T
Techno2000
Guest
If NDE are true, then I would say its something natural and supernatural… so it’s both.
Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?
- Status
W
Wozza
Guest
We’re not looking for questions as to who thinks what is supernatural or not. We’re looking for a means to differentiate between the two. Any time you are ready with a pertinent comment you be sure to let us know.
W
Wozza
Guest
I don’t. Which doesn’t stop me giving a suggestion as to how we can tell the difference between supernatural and natural. Is there anything preventing you from doing the same?Wozza:
This gives the impression that you do not believe the supernatural exists.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are unable to differentiate between the two?
W
Wozza
Guest
Wht don’t you read what has been posted? Yes, I can and I have given my reasons. Now you’re going to have to scroll back to find them to see if you agree.Wozza:
You are unable to differentiate between the two?
The price you pay for not paying attention.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Wozza, in terms of science we are in agreement. But your current dialogue does bring up an interesting epistemological issue about how we arrive at the idea of a natural order.
Perhaps this deserves a thread of it’s own, but i think it underlies this entire debate.
Do we think there is a natural order as a matter of epistemological principle, or have we arrived at this notion as a matter of rational inference?
Of course i don’t believe that angels are spinning the planets around, or that Zeus is causing lightning, and you obviously don’t either. We both believe in natural laws and events, but how do we know? How do we know that there is a natural order?
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
I see the wrong pronoun being used here. The question that is posed to me is not a matter of “how we can tell the difference between supernatural and natural”, but rather how do I make you understand the difference, when sadly, you state that you not believe in the existence of what, or more correctly, who is beyond nature.
I gave you the explanation, as esoteric as it seems to be. It was that one has to be on the boat to understand that the storm was quelled by an act of God. Otherwise it just looks like everything is happening as it has been determined by the structure of events that we make understandable to ourselves as the laws of nature. In other words, one has to engage in a relationship with God, to know God and what life is about.
God is not a magician; I would not expect that He would instantly bring a golden cross into existence. That a piece of religious art is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and through our hands it is brought forth to allow us to resonate with the beauty, truth and goodness that lies at the heart of existence, is how this stuff usually works, from my experience.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
OK. You don’t believe that there is a difference. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Wozza:
I see the wrong pronoun being used here. The question that is posed to me is not a matter of “how we can tell the difference between supernatural and natural”, but rather how do I make you understand the difference, when sadly, you state that you not believe in the existence of what, or more correctly, who is beyond nature.
W
Wozza
Guest
Because it is comprehensible to us. A tree growing in my backyard is comprehensible. We understand the science. We know how it works. Yes, God is involved (as far as you are concerned) but we know how He does it. From little acorns mighty oaks grow. They don’t suddenly appear overnight. There is a process being followed that we understand. And so we call that process natural. It follows laws which we describe as natural.Wozza:
Wozza, in terms of science we are in agreement. But your current dialogue does bring up an interesting epistemological issue about how we arrive at the idea of a natural order.
Perhaps this deserves a thread of it’s own, but i think it underlies this entire debate.
Do we think there is a natural order as a matter of epistemological principle, or have we arrived at this notion as a matter of rational inference?
Of course i don’t believe that angels are spinning the planets around, or that Zeus is causing lightning, and you obviously don’t either. We both believe in natural laws and events, but how do we know? How do we know that there is a natural order?
If the golden cross appears instantly (or the oak to keep some people happy), then that has NOT followed any process that we know of. In fact it contradicts everything we know about said natural processes.
So either what we thought we knew was wrong. Or it is due to a supernatural act. That being an act that doesn’t follow the natural order as we know it.
Now as to who caused that supernatural act…
As rossum pointed out, it’s a large field of possibilities. If it was a tree, then who knows. A golden cross? My money is on God. A giant bowl of pasta? The FSM.
A
Aloysium
Guest
There is a difference between God and His creation. I am not a pantheist, where the structure of the universe is god and eternal, transforming itself in its movement, the passage of time.
There is a distinct difference, where God is understood to be the Cause and Ground of all existence.
We are spiritual souls, made in the image of God, possessing the capacity to act as causal agents, where in contrast, the material universe is determined by the laws that govern the relationships which we study in physics and chemistry. We are able participate in our own creation, in that sphere of reality that includes virtues such as courage, honesty, kindness, diligence and justice, which remain through the ravages of time and into our dotage. Maybe plugging into that line of thinking, while remembering the existence of the other, can lead one to the importance and centrality of love. And, knowing love, we know God.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
For processes which we didn’t see take place and have no evidence of the process (as distinguished from the results)? Other than trivial cases, I don’t think we do have anything to work from!
