Forgiveness

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

DEREK
<snip>
The one thing I find amusing about the idea of the supernatural existing
outside the human imagination is it's ability to affect the natural.  Does
that not make it part of the natural?  It's like people who believe in the
existence of the soul, which runs on the brain.  It's the Casper problem
as Dennett put it.  Casper is completely intangible, but can touch and
move solid objects.  The soul is completely intangible, but it can
interface with both our neurons and the supernatural realm of which it is
a part.

STOLTZFUS
Assertion:  "The supernatural is completely separate from the natural."
It is true (from my standpoint) that YHWH exists as pure spirit
(although I'm not sure if the Incarnation contradicts this doctrine --
to be honest, I haven't thought about it and it's not important to this
discussion.  I only brought it up so that you don't have to.)

What I find curious is your conviction that the supernatural cannot
affect the natural.  Are you saying that because matter cannot affect
the immaterial, the reverse must also be true?  This is not a logical
conclusion.  Especially since you're challenging the belief in the
supernatural -- I don't know of anyone who believes in the supernatural
who thinks that the supernatural is unable to manipulate matter.  And I
challenge you to produce scientific evidence to support your claim that
the soul does not interface with our neurons: maybe you've suddenly
discovered something that you have yet to share with the rest of the
world?  Last time I checked we didn't know everything there is to know
about how neurological impulses are generated.

POOBAH
Jason, you seem to have a habit of labeling statements you don't like as
assertions (see your first statement above, which is not part of the quote
Derek gave you).

Let's try to explain this so that your IQ can understand it: if the
supernatural exists, then it can either affect the "natural" world, or it
cannot. If it can affect the natural world, then the effects should be
observable & quantifiable, which means that it is no longer supernatural, is
it?

If on, the other hand, the supernatural can have no effect on the natural
world, what use is there in theorizing about it? For all intents and
purposes, it does not exist.

The point is, the definition of supernatural you operate on is incoherent
based on the explanation of interaction with the natural world I gave above,
and an incoherent definition is logically useless. The example we like to
use in these parts is "invisible pink unicorn." Clearly since we can imagine
such a thing it must exist, right? The problem is that "invisible" & "pink"
are contradictory. The definition is incoherent. So it is with your
supernatural. And your God, I might add, if you were courageous enough to
offer up a definition.

Once again, the "scientific proof" that there is no supernatural is the fact
that there is no observable evidence for it. If I'm wrong about that, and
there is evidence, kindly point me in the right direction. Being the scholar
that you are, you realize of course the only way to scientifically disprove
something is to hypothesize observations consistent with that theory and
demonstrate an inability to observe that behavior, or instead observe
behavior counter to the theory. Would you care to give us a falsifiable
claim about the supernatural? If not, what does that say about it being a
scientific theory? If it is not a scientific theory, aren't you being
disingenuous for demanding scientific evidence?

B.

• Previous message: Forgiveness
• Next message: Forgiveness
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]