Originally posted by Suzianne Is a computer 'natural'? Isn't it quite beyond 'nature's law'?
Then so are computers supernatural.
A computer is considered a man-made object even though it is made from natural material and conforms to known scientific laws of nature created by God. So I guess that means we have three categories: Natural, supernatural, and man-made.
Originally posted by twhitehead Its called a volcano, and it is natural. Also, being 'natural' has nothing whatsoever to do with the frequency of its occurrence. If that were the case, the first computer would have been declared supernatural.
All of these stories had something supernatural about them, like visiting angels and God intervening with natural laws.
Originally posted by Suzianne Is a computer 'natural'? Isn't it quite beyond 'nature's law'?
Then so are computers supernatural.
As supercomputers are supernatural, they cannot be relied upon. Because it is not governed by natural laws, only 'supernatural laws'. (Are there really such laws as supernatural laws?)
Quite on the contrary, supercomputers are obeying the laws of nature, the laws of physics, and therefore they are not supernatural, but natural.
Only because things are un-understandable for everyone doesn't mean that they are supernatural, only hard to understand.
Originally posted by RJHinds All of these stories had something supernatural about them, like visiting angels and God intervening with natural laws.
Yes, I am aware that there are plenty of stories that attribute natural phenomena to supernatural entities. However you can never ever prove this to be the case, nor even rationally claim that you have reasonable evidence that it is the case.
Sure, you can say 'this angel did this' but you do not know that based on the evidence - because if you did, then the angel would be following some sort of identifiable rule - and would become part of the natural world by definition.
Originally posted by twhitehead Yes, I am aware that there are plenty of stories that attribute natural phenomena to supernatural entities. However you can never ever prove this to be the case, nor even rationally claim that you have reasonable evidence that it is the case.
Sure, you can say 'this angel did this' but you do not know that based on the evidence - because if you did, the ...[text shortened]... owing some sort of identifiable rule - and would become part of the natural world by definition.
You can also say man evolved from an ape some odd millions of years ago, but you do not know that based on the evidence.
Originally posted by RJHinds His resurrection and proving it by leaving a supernatural image on the Shroud of Turin is also supernatural.
Scientists "Jesus Rose From The Dead! " Astounding Proof!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voTiCTqv4Q
I like the alternate true story, Jesus Lived In India.
That version goes like this: JC did not die on the cross, you will note for some reason he was cut down like a day or two early, so then they lathered him in aloe and other HEALING herbs. So he survived, no resurrection AND he decides that being alive is a good thing, hitails it out of town up the silk road where some mysterious stranger founded churches on the silk road and he made it all the the way to Kashmir where he died and there in fact is a grave with feet sculpted with half moon cuts just like JC endured on the cross.
This is MUCH more believable than ANY so-called resurrection your religious folk think happened.
Originally posted by menace71 That Jesus existed is not supernatural but the fact that He walked on water would be supernatural
No, it would not be supernatural. It would be unusual. Your choice to attribute it to the supernatural either is arbitrary or based on religious reasons - but not on a particular feature of the phenomena in question. There is nothing about the act that you can point to that marks it as supernatural without pointing to claims by someone that it was supernatural.
I already pointed out earlier that if unusual things were necessarily supernatural then the first computer would be supernatural, as would the first car, and just about every first.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, it would not be supernatural. It would be unusual. Your choice to attribute it to the supernatural either is arbitrary or based on religious reasons - but not on a particular feature of the phenomena in question. There is nothing about the act that you can point to that marks it as supernatural without pointing to claims by someone that it was superna ...[text shortened]... en the first computer would be supernatural, as would the first car, and just about every first.
Originally posted by twhitehead There cannot possibly be evidence for them. That would contradict your earlier definition of them being 'unexplainable by natural law'. If you have not explained them, then you cannot link any evidence to them - nor can you rule out the possibility that they may be explained in future and thus turn out to be entirely natural.
In fact, I would question wh ...[text shortened]... kind of does. Something that is totally immune to explanation, cannot truly be said to 'exist'.
Perhaps you missed where I said that all these things "could be called" supernatural. I was not declaring them as such. But some people do.
And no, you miss it again.
Calling a thing 'supernatural' doesn't mean it IS, and therefore, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I could call my chicken tenders 'goldfish' and then claim that I eat goldfish. That doesn't mean that neither chicken tenders nor goldfish exist, or that I eat neither of them.
Originally posted by twhitehead No, it would not be supernatural. It would be unusual. Your choice to attribute it to the supernatural either is arbitrary or based on religious reasons - but not on a particular feature of the phenomena in question. There is nothing about the act that you can point to that marks it as supernatural without pointing to claims by someone that it was superna ...[text shortened]... en the first computer would be supernatural, as would the first car, and just about every first.
Why would a human walking on water not be supernatural? We know that it is not possible to walk on water. It's not that it almost never happens ("unusual" ), it's not possible according to the laws of nature.
A human being walking on water without special help and without the water actually being ice, would be supernatural.
Originally posted by Great King Rat Why would a human walking on water not be supernatural? We know that it is not possible to walk on water. It's not that it almost never happens ("unusual" ), it's not possible according to the laws of nature.
A human being walking on water without special help and without the water actually being ice, would be supernatural.
What about Clarke's law: Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be supernatural ( he said magic, same thing.)
Originally posted by Suzianne Perhaps you missed where I said that all these things "could be called" supernatural. I was not declaring them as such. But some people do.
OK. So what was your point? The argument was whether or not evidence could be found for something that is supernatural. Stating that evidence can be found for something that some people incorrectly call supernatural does not help your case. If anything it works against it.
Calling a thing 'supernatural' doesn't mean it IS, and therefore, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It does mean you (or someone else) is claiming that it IS supernatural.
I could call my chicken tenders 'goldfish' and then claim that I eat goldfish. That doesn't mean that neither chicken tenders nor goldfish exist, or that I eat neither of them. I really don't know where you are going with this at all.
Do you agree or disagree with my claim that it is logically impossible to find evidence for something that is supernatural?
26 May '14 23:55
YouTube
Proof of the Supernatural
Back to Top