The Movie Paranormal Activity

Because your boxed based nonsense amounted to nothing more than 'That which is supernatural is whatever Xongsmith decides'.Can you answer the following and give your reasoning - Is Voldermort supernatural? Is Thor supernatural? Is Jesus as described in the bible supernatural? Earth's orbit apparently used to supernatural. But are consciousness or Dark Matter or other as yet unconsidered aspects of nature currently supernatural?If there are any criteria beyond "Xongsmith thinks so" I have yet to hear them.

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?

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?

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?

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.

Don't conflate verified existence with scientific explanation. 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. Nothing resembling ghosts has ever been demonstrated to exist. People believing Jim Jones to have supernatural powers is not the same as him demonstrating that he did have such powers. 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. 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.

What did Jimmy prophecise? Huh? What is materially inexplicable about killing lots of people? Your comparison seems rather weak. 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. 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?

Why can't it be both known to exist and supernatural?

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. Why doesn't this honesty apply once you are dead? On what basis do you assume that being dead might remove you from the natural world in a way that biblical Armageddon couldn't.

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.

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?

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?

But you can imagine some way of both acquiring knowledge of the supernatural and testing it to be such once dead?Can you describe how you imagine doing this? Until you present a method testing this once dead you have no basis for not applying the same arguments to whatever state of reality you potentially find yourself in once dead. Except that you inconsistently refuse to apply the same reasoning to this 'onceI'm-dead' state of reality you keep positing. Why? The same way that dying removes you from the natural world? How do you envisage that occurring?

The fact that there is no evidence of something does not mean that it is by definition impossible for it to be evidenced. Obviously.Is Thor supernatural?

You spent the first part of this thread telling Slevesque that his use of the term supernatural was meaningless and the rest of it citing some aspect of being dead (and GOD) that exactly matches his description of supernatural. In the biblical Armageddon example the supernatural comes to you. In your once-I-am-dead scenario you (somehow) are transferred to the supernatural.With regard to testing the supernaturality being experienced to ensure it's genuineness - No test or method of knowing is applicable to either scenario that can not be cited for the other. Divinely imbued with knowledge? Could apply to either case. There is no basis for a distinction aside from your personal belief. OK. But your personal beliefs don't seem a very good basis upon which to make our conclusion about what constitutes positive evidence of the supernatural.