Debate about the supernatural.

[uberneko]

Do you believe in anything supernatural? Do you think it's fake and just a figment of our imagination?

Discuss. (Or should I say, debate)

 

[Draklyne]

I don't think anything labelled "supernatural" by western science is anything out of the ordinary. They might as well call things "supernormal" or "superordinary" or "superplain". Extra Sensory Perception, for instance, isn't "extra" but "primary". Eastern philosophy has known about these phenomena for thousands of years. In fact, if history was different, Eastern philosophy might be called science, and western science might be called philosophy. Read Dean I. Radin's The Conscious Universe if you really want proof of the "super"natural.

 

[xXSMGXx]

Supernatural is a glitch in the matrix..hah no more matrix for me

 

[Draklyne]

I thought supernatural things were rogue programs?

 

[Apos]

I agree that supernatural is a useless term, but I don't think there's any sort of good evidence for the substantive claims of Eastern mysticism, ESP, or other such things. Not because they are "supernatural" but because there is no good evidence of them.

 

[xXSMGXx]

Think about it this way..

Who were our creators ? Lets say God..then who created god ? Why should there be a creator or a god or any forms of lifes? Why cant there be just nothing , emptiness.

This is the most difficult and a question that will never be answered :x

 

[Draklyne]

Originally posted by Apos
because there is no good evidence of them.

It always comes down to evidence. Trouble is, evidence is a word defined quite narrowly by science, and it limits evidence to something quantifiable, and moreover limits evidence only to what Science can grasp. It has become dogma rather than inquisition.

 

[Draklyne]

Originally posted by xXSMGXx
Who were our creators ? Lets say God..then who created god ? Why should there be a creator or a god or any forms of lifes? Why cant there be just nothing , emptiness.

I have no solid answers. By definition, answers to these questions would be so high above ordinary answers that you could not possibly call them solid. They would be liquid, and change definitions depending on whoever answered. Even my attempt at solidifying the mere comprehension of these answers as "liquid" fails because liquid is a solid term.

I'm beginning to become confused. I'll come back when I get some rest.

 

[xXSMGXx]

My questiong gets my brain overloaded..its not designed for a human brain !

EDITED:

where is the end of universe if everything that exists has to be inside of something...

 

[uberneko]

Then supernatural for a lack of a better term at the moment.

 

[simmo]

If I see it I believe it

 

[xXSMGXx]

Originally posted by simmo2k3
If I see it I believe it

I want to see you get chased by a bunch of agents in black suits, haha Run for your life !

Or i want you to see an alien landing on your backyard, if you tell others they wont believe you

 

[Apos]

It always comes down to evidence.

What else should it come down to do? Should anything I feel exists, exist?

Trouble is, evidence is a word defined quite narrowly by science, and it limits evidence to something quantifiable, and moreover limits evidence only to what Science can grasp. It has become dogma rather than inquisition.

Science is the exact opposite of dogma: it's a freewheeling and open system of criticism.

I'm not sure what you mean about "evidence" that is limited to "only what science can grasp." What other sort of evidence are you talking about, and how can science not grasp it?

The problem is exactly this: you can declare that there is some sort of other "kind" of evidence that proves your case but that can't be explained... but then so can anyone else, even people who claim you're wrong. That get's us nowhere. The whole point of scientific inquiry is simply that if you want to make a claim, you're going to have to proove it somehow: just claiming it over and over doesn't cut it.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Like all of these debates it all falls apart because of peoples definitions of words etc.
That is why i am not going to get involved in it, even though someone like nietzsche is going to come along and say something like "I know what are Christian friend FarrowleSparrow is going to say". Oh and by the way I'm not trying to be