26 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat Sodom and Gomorrah existed, that a big boat existed, that John the Baptist existed, in fact just because Jesus existed, is not proof of anything supernatural.
A plausible reason that John the Baptist lived in the wilderness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJD2xfJkdoQ
You seem to have a twisted idea of what proof is; I refer back to your statement "Turin shroud is proof of the resurrection". At the very best the shroud is a genuine burial cloth, it's by no means proof that Jesus was in it and certainly not that he rose from the dead.
You could consider believing less of the stuff you see on YouTube and show a little more discernment.
26 May 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI see RJHinds' lack of "discernment" ~ along with his brusque and fatuous demeanour ~ as signs of weak beliefs wrapped up in bravado and 'maverick' assertions. I don't think he recognizes this at all, and certainly does not acknowledge it.
You could consider believing less of the stuff you see on YouTube and show a little more discernment.
Originally posted by divegeesterI think you are the one that needs to show a little more discernment. How often do we hear of fire and brimstone destroying cities? That's natural? Get your head out and think.
That Sodom and Gomorrah existed, that a big boat existed, that John the Baptist existed, in fact just because Jesus existed, is not proof of anything supernatural.
You seem to have a twisted idea of what proof is; I refer back to your statement "Turin shroud is proof of the resurrection". At the very best the shroud is a genuine burial cloth, it's by ...[text shortened]... ould consider believing less of the stuff you see on YouTube and show a little more discernment.
26 May 14
Originally posted by FMFI agree you "don't think". You also need to get your head out and show a little more discernment.
I see RJHinds' lack of "discernment" ~ along with his brusque and fatuous demeanour ~ as signs of weak beliefs wrapped up in bravado and 'maverick' assertions. I don't think he recognizes this at all, and certainly does not acknowledge it.
26 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIts 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.
I think you are the one that needs to show a little more discernment. How often do we hear of fire and brimstone destroying cities? That's natural? Get your head out and think.
26 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDictionary.com defines supernatural as: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
The supernatural is by definition, impossible to give either proof or evidence for. But then I doubt you actually know the meaning of the words 'proof' or 'supernatural'.
Ghosts, crop circles, UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle could all be called supernatural, yet there is evidence for all these things. Just being called 'supernatural' doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree, though, that evidence is a far thing from 'proof'.
26 May 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThere 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.
Dictionary.com defines supernatural as: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Ghosts, crop circles, UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle could all be called supernatural, yet there is evidence for all these things.
In fact, I would question why you even label the ghosts, 'ghosts'. How do you know the phenomena is linked to ghosts in any way? And why do you think crop circles are supernatural? What is supernatural about them?
And UFO's? Something that you have, by definition failed to identify? Why do you think those are supernatural? Is an aircraft or a bird flying towards you supernatural until you can make out what it is, and then suddenly it becomes natural? No, supernatural is as you define 'unexplainable' not 'as yet unexplained'. To declare the phenomena you mention 'supernatural' suggests you know something about them that makes you believe no natural explanation is possible. But I don't believe this is the case.
Just being called 'supernatural' doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Actually it kind of does. Something that is totally immune to explanation, cannot truly be said to 'exist'.