17 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou gave a bunch of videos. But did you gave the proof?
I already gave you proof of the supernatural as I see it. If you have a different definition, that's not my problem.
I'm still waiting for the proof. If I've missed it, please repeat it.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally ?? when is the last time you or I for that matter seen anyone walk on water? It would supersede natural because it is not natural for humans to be able to walk on water therefore I conclude that it is indeed supernatural or whatever label you want to assign to it but it would not be normal
No, it would not be supernatural. It would be unusual. Your choice to attribute it to the supernatural either is arbitrary or based on religious reasons - but not on a particular feature of the phenomena in question. There is nothing about the act that you can point to that marks it as supernatural without pointing to claims by someone that it was superna ...[text shortened]... en the first computer would be supernatural, as would the first car, and just about every first.
Manny
17 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71When is the last time you saw someone run 100m in under 10 seconds? The first time you see someone do that, it is clearly not normal. It is not, however, supernatural. Being not normal is not the same thing as being supernatural.
Really ?? when is the last time you or I for that matter seen anyone walk on water? It would supersede natural because it is not natural for humans to be able to walk on water therefore I conclude that it is indeed supernatural or whatever label you want to assign to it but it would not be normal
If you want to use the word 'supernatural' to mean 'unusual' then go ahead, but that would be of no relevance to this thread as a very different meaning is clearly intended in the thread title. After all, one could simply post a link to the world weight lifting champion and say: 'see, he has supernatural strength!'.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadDefies nature then .......physical laws ect..................
When is the last time you saw someone run 100m in under 10 seconds? The first time you see someone do that, it is clearly not normal. It is not, however, supernatural. Being not normal is not the same thing as being supernatural.
Manny
17 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71In what way does it defy nature?
Defies nature then .......physical laws ect..................
Manny
It cannot possibly defy physical laws, because physical laws cannot be defied by definition.
The thing is, you do not know how it is done, so how can you claim to know that it defies anything? A claim of supernatural is to claim to know how it is done, then claim that how it is done has some property that 'defies nature' that you do not want to discuss with anyone. A claim of 'supernatural' is incoherent.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou must have missed reading the definition of supernatual that I posted. I will repeat it below:
In what way does it defy nature?
It cannot possibly defy physical laws, because physical laws cannot be defied by definition.
The thing is, you do not know how it is done, so how can you claim to know that it defies anything? A claim of supernatural is to claim to know how it is done, then claim that how it is done has some property that 'defies nature' that you do not want to discuss with anyone. A claim of 'supernatural' is incoherent.
su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou really have to follow the debate. We all know this definition. What we are debating is if this definition is correct and/or adequate. You really have to follow the debate.
You must have missed reading the definition of supernatual that I posted. I will repeat it below:
su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3. of a superlative degr ...[text shortened]... r other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt defies the laws of nature at minimum walking on water (not frozen) as you know this is not normal call it what you will then if not supernatural then whatever !!
In what way does it defy nature?
It cannot possibly defy physical laws, because physical laws cannot be defied by definition.
The thing is, you do not know how it is done, so how can you claim to know that it defies anything? A claim of supernatural is to claim to know how it is done, then claim that how it is done has some property that 'defies nature' that you do not want to discuss with anyone. A claim of 'supernatural' is incoherent.
Manny
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by menace71Let's take 'walking on water' (not frozen) as an example.
It defies the laws of nature at minimum walking on water (not frozen) as you know this is not normal call it what you will then if not supernatural then whatever !!
Manny
If anyone can do this, and doesn't use any kind of technology, then this is supernatural.
I say noone can do this. It is impossible to walk on water. Prove me wrong.
RJHinds might show us to prove that it in fact is possible, and an spiritual act.
... or he might try but this would only show that his level of proof is low.
Remember no kind of technology is permitted if the proof is to be valid.
I say it is not possible. I say supernatural phenomena don't exist. It's impossible.
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by menace71Not normal, yes, I agree. But it cannot possibly defy the laws of nature. The laws of nature are those laws that are never, ever, ever, ever defied. If you claim they are defied then you are being incoherent.
It defies the laws of nature at minimum walking on water (not frozen) as you know this is not normal call it what you will then if not supernatural then whatever !!
Manny
The truth is, you do not know how it is done, but you want to claim that you do in fact know, in enough detail to know that it does not follow 'the laws of nature'. But how do you know this? How do you know:
1. What the laws of nature actually are.
2. How walking on water is done, sufficiently well as to know that it is defying the laws of nature in 1.
I think if you examine the claim in detail you will discover a contradiction.
When you answer 1. you will say that you observe that certain things always happen in a certain way, with certain rules (laws) never being violated.
When you answer 2. you will claim to have observed something that does not happen according to the 'laws of nature', or the rules in 1.
But 1. clearly states that you have never observed violations of the laws which contradicts your claim that you have observed such violations.