This is one of the “trivial examples”. Yes, Wozza, if you woke up and saw something very different than you saw yesterday, you’d conclude “not natural”.
Now, let’s step away from trivial, snarky examples. Let’s get to the meat of the matter: has anyone witnessed abiogenesis? We can talk about ideas about how it might have occurred, but we really don’t have solid examples of it happening. If you were there, at the dawn of the creation of life, then yeah – you could witness to whether it were “a solid gold three foot cross instantly appearing”. Since you weren’t, how can you say with confidence (and evidence) that it wasn’t supernaturally caused?
Ahh… there we go, now! Now it’s obvious what your claim is! It’s not “we can’t tell the difference between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’”, but rather “I don’t believe in the supernatural”.
Gee… when you walk into a discussion with the preconceived notion that the other side is talking crazy talk, your take-aways from that conversation are already predetermined. Got it.
Umm… pot, meet kettle? You said that you don’t believe that there is a supernatural, and therefore, there’s nothing to differentiate! So… “thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut”.
W
Wozza
Guest
Ah. So you do believe there is a difference. Any (name removed by moderator)ut on how we could tell…?Wozza:
There is a difference between God and His creation.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Through one’s relationship with God.
G
goout
Guest
Common sense.Aloysium:
Ah. So you do believe there is a difference. Any (name removed by moderator)ut on how we could tell…?Wozza:
There is a difference between God and His creation.
Think about un-caused causation. Observing that everything that exists is caused to exist by…? God perhaps?
If God were undifferentiated from God’s creation, then God can’t be God.
W
Wozza
Guest
OK. You think abiogenesis is supernatural. And that’s because (correct me if I’m wrong here) we didn’t see it happen, we have no examples of it happening elsewhere and we have no evidence of the actual process.Wozza:
For processes which we didn’t see take place and have no evidence of the process (as distinguished from the results)? Other than trivial cases, I don’t think we do have anything to work from!
This is one of the “trivial examples”. Yes, Wozza, if you woke up and saw something very different than you saw yesterday, you’d conclude “not natural”.
Now, let’s step away from trivial, snarky examples. Let’s get to the meat of the matter: has anyone witnessed abiogenesis? We can talk about ideas about how it might have occurred, but we really don’t have solid examples of it happening. If you were there, at the dawn of the creation of life, then yeah – you could witness to whether it were “a solid gold three foot cross instantly appearing”. Since you weren’t, how can you say with confidence (and evidence) that it wasn’t supernaturally caused?
Ahh… there we go, now! Now it’s obvious what your claim is! It’s not “we can’t tell the difference between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’”, but rather “I don’t believe in the supernatural”.
Gee… when you walk into a discussion with the preconceived notion that the other side is talking crazy talk, your take-aways from that conversation are already predetermined. Got it.
Umm… pot, meet kettle? You said that you don’t believe that there is a supernatural, and therefore, there’s nothing to differentiate! So… “thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut”.
As to my lack of belief in the supernatural, that’s because I have seen no examples of it. But maybe I now have one. Abiogenesis is, by the definition of supernatural that you have given, a supernatural event.
That being accepted, we have an answer to the problem of how life originated.
Agreed?
G
goout
Guest
Not sure if this helps anyone but:Wozza:
No. They are incapable of even being tickets. So, they don’t count toward the “large numbers” you’re positing, right?
Worse yet, if the earth is a special case in a way that we cannot perceive, then every other ticket could be – by definition! – a “losing ticket”! So, if we can’t even determine whether the earth is a reasonable basis for further inference, we’re sunk before we ever get the argument off the ground!
A particular set of circumstances will have a probability of producing an outcome. Given the same circumstances, the probability of the outcome occurring is the same at each sampling. Probabilities do not “mature”, even if the same set of circumstances has been run a bazillion times.
Gamblers learn this the hard way.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
This is just me but it might be better to have an explanation that would serve for everyone. Especially people like me. If the only people who can tell are those with a ‘relationship with God’ then it excludes a fair proportion of the planet. Notwithstanding that it would require someone like you to tell someone like me what is and is not supernatural.
Not surprisingly, I’m not a big fan of that.
T
Techno2000
Guest
A
AlbMagno
Guest
What is that? Seems a little scary. If it is next to the Divine Sacrament I don’t think it is something bad but still…
W
Wozza
Guest
OK. So your explanation of the difference between supernatural and natural is to post a piccie of a bright light.
Thank you. Anything else you might want to add?
Thank you. Anything else you might want to add?
Last edited:
- Status