Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Definitions: Natural Vs. Supernatural.

  1. #31
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,550
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    If God did create and does sustain the universe in what sense is the universe natural?
    You don’t know that God created and sustains the universe. Nor is there good reason to believe this is true. It is a conditional statement, i.e. it is entirely based upon the conditional “IF”. Conditional tenses can only be used to speculate about what could happen, what might have happened, and what we wish would happen if such speculation (e.g. god’s existence) is true.

    In short, this argument is merely wish-fulfillment on your part.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  2. #32
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    ‘Supernatural’ is defined as “some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature”.

    Prove empirically that this definition is correct. With out begging the question.
    You couldn't prove it empirically. That doesn't make any sense. 'Natural' and 'supernatural' aren't empirical concepts. Why don't you tell us where you're headed with this thread?

  3. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  4. #33
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    25,461
    Amen (Given)
    1793
    Amen (Received)
    5210
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    You couldn't prove it empirically. That doesn't make any sense. 'Natural' and 'supernatural' aren't empirical concepts. Why don't you tell us where you're headed with this thread?
    My point there is no rational justification for the definitions or distinctions.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  5. #34
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    607
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.

    What makes you think the definitions are ambiguous at all? It would be too simplistic to say that the Christian SN is just mystical experience. I have said things that sound that why due to short handing it for brevity sake. My view is a bit more complex than that, Rather than a transcendent realm the realm of Grace is God;'s higher nature, It isn't removed from the world it's just better. God's grace raises humans to a higher level for consciousness through mystical e and that is the practical and empirical aspect that can be demonstrated at least in so far as the kind of experience said to be mystical goes. Proving it comes from God is another matter. It is because Super nature is the ground and end of nature that it doe elevate human consciousness. Nature is life from life, the physical world of birth and flesh and blood. The two realms are not opposed to open other, The SN is in the natural as well as beyond it. There is a two sidedness but not a real dualism. This is the view of Eugene R. Fairweather and of Moiaathiaas Jospeh Scheebn before him.[10][11] I have
    summarized these views.

    SN = ground and end of nature; nature = realm of biological life


    10] Eugene R. Fairweather, “Christianity and the Supernatural,” in New Theology no.1. New York: Macmillian, Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman ed. 1964. 235-256, 239.

    [11 ] Matthias Joseph Scheeben, Nature and Grace, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009 (paperback) originally unpublished 1856.

  6. #35
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    607
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    My point there is no rational justification for the definitions or distinctions.
    yes there is I just told you. It;s not pressurizing that most people don;t know because it;s real neglected. Here's a blog pace where I discuss my views on it,

    http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/0...ernatural.html

  7. #36
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    607
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    You don’t know that God created and sustains the universe. Nor is there good reason to believe this is true. It is a conditional statement, i.e. it is entirely based upon the conditional “IF”. Conditional tenses can only be used to speculate about what could happen, what might have happened, and what we wish would happen if such speculation (e.g. god’s existence) is true.

    In short, this argument is merely wish-fulfillment on your part.

    the things you say are wrong, God is real,God did create, but your statement is wrong on a deeper level than just being factually in error. There i a definable Christian view of SN. That is what you say is wrong but you don't know what it is.

  8. #37
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    607
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
    Well, sure. Nothing in metaphysics is 'provable.' But that was kind of assumed, wasn't it?

    Naturalists are saying there's no evidence for anything beyond what can be described by natural law, at least in principle.
    I am not so sure, You make a good point, I understand you are not saying its invalid just because it;not empirical. I think it is empirical if we understand the link to mystical experience.

  9. #38
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    My point there is no rational justification for the definitions or distinctions.
    That's like saying there's no rational justification for any metaphysical definitions or distinctions.

  10. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  11. #39
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,078
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    the things you say are wrong, God is real,God did create, but your statement is wrong on a deeper level than just being factually in error. There i a definable Christian view of SN. That is what you say is wrong but you don't know what it is.
    And the definable Christian view is that God is the supernatural realm, or as you have defined it "the ground of the natural" and the creation is the natural realm. So, I don't see a unique argument or definition there. If god exists, then he/she/it would be the supernatural realm as opposed to the created realm, or natural realm. But the natural realm would be the natural realm whether a god or a supernatural realm existed or not.

  12. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  13. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    564
    Amen (Given)
    15
    Amen (Received)
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And the definable Christian view is that God is the supernatural realm, or as you have defined it "the ground of the natural" and the creation is the natural realm. So, I don't see a unique argument or definition there. If god exists, then he/she/it would be the supernatural realm as opposed to the created realm, or natural realm. But the natural realm would be the natural realm whether a god or a supernatural realm existed or not.
    Except that the word "natural" would be understood in two different senses then, depending on whether or not there is a Creator; either as "created" or as "uncreated." If God does not intervene in the world, other than as creator, then the two senses would be the same as far as the internal causal workings of the world. So it wouldn't matter to a natural scientist, say, whether or not there is a God, although it would matter metaphysically, as far as the reason for the world, its initiating and sustaining cause.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •