CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The only supernatural things that exist to me is angels and demons but I believe that those 2 exist because there are videos on youtube of a Christian man taking out demons who are possessing other people.
Yes, I remember when I saw someone die, I could feel their energy leaving their body. There are always things humans cannot explain. Remember, Humans like to think they are masters of their own domain.
While what you felt could have been their "energy" doesn't it seem more likely that it was something else? We as humans tend to "want" supernatural things to exist and that skews our perception. If you look how the human mind (and body) constantly plays tricks on us (dreams, deja vu, etc) it's hard to say anything "supernatural" we sense is real. I mean look at someone on drugs like bath salts, or LSD. They see and feel supernatural things constantly. So this means that simple chemical reactions in the brain can create 100% real feeling sensations that are not there. So it seems like if a human "senses" something super natural, you would have to chock it up to chemical reactions before you could say it supernatural. If supernatural things were real and not just an artificial sensation, why can't we repeat them, capture them on film, sense them with scientific instruments, etc? I'm not saying it's not possible, just seems highly unlikely and intellectually dishonest to say something is supernatural when other explanations are more likely.
These things have been measured with scientific instruments. A doctor measured the weight difference as people died. This experiment has been repeated wit he same results. Yes, you do have a valid point about people wanting to believe, it it like that with most supernatural things, but some are true.
People do get lighter by varying amounts soon after death, but not due to a "soul".
I contend that in fact no supernatural "thing" has ever been proven true. Because of this, even when we think we have witnessed something supernatural, we should assume a natural explanation BEFORE we assume a supernatural one.
There are many other sources, that one was just convenient.
God's existence has been mathematically proven. Look at the laws of thermodynamics.
Even if you use the laws of thermodynamics to prove there is "energy" and or "forces" it does not prove anything about a god that is an intelligent creator. Sure god exists if your willing to say "energy" is god.
Kurt Godel's proof does not hold water unless you accept a lot of assumptions. He himself said the proof was just an exercise in model logic and did not believe in god. Clearly if he though the proof actually proved god he would have HAD to believe in god.
If you call god simply "energy", I can't dispute it. However I don't think most people, religious texts, dictionaries, etc, except that simple definition.
We as humans tend to "want" supernatural things to exist and that skews our perception.
One of our biggest mistakes is to assume that we see things as they are. History has shown that we don't see things as they are. It there is a possibility that at one point in our history that we actually saw things as two dimensional. Egyptian art implies that we may have seen things two dimensional. Also, have understanding of things also changes how they seem to us. Understanding weather, stars, falling stars, northern lights, etc, change how we perceive reality.
What we see isn't reality, it's a group consensus of what is a real. It is very possibility that any individual could have a better understanding of what is a real.
For example: Some of the sorcerer's of the Ancient South America could mess with reality in some very interesting ways. They could project their consciousness to be above their head instead of normal eye level. They could hide things from other's consciousness.
There are many things around us that we don't see. And what about the microscope world? There is a ton of stuff happening is that world that we don't see.
My personally believe that God is a microscopic consciousness that is so smaller, we will never see it. Mathematical truth is true everywhere and is true down to the small imaginable space.
With the discovery of "Dark Matter and Dark Energy" there are very interesting discussions about where 97% of our universe could be hiding? The search for the "Scientific 4th Dimension" is on.
One of the things discovered is that the "Light of the Universe" could not have survived on it's own. Dark energy is pushing the universe apart and actually accelerating it. Some people think that dark energy is right here with us, and somehow the particles are wrapped so tight that we cannot perceive them.
My point is: we don't perceive reality. We see what we see, but just like a movie, it's an illusion.
Egyptian art implies that we may have seen things two dimensional. Also, have understanding of things also changes how they seem to us.
I don't think that's true. Art historians understand very well the evolution of perspective drawing. Even so, you can't look at abstract "art" and draw any conclusions about the reality of the world. Because Escher draws optical illusions does not meet the word works they way he draws it.
There are many things around us that we don't see. And what about the microscope world? There is a ton of stuff happening is that world that we don't see.
This is why we have microscopes so we can see the microscopic world.
My point is: we don't perceive reality. We see what we see, but just like a movie, it's an illusion.
You could say that but whats the point? I mean we have to move on with our lives and live in the reality we perceive. The question "Do supernatural things exist" is relative to our reality (even if other realities do exist) so I think the answer is "no".
You could say that but whats the point? I mean we have to move on with our lives and live in the reality we perceive. The question "Do supernatural things exist" is relative to our reality (even if other realities do exist) so I think the answer is "no".
This isn't fair. You are saying, and live in the reality we perceive." That basically says, "if it isn't in our reality, why worry about it?"
The point is, (and forgive me if I get a little emotional about this) everyone is telling me how to see reality and it is they that refuse to see reality. I'm not claiming that I see all of reality, or even a little bit of it, but I believe that I see more of it then many of my fellow humans.
The reason we "should" seek to understand reality is because it is who we are. And please, do not misunderstand me. I do not assume that everyone is as interested in reality as I am. Some people are good at music, or politics, or art, and such and I'm not. I would just rather someone else do it for me.
If we take the stance of, "my perspective IS reality and everything doesn't matter," then of course there is no supernatural.
The question cannot be relative to our reality. The question is meant to imply that other realities may some times creep in to ours.
And microscopes don't tell us everything about the microscopic world. We might see them, but do we understand them? How aware are they? What kind of consciousness do they have?
Of course, all things are relative. I didn't mean to imply that they aren't. But influences have to be considered, even if the stimulating source is not in our reality. If we observe phenomenon, I think we are obligated to respect it. One of the major differences better believers and non-believers is the recognition of the phenomenon. Perhaps a person prays and see a response. Another person may not pray and therefore not see any response.
God doesn't actually need prayers to respond. The desires of our heart, whether spoken or unspoken, are automatically responded to. Our lives are a mess because of our conflicting desires. On one hand we want to have friends, on the other hand we want to protect our heart, so the result is sort of a love/hate relationship with our friends.
God asks us to pray simply so we can be aware that what we ask for is coming. And also, if we "ask" we might adventure into the "less possible" and open our lives up to adventure.
The point is, (and forgive me if I get a little emotional about this) everyone is telling me how to see reality and it is they that refuse to see reality.
Obviously you can perceive anything any way you like. If your perceiving stuff that no one else is, my inclination would be you may have a neurological condition. I don't meant that in a mean or negative way, I'm just thinking logically and looking at the chance of you having "special perception" out of all the billions of people on earth that don't. Many people have neurological conditions that cause 100% real sensations to the person but in fact (as far as we know) are just defects in the brain.
I guess my point is how do you know your perceiving a different reality and not just suffering from a neurological disorder?
I guess my point is how do you know your perceiving a different reality and not just suffering from a neurological disorder?
LOL
I don't know. But when I say "I perceive things" I'm not talking about ghosts. I am "admitting" that what I "see" is not real. What I am saying, "if it has influence" it is real.
Many people see ghosts. Say that Joe Plumper is walking down the road one day, he looks up and he sees his dead Uncle Frank Plumber around the road. Joe Plumper is so stunned, he starts around the street to say "hi" and is hit by a bus and killed.
An third party observes just sees Joe crossing the street, and having known Frank, noted that a person that looked like Frank was across the street. The facts seem to be, Joe someone that looked like Frank and crossed the road to get a closer look.
When I say, "I perceive things" that other don't, I mean, "Joe saw a ghost." That is why he crossed the street. He didn't cross the street to meet the look-alike. It was Joe seeing Frank's ghost that got him killed.
Now obviously, it wasn't Frank's ghost. Turns out was it Roland Pianotuner.
Somewhere in Joe's head, something saw the ghost and responded to the ghost. He wouldn't have responded to a like able. For whatever reason, Joe's mind was exact sensitive to Frank's imagine. Maybe it was guilt, maybe it loss, maybe it joy, or whatever. Joe's subconsciousness presented the image as Frank.
Every day we look at and respond to things. Very, very often we respond to things without even being aware of them. Maybe we take a taxi because we are afraid of the subway. Maybe we walk down 4th because of the hot chick working the mobile phone store.
I'm not suffering from neurological issues anymore then anyone else. I know I am a little crazy, because. . . . obviously I am.
I see the same things everything else sees, but what I see in them is different. Some times I see a beautiful woman walking done the road, suddenly she starts walking tall, almost if she is on the runway. So I look around, and sure enough, there is a group of construction workers checking her out.
She is responding to a rather natural need to seem attractive. She doesn't want anything to do with them, but still, she puts on a show.
I'm saying I see things people miss, not that they don't see.
LOL I don't know. But when I say "I perceive things" I'm not talking about ghosts. I am "admitting" that what I "see" is not real. What I am saying, "if it has influence" it is real.
I know it sounds funny, but I think it's a good argument and you have not proven it wrong. I say neurological disorder is the most logical answer when one person senses things that other can't. We know neurological disorders are quite prevalent, there effects can be very "real feeling", and were pretty sure super natural perception is not possible, therefor the "critical thinker" must assume neurological disorder before something supernatural.
Every day we look at and respond to things. Very, very often we respond to things without even being aware of them. Maybe we take a taxi because we are afraid of the subway. Maybe we walk down 4th because of the hot chick working the mobile phone store.
Subconscious decision making is not super natural.
I'm saying I see things people miss, not that they don't see.
If all your saying is your more observant than most people, I'll take your word on that. But if your saying that you "sense" things that other people can't then, as a critical thinker, I have to assume you have a disorder (see above).
yes i think that a supernatural power do exists and the biggest evidence for this can be none other than the existence of the living.For those who oppose this-don't you ever wonder how are you alive?who has blessed you with this precious life?who has blessed your body with a pretty soul?For me the answer is the supernatural power-who is always protecting me from being the wild in me.Thats not just with me but all of us-alive
By definition, supernatural "things" are impossible to verify using naturalistic methods. Also, MANY supernatural things and occurrences have been shown, upon close investigation, to be naturalistic phenomena.
Does this mean that the supernatural does not exist? Not conclusively, but saying that they do requires evidence that can usually be defeated by investigative inquiry and reason, so we should be skeptical of such claims.
My common stance is that "if it has influence it is real."
There are many things that have power and influence that are not natural. Spirit, for example is supernatural. Take the Spirit of Hope. It isn't physically real, and it doesn't "grow" in natural anywhere. It cannot be made, but must be believed and then it has great power.
There are unseen things that move us all the time. They might not exactly ghosts and fairies, but unseen things motivate and influence us everyday. We might fear ghosts, but what is the difference between being afraid of a real ghost and one your imagination? Fear is the result. It's the "idea" of the ghost that scares us, not a sheet with holes cut in it.
There can be all sorts of "anomalies" but if it can be measured there is a way to explain it. Even odd hot spots could be some sort of heated gas coming out of the earth or something.
To me supernatural are influences that do not appear in natural. And I think there are many forces that don't exist in "natural."
My common stance is that "if it has influence it is real."
Sure, I can work with that and fully support you on it. However, I would like to make an addition: "if it has influence it is real, if it has a measurable influence on naturalistic items and/or can be predictably manipulated by naturalistic items, it is naturalistic."
You talk about "spirit", but that term is highly ambiguous. Thankfully, you were thoughtful enough to provide a specific example: "the spirit of hope". This is an interesting thing to look into. I did a little quick research, and found this blog entry: http://www.brainhealthhacks.com/2008/10/ 16/the-neuroscience-behind-hope/
Here, the aithor admits that hope has not been directly studied by neuroscience, but the placebo effect has. And the author points out how the placebo effect is essentially an effect of hope. Several studies indicate that the strength of the placebo effect is related to DA D2/D3 levels in the nucleus accumbens. How much is nature and how much is nurture, how perfectly this corellation matches and whether this applies to hope in a general sense are all questions that still need resolution. But it does at least support the possibility that hope, like any other emotion, is based on chemicals in the brain. Manipulation of these chemicals should be able to increase or decrease it. Therefore, I would argue that, by my understanding of naturalistic phenomena, hope has a naturalistic source.
Fear works pretty similarly, although we are talking about different pathways and chemicals, its still all in the noggin. And some phobias show evidence of being influenced by evolution.
There can be all sorts of "anomalies" but if it can be measured there is a way to explain it. Even odd hot spots could be some sort of heated gas coming out of the earth or something.
I fully agree. This leads more credence to the claim that "supernatural" occurrences can be found to be perfectly naturalistic in origin.
To me supernatural are influences that do not appear in natural. And I think there are many forces that don't exist in "natural."
That is fine, but it bears repeating that throughout history, as scientific investigation has become more capable, many things that did not appear to be naturalistic were shown to be. It also bears repeating that this does not completely rule out the supernatural, but it does show the value of skepticism and patient investigation.
This leads more credence to the claim that "supernatural" occurrences can be found to be perfectly naturalistic in origin.
See, you are putting me in a tight spot here.
Of course all things are natural. There is a perfectly good explanation for all things. I don't know for sure, I think the word "magic" and "magnet" were closely related. Sure, magnets are perfectly natural. But at one time, they were magic.
There will always be things we don't understand. Sir Issac Newton thought that he pretty much had everything figured out, expect for a couple of pesky little issues.
Science for the most part turns a blind eye to things they don't want to face because it cannot be proved.
For example: Spirit of Hope. Instead of looking at the magic of it we go looking for the "hormone" so something? If there is a hormone, why does it exist? I believe that our "desires" have a supernatural type effect. Granted, I only call it supernatural because society doesn't have a method to explain it.
I have a model that goes pretty deep that pretty much justifies EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS as perfectly natural. So if I saw a ghost, I wouldn't call it supernatural. If I saw one, there would be a perfectly natural way to explain it. One difference in me is that I have a wider-scope of what is natural. In some cases a person says, "I saw a ghost" and the doctor says "well, obviously this person is suffering from some sort of hallucination and must be drugged."
If someone sees a ghost, I want to know about it. The subconsciousness can do some funny things to us, and for very good reasons.
For most of this debate between us, I think we need to come to a consensus on the definitions of natural and supernatural. Natural would be anything that is in complete accordance with the laws of nature. This doesn't rule out discovering new laws whilst observing the phenomena, but those laws would have to be compatible with other laws, and any deviation would have to be explainable and mathematically predictable.
Supernatural would defy those laws until and unless a universal law can be identified verifying its natural nature, at which point it would stop being classified as supernatural.
If we can agree to this concept, we can continue. But there is one other response I want to make really quick.
Instead of looking at the magic of it we go looking for the "hormone" so something? If there is a hormone, why does it exist?
Evolution allowed it. Every trait a species has has been thus far allowed by evolution. Some would take this a step further and say it is beneficial for survival. And in the case of hope I definitely think it is. As the author of that blog post said, "hope can carry us through a desert". Hope is essentially a counter to our more skeptical, negative inclinations. Those who lack hope are probably less likely to continue on against hardship. And considering how hard life probably was for humans before civilization, those who fight on would likely have a better survival and reproduction rate.
All of that being said, it wouldn't necessarily have to be advantageous, it would just have to be something unlikely to cause us to die young. People erroneously think of evolution as selecting FOR positive traits, but it is more accurate to say that it selects AGAINST detrimental traits.
Supernatural would defy those laws until and unless a universal law can be identified verifying its natural nature, at which point it would stop being classified as supernatural.
Then there can be no consensus. Supernatural traditionally means things like miracles, teleportation, ghosts, clairvoyance, ESP, remote viewing, channeling, visions, walking on the water, etc. I can explain all of that using modern theories, science, logic, and other forms of BS. (Except for the walking on the water, that one I still don't understand. If it did happen, it had to do with some sort of changing the relationship between water walker and the water.)
All things follow law. Supernatural just means laws that we don't under, but observe the phenomenon. For example: Saint Elmo's Fire. For years it was thought to be some creepy magic of the Sea Gods. Now, we have learned that when lightning strikes the water, it can create plasma which is still not a fully understand creation. It is almost pure energy, but can be handled by bare hands.
At one time, it was supernatural, now it is natural.
Anyway, I will not fall into the trap of saying supernatural break the laws of nature. I am merely saying the supernatural is stuff that more or less blows our minds because we don't understand how it could happen.
Part of what I was saying Hope being supernatural was that we can put our hope in the things that do break the laws of Nature. For example: We can put our hope in angels. Whether or not they are real isn't important, they produce hope which has real effect.
The Magic of Religion is largely based upon the placebo effect.
I used to work in the drug research field. I have seen the studies. One study was on a drug that was meant to compete with Prozac. This was meant to be a $3 million a day drug. The FDA requires that it be better then nothing.
Across the board, this drug had worse side affects then the placebo, which was a bout 20 points of study. The last four points, which were like, "less depressed, more social" and such, the lines crossed and the drug got better then the placebo, but barely. All of the dry mouth, suicidal, paranoid, etc, were over looked.
The placebo effect is incredible. Some vitamin companies have been busted for basically selling placebos to the public.
Personally, I have wondered about the magic of the Placebo effect for years. Studies have been done on it, but not much as has been released that I could find. The FDA considers the Placebo to be "nothing" even though study groups that indeed took nothing showed no changed. Proving that a drug is actually better then the Placebo is actually pretty hard to do. Many drugs that seemed promising were studied only to die on the vine because they couldn't prove they were better then the Placebo.
Why not? If you don't agree with my definition, then we can use yours: "Something which follows laws we don't understand". At least then we can talk on the same playing field, although I think you will find that your definition creates some problems outside of the confines of this debate.
Supernatural traditionally means things like miracles, teleportation, ghosts, clairvoyance, ESP, remote viewing, channeling, visions, walking on the water, etc.
This is not a definition though. It is simply a list of things. And I would say these things actually all fit nicely into my definition. You claim you have explanations for these things. Well, I do not. Most of things simply either do not exist, or are supernatural in my world. You would have to offer individual explanations to sway me one way or the other.
At one time, it was supernatural, now it is natural.
Which has happened a lot. By your definition, this makes supernatural occurances a sort of place holder. Which is fine, but it removes the reverence that a lot of religions have for these sorts of things, no?
Anyway, I will not fall into the trap of saying supernatural break the laws of nature.
This is no trap...it simply fits with my definition of them, which I believe is the commonly understood definition, but perhaps not?
Part of what I was saying Hope being supernatural was that we can put our hope in the things that do break the laws of Nature.
That would make those things supernatural, but not hope itself. It is like creativity: creativity is perfectly natural, but we can still use it to conceive of the supernatural even without direct encounters with such things.
The Magic of Religion is largely based upon the placebo effect.
Holy crap! That is brilliant!! May I quote you?
As far as the Placebo Effect, I think the blog I linked to previously either had links to PDFs on research about it or at least named the study. It is a fascinating topic, perhaps we should both look into it?
The Magic of Religion is largely based upon the placebo effect.
Holy crap! That is brilliant!! May I quote you?
I don't know how I am supposed to debate this. The deepest of form of flattery is to quote me. But for the principle of it . . . .I will.
In my belief system, there are two side of the universe. The Outside and the Inside.
The Inner is strictly Consciousness. I refer to the scripture, "The Kingdom of God is within." The Placebo Effect is based upon belief and faith. God's first request is that people believe. Miracles have been documented by the Catholic Church, who take the subject very seriously. They actually have a task force who investigates claims of miracles. And they do find them.
I know several situations where doctors have scratched their heads and say, "I don't believe it."
If the Kingdom of God is within, so is God. Having faith in God comes down to having faith in yourself and believing your capable of anything.
There have been recent mathematical discoveries about the universe.
We think the universe is 3 dimensional, because we see HxDxW. We used to think that space just existed and that the Big Bang was just expanding into Space. My older brothers used say that space was the only infinite thing in existence. If you went to the edge of the Universe, what would you have? More space, right?
Wrong! The Big Bang created space. If you could stand in space and throw a baseball in one direction and then stand there long enough, it would eventually hit you in the back of the head. The Universe in actually stretched around something else that is sort in the shape of a donut.
What is mystifying many physics expects is what?
The power of change is within us. The core of us, as the word core implies, is within.
It seems at this point we are having more of a discussion than a debate, per se. But that's perfectly fine.
Based on this and the other things you've been posting, it becomes increasingly clear to me that you have latched onto a spiritual view that is more "mystic" than religious. For the purposes of this discussion, I am defining "mystic" as being internal spiritual work as opposed to more external practices, rituals and histories that tend to dominate the public face of most religions. Mysticism can take many forms, but as a whole has always seemed more universal and cohesive than the more external practices that are often used to characterize most religions. For instance, mystics almost always meditate as part of their spiritual practice. This may be zazen, or using hallucinogens, it may involve yoga or tantra, may be really undisciplined and personal or highly focused and ritualized. In all cases though, meditation tends to try peel back layers of consciousness like the layers of an onion, to dig deep into the subconscious to seek truth, and tends to have pretty similar effects if practiced regularly and with great determination. There is often more to it than just meditation, but med is a great place to frame the whole concept around.
The interesting thing about mysticism is, even though many of the bigger religions have pulled away from it over the past few thousand years, it is an almost inescapable part of all of them. It was likely the first approach to spirituality, the cornerstone of the older animistic practices. Many Eastern relgions are highly mystical in nature, as are the European "pagan/wiccan" practices and chaos magic. All three of the Abrahamic religions have mystical offshoots, sometimes referred to collectively as "gnostic" practices.
So what's my whole take on this? On the one hand it makes more sense to me than the more popular approaches to religion I've been presented with. It usually comes with some variety of baggage, but in its core, it offers a sort of universality you just can't find in "pop religion". Potentially, this universal nature could lend credence to it all. It certainly seems easier to posit verifiability than more narrow, specific and usually untenable "histories" and "moral truths" forced upon us by ancient texts. One might say that such universal unification means it would almost certainly have to be true.
But then...if it is human minds that are doing similar things, it seems likely that we would get similar results regardless of whether it was true or not. These "feelings" of super-naturalness, this connection with God, this feeling that everything is connected and possibly little more than permeations of some universal energy not only COULD just be side effects of traveling into our own subconscious, they almost certainly are. They make us feel good, connected, but do they get us any closer to truth? Only if they actually ARE true in and of themselves. And I would argue that simply plumbing deeper into our own personae provides us no real universal truth, and provides limited options for testing its veracity.
You pretty much nailed me to the cross on that one.
You have exposed the depth of your wisdom, so I think I can sort of cut to the chase on this one.
You're full of shit. (Ah, that felt better.) However, you are right. I'm a mystic from a different branch of the tree. I don't use drugs, but do use self-hypnotism and gothic opera trance music to induce trances.
My argument defies your poison fang technique. (sorry about that, I watch too much Kung Fu Panda.) I believe that deep within the subconscious is God. Religious texts from many different lines place the Kingdom within. I had a near death experience when I was young. I saw things, people, felt things, did things, etc. I've done more research on near death then anyone I know. (I don't know many folks.)
I believe that things like Clairvoyance, ESP, ghosts, spirits, angels, and such are actually within our subconsciousness. ESP is not some sort of transmitter in the brain sending out a signal. As someone with a background in Radio Frequency, I know that the brain would fry. However, as you get deeper, you tie into connections and groups where many people are part of the same "wave length" so to speak. You can feel them. I've talked with people hearing voices. I talked to them with respect, not like they are were crazy. Some of the things they said and said about me, tripped me out. They knew what I was, what I THOUGHT I was, and they were just laughing at me. Called me Naive and Innocent.
When people go nuts and start hearing voices, the filter to the subconscious has slipped a little. They are hearing stuff from their own subconscious. The deeper you go, the cooler it gets. All life is one. I've seen it, I understand how. I'm not living any better then anyone else. In spite of what I've tried to do, my emotions are still not in tune with my reality. I want to be Mr. Nice guy and apparent that isn't exactly me. So I come here to see who I can get into a fight with.
LOL. You haven't defeated my posion fang at all. You are just reiterating your previous statements without refuting mine. You still haven't pointed out how any of this is objectively real and not just, literally, all in your head.
SO yes, I will call you naive and innocent. Perhaps even full of shit :P
You still haven't pointed out how any of this is objectively real and not just, literally, all in your head.
LOL, is that true? In all of this time I thought I wasn't getting my point across.
Reality is a Perspective. Yes, it's all in my head. And this may come as a shock, but my head. . . . . is part of reality.
We have personal realities, and then we have realities as groups and countries, and even a species.
All facts are in our heads. They are agreed upon symbols and definitions that are not real.
Remember a time when the earth was flat, and it was a fact. It was obviously so, for as far as the eye could see, it was flat. After sometime, we decided that wasn't a fact at all. The world is round, and that's a fact. But recent mathematical possibilities suggest that the world isn't round, that its actually structured some sort of magnetic/atom pattern and that we if knew how, we could step from here to China.
I'm not saying I know how, I'm saying it's a possibility that facts as we know them don't exist.
This is going to crack you up. I don't really believe in God either. God is nothing. And as Moses in the Bible suggested, Man is also Nothing. God doesn't exist. If you dug really deep into the universe, all you would find is "nothing."
You mentioned that I proved that facts are incomplete. That was part of my argument. Facts are a "snippet" of the event.
Facts claim be "what actually is, was, or will be." Oddly, this is what the Lord claims to be, so maybe facts are the devil. (JK)
What actually is in the case of facts is purely subjective, (except mathematical truth.) As I said, "John coughed" doesn't define what "actually happened." We English speaking folks decided what a cough was and how to name it. Anti-Supernatural folks claim that "God doesn't come pre-installed." Neither do facts.
In one my favorite movies, "Lord of the Rings" it took the Ents all day just to greet each other. To try and state what "actually happened" when John coughed would take years. We like to cut it short. Words and symbols make communication possible. I know what facts are, and I enjoy the use of them, but they are not real. They cannot state what "actually is" because we don't know what actually is.
And please understand, when I say "actually is" I mean actually is.
The universe is so interconnected that no one thing can ever be defined by its self. The phrase "All Things Are Relative" is Universal Law. Let's take John for instance. Who is John? What is John? Sure, John is the label we have attached to a specific pile of flesh. But what is that pile of flesh and bone really? Was it John that actually coughed, or was is some autonomic system that John cannot even control?
I could drive any one insane if they tried to give me an example of a fact.
Facts are human made. I concede that mathematical facts are real, but only because I cannot prove otherwise. But who knows, maybe the fact that 1+1=2 is really a product of something we don't understand.
My stance on facts in my heart is for one major reason. I will never know everything because of the interconnectivity of the universe, to KNOW ONE THING is to know them all.
Never can you look at one thing and say, "I know that." Because just like "John coughed" the fact is just a convenience, not a reality.
If it is reality, you must then reduced it to "your reality" and not what "actually is."
And this may come as a shock, but my head. . . . . is part of reality
A very tiny part of it, yes. And due to personal bias, human fallibility and ego, it is hardly a litmus test for the way things really are.
Remember a time when the earth was flat, and it was a fact. It was obviously so, for as far as the eye could see, it was flat. After sometime, we decided that wasn't a fact at all. The world is round, and that's a fact. But recent mathematical possibilities suggest that the world isn't round, that its actually structured some sort of magnetic/atom pattern and that we if knew how, we could step from here to China.
As far as your mathematical possibilities and single-stepping it to China, care to provide a source? And unless you are proposing that the world really was flat when we thought it was and only became actually roundish when we thought it was, I don't see how you are helping your point. Usually, using the flat earth concept is a method of highlighting that there are objective truths out there, regardless of whether we are aware of them.
If you dug really deep into the universe, all you would find is "nothing."
Are you sure you aren't a Buddhist? All you mystics sound the same :P
Anti-Supernatural folks claim that "God doesn't come pre-installed." Neither do facts.
I agree. Which is why looking inside to find the answers seems about as useful as trying to learn about someone by citing facts about yourself.
They cannot state what "actually is" because we don't know what actually is.
You apparently didn't read or comprehend all of my statement in the other debate. I do not believe in creationism, do not consider it scientific. But people are going to learn about it one way or the other. Instead of trying to censor it, let people know its believed by people. Let them take a look at it. And if they think it sounds valid, tear it apart with reasoning and logic. Society advances by discarding bad ideas, not pretending they aren't there.
You may have open minded sibling or Creationist you can't have both. It's like having compulsory Communist and Nazi ideology just because some retarded parents may want it.
I'm not saying it should be taught as an ideology. I'm saying it doesn't do any good to ignore it. Every kid in my school was made aware of Nazism and communism, you can't really teach modern history without it. But I don't think many people walked out of the history classes suddenly converted to those ideologies. And if they did sympathize with them, it had more to do with what the already believed or how they were raised than simple exposure.
We learn about numerous ideologies in school. One can hardly learn almost any social studies class without touching on them, understanding their basic tenants. Just because we learn that some form of belief exists, it doesn't mean that we will follow those beliefs. A movement like creationism is big and politicized. We can do a better job fighting against it by exposing it than sweeping it under the rug.
The recent additions to the curriculum in some southern states is concerning. Frankly, its also unnecessary there since in places like Texas or Tennessee the kids will be exposed to and taught about it anyway.
However, as long as they go alongside evolution and don't replace it, the scenario isn't as bad as it could be. And in those states, evolution is still in the classroom. The students can compare and contrast, and the bright ones will see the very obvious problems with creation. Those who don't...well they might be lost causes anyway....
True enough, although it is worth differentiating the ideology from the supporters, and their intent from reality. The hardest part of the battle has already been won, evolution stays in the classroom. Now its just a matter of staying vigilant and keeping it their.
As far as what creationism is actually being taught in the curriculum, I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that they've only been able to smuggle in the most general type: the idea that there was an intelligence behind life's origins. Like I said though, I could be wrong.
Yes they smuggled just the general version trough court but if they would (and they will) like to "update" the curriculum there will be no need for court anymore. They won.
Yes, the laws of nature as we understand them. The laws of nature only extend as far as we understand them, it is not tangible. The "laws of nature" are only as broad as the empirical evidence allows, thus any phenomena outside these bounds would be "supernatural".
Again Pharmacy, I'm a little shocked that I am responding this. Man has always tried to understand his environment. Never have I heard it suggested that Nature was limited to what we understand.
The laws of nature are directly dependent on our scientific understanding of it. It is a concept and not tangible, therefore if there is not an understanding of the concept, it does not exist. The same applies to all intangible ideas or concepts.
The laws of nature are directly dependent on our scientific understanding of it. It is a concept and not tangible, therefore if there is not an understanding of the concept, it does not exist. The same applies to all intangible ideas or concepts.
I mean no disrespect, (well, maybe just a little bit) but this just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The laws of nature do not depend our scientific understanding. Just because we don't understand it does not mean it doesn't exist. That is like saying, 'if we don't know to how read, the book was never written."
And while I am being a little harass in my reply, it seems to me that many people actually think that way.
I live my life by pretty much one thought: "Truth Happens." If some thing happens, I don't declare that it didn't happen. I seek to understand what happened.
I also trust that if something does happen thing true caused it. So if some claims that they were abducted and anal probed by aliens, I "wonder why" even though I don't believe that aliens would do that. And one day was I a little freaked out when I had the dream. I don't say it "didn't happen" I wonder why.
Some people disregard things because it doesn't fit into their model. Even I do that and for I cannot perceive everything, but I try to understand what I do see, rather then dismiss with some cliche response.
Nice try on the red herring there, but your personal attacks will do nothing. A nice little story on your personal thought process, but it does not make your argument anymore sound. Please tell me, how does any of this refute my argument? What you are saying is irrelevant and please, let's keep it cordial, shall we? It's just a debate, not trying to lay siege on your ego, here.
What a wonderful day we are a having here and I hope that you have fair weather as well.
I'm a little bit confused about your position it seems and I am open to correction.
It seems to me that your stance is the supernatural isn't real. I have read in your statements (and correct me if I am wrong) that the Laws of Nature are based upon our understanding of the laws.
Your phrase: The laws of nature are directly dependent on our scientific understanding of it.
Now, forgive my arrogance but there has never been evidence that humanity has understood nature that well. Almost everything we thought we knew about nature has changed in the last two hundred years and even now is still changing. And on top of that, there is a lot of conflict in the science community about many of the laws of nature. So called empirical perspectives don't always agree with those claiming to be "empirical."
Again, your phrase: Yes, the laws of nature as we understand them.
It seems that at least once a week I read an article about new discoveries and surprises. One my of favorite showed up a few years with the discovery of the Temple of Eden. An amazing piece of engineering that is 17,000 years old. There are structures in Egypt that still boggle the mind. And in South America there structures that more than boggle the mind, but seem downright impossible. Even with modern technology we couldn't repeat what they did. Stones that weigh almost 400 tons were moved miles through high mountains.
We can see the evidence of things that don't make sense to us all the time.
If you want to call some of the South American structure, "supernatural" that is fine with me. Because right now, I don't under that science of how there made.
Thank you for being polite :) i really do appreciate it. My position is that, supernatural things do occur, hence "yes, they do". An attempted "straw man"?
It depends how you define supernatural. You could for example consider birds to be supernatural because they fly. Also what is your definition of natural?
What was supernatural to humanity 1,000 years ago is scientific knowledge now. Everything that happens in this universe is a result of a cause. (Cause and effect) If something happens and we cannot explain it, it just means that we do not have enough technology or scientific understanding to do so.
So far, the majority of scientific evidence has not supported any supernatural beings. Just saying that there are things that humans do not understand is not good enough for me when deciding beliefs.
According to Occam's Razor, the explanation which requires making the fewest unproven assumptions should be assumed to be correct until evidence is found contradicting it. When applying this to the supernatural, there is no known way that these creatures could exist, while there is evidence showing that they couldn't.
No, supernatural things cannot exist. All things that exist, do so in the natural world. There are many things that are not understood because of our current understanding of the natural world. So if ghosts, or psychic abilities, or anything else considered supernatural does exist, they are just a natural phenomenon that we currently do not understand.
Supernatural things don't exist, and the reason is is there is no physical, natural or scientific evidence to support or prove that they exist. There is also nothing educated in assuming that they exist because that would be a pure guess, as all supernatural things are, pure guesses. Nothing else. An educated guess however is a hypothesis, not some wacky idea that came from poor, or irrational reasoning from someone superstitious.
