quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I have a feeling that we disagree fundamentally on the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural". Could you please tell me your definition of these two concepts? I have a lot of comments to the rest of your post, but if the problem is a radical distance in understanding of these two terms, then I feel that they will be useless.

My definition pretty much goes hand in hand with the dictionary definition.

Natural - caused by a process that is in accordance with logic and existing physical relations of the universe which does not involve a divine entity.

Supernatural - caused by a divine entity that does not have to obey the laws of physics existing in this universe.

___________________
1+1=10

Crap, just saw your responses Trancaholic. Sorry but I won't have time to get to them today. I'll respond to you as much as I can tomorrow. It does seem that our definitions are somewhat different when it comes to Design Theory, which as I figured had much to do with crossing philosophy with scientific rationale. Still, I'm pretty interested in your interpretation on the matter.

I'll talk more later.

Opus

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 My definition pretty much goes hand in hand with the dictionary definition. Natural - caused by a process that is in accordance with logic and existing physical relations of the universe which does not involve a divine entity. Supernatural - caused by a divine entity that does not have to obey the laws of physics existing in this universe.

By these definitions, you have sort of pushed the argument onto the definition of "divine", which according to Merriam-Webster is something that involves a god. My question would therefore be: Wouldn't you consider a ghost to be supernatural? How about the concept of ESP? A werewolf?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic By these definitions, you have sort of pushed the argument onto the definition of "divine", which according to Merriam-Webster is something that involves a god. My question would therefore be: Wouldn't you consider a ghost to be supernatural? How about the concept of ESP? A werewolf?

Heh, we could perpetuate this argument over and over to the point where we will realize that every definition of the word is tied only to definitions of other words, which basically means it's a closed system that uses circular logic.

Anyway, to answer your questions about ghosts, werewolves and similar phenomena...Well, duh, they're leftovers from the previous matrices .

Ok, ok, I'll be serious. We can hardly say that we know everything about the environment and the laws that govern it. If there exist such creatures and if they act in accordance to physical laws, or if the new discoveries can modify those laws so that they can allow for such creatures to exist, then I would not consider them supernatural. If there is no possible reasonable explanation about their existance and if they were obviously breaking the laws of physics, then there are two possible explanations. Either there is a natural being that has reached a level of technology where it is capable of molding the laws of physics to its own desire, or there indeed is a higher being which is somehow capable of controling every aspect of the universe and which has for a stragne reason created it.

On the other hand, even if there is a creator of the universe, it doesn't mean that the creator is capable of doing anything it pleases. For all we know, the universe may just be a scientific experiment of creatures greater than us, yet still forced to abide to laws enforced upon them by their own environment. Of course, the question then is, do the creators have the creator? Eventually, we must arrive at the point where there is either an all powerful being that is capable of everything or the universe{s} is(are) just here without a reason or a beginning. I guess you could say at this point that there can't be an all-powerful being by asking a question whether that creature can make a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it. Whichever way you go, it's not all-powerful. But, hell, who knows, maybe it's just like asking someone if his mom knows he's a gay. Whatever you answer you say that you're a gay, even if it is not correct. For all we know, the laws of logic may follow the same pattern, we may just be asking a silly question that is scratching the surface without knowing the essence that lies deeper within. Personally, I think we'll have a lot of evolution and research to do before we could answer those questions, or realize that they cannot be answered in a simplistic way.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ok, ok, I'll be serious. We can hardly say that we know everything about the environment and the laws that govern it. If there exist such creatures and if they act in accordance to physical laws, or if the new discoveries can modify those laws so that they can allow for such creatures to exist, then I would not consider them supernatural. If there is no possible reasonable explanation about their existance and if they were obviously breaking the laws of physics, then there are two possible explanations. Either there is a natural being that has reached a level of technology where it is capable of molding the laws of physics to its own desire, or there indeed is a higher being which is somehow capable of controling every aspect of the universe and which has for a stragne reason created it.

LOL. After reading this I am even more in doubt as to whether you would call, say, the ghost supernatural, and how that is different from God, which seems to fit your last couple of lines.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I find other universes obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science, as just as supernatural as a God obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science. If you disagree then I cannot see any means of persuading you that the "many universes"-theory is just as outrageous an explanation as the "God"-theory.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 On the other hand, even if there is a creator of the universe, it doesn't mean that the creator is capable of doing anything it pleases. For all we know, the universe may just be a scientific experiment of creatures greater than us, yet still forced to abide to laws enforced upon them by their own environment.

Yes, I agree fully. My point has not been to convince anyone that they should believe in the christian God and everything in the bible or which they hear in church. My beef is with atheists who say that their conviction is not a belief since they have all the scientific facts on their side.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic LOL. After reading this I am even more in doubt as to whether you would call, say, the ghost supernatural, and how that is different from God, which seems to fit your last couple of lines.

Well, the primary difference is that the natural creatures would originate from this universe, while the supernatural ones would originate from, how shall I put it, outside of all existance. The hypothetical aliens I mentioned who live outside of our universe and can do with it anything they like but are still obliged to follow some other laws would not be truly supernatural. They would be some sort of quasisupernatural demigods on a local level. A truly supernatural being should be outside of all existance and incomprehensible using any possible means of understanding.

quote:

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I find other universes obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science, as just as supernatural as a God obeying different laws (or none at all) and so far being undetectable to science. If you disagree then I cannot see any means of persuading you that the "many universes"-theory is just as outrageous an explanation as the "God"-theory.

Other universes would obey laws that are not so much different in essence than they are different in form. Cosmological constants would be different, maybe numbers of dimensions as well. The difference between other universes and a god is that other universes would have to obide to at least some laws, while god obides to none. Besides, having one universe around shows that the existance of a universe is possible, maybe even likely. Having no gods around that we know of does not mean that such existance is impossible, but it means that the impossibility of it is possible. Take for example a horse and an invisible pink unicorn. You've seen a horse, and from that you know that at least one exist. If there is one in existance, it means that nature allows for such creature to exist, and that there could be others as well. You haven't seen an invisible pink unicorn (or detected it in some other way, as it is invisible after all), and although you can not firmly conclude that there are no invisible pink unicornes in existance in this universe, the scenario is quite possible.

quote:

Yes, I agree fully. My point has not been to convince anyone that they should believe in the christian God and everything in the bible or which they hear in church. My beef is with atheists who say that their conviction is not a belief since they have all the scientific facts on their side.

Yeah, well, you really can't be to certain about anything. Whenever you start to dig deeper you realize that we do not know the essence of things, only their superficial relationship with other things.

Mind here that the god does not have to be outside the universe, we didn't mention the theory that the very universe itself could be a god. Using Occam's razor, the theory would be equally viable as the one that proposes that universe simply exists for no reason at all with no gods on the outside. It would use the least number of entities (1), and would incorporate both proposals. Infact, it would almost be equivalent with the second theory, as both theories propose that god/universe simply exists here without being able to explain the rationale behind it.

___________________
1+1=10