the very least, is an escape from reason, in my opinion. If you think 'after you die' you will have more insight into these matters, then you should know why right now, not only then. This is what straggler is asking, and this is what you fail to address. I have presented a definition of supernatural, that is different. However, I concede that such a definition makes the supernatural outside of scientific testing, however, because by definition, science can only conclude on what is repeatable (amongst other criterias), and therefore only what follows the laws of nature.Supernatural, as defined, is not constrained by natural laws. I think you should agree with this; almost everybody agrees that science cannot claim to study God because of this simple fact: he isn't a repeatable, constaintly testable ''thing''. He falls outside the realm of science.However, this does not mean there isn't a point where a phenomenon could be identified as being supernatural in nature (the phenomenon of ghost-like appearances, for example). This is the question we are trying to answer here: does such a point exist, and if so, where is it ?

Straggler writes:The inconsistency in your argument here is really quite obvious. Why doesn't the exact same reasoning apply to whether or not GOD is supernatural?Is it because you happen to believe in a supernatural GOD.......? Why will being dead make any difference to the reasoning you have applied to biblical armageddon or any of the other examples in this thread. All of which you said could never be considered to be supernatural.

Straggler writes:It what way can being dead potentially expand your knowledge in a way that the experience of biblical Armageddon (for example) cannot? If I take what you say and modify it accordingly does it become any more or less legitimate? Why is your original statement any more or less valid or legitimate than the modified one?Is it just because that is what you believe? Or is there a more reasoned explanation for the inconsistent approach you are taking here?

Straggler writes: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?

Straggler writes:You can't know how experiencing biblical Armageddon might expand your knowledge until you experience that can you? 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?

Straggler writes: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. 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.

Straggler writes:Having not yet experienced biblical Armageddon you cannot tell me what might be different either. Yahweh might imbue everyone with the certainty of his supernatural divine existence just to make sure people really knew judgement was upon them. In which case you discarded your supernatural folder somewhat prematurely didn't you? How might your postulated existence once dead remove you from the natural world? What is the test you apply to know that you are both dead and no longer part of the natural world. What tests are you applying once dead to determine that you are no longer part of the natural world?

Straggler writes:Since you have never yet experienced biblical Armageddon you presumably can't tell me if it would be any different (e.g. being divinely imbued with knowledge that the supernatural exists) either.So during biblical Armageddon you might need that supernatural folder after all mightn't you?

slevesque writes:The I have no problem with you doing that.I only had a problem with you saying that, by definition, the supernatural most go into the unknown folder. Now we may finally be getting somewhere.If the phenomenon is repeatably observable (dark matter), then I would also put it into the unknown folder. This is not done by definition, but rather by inductive reasoning that throughout history such phenomenons have been found to be natural in nature.However, if it is unrepeatable, and falls outside scientific investigation, and if it comes in direct contradiction with known laws of nature, for example someone raising someone from the dead after the corpse has been rotting for 3 days.You could probably ask if such events do really fall outside of scientific investigation, and I would find no other to show that it is so then by pointing out that scientists never try to find a scientific explanation for how such a thing could happen (for example. ressurection after three days), rather, they simply say that the event never happened in the first place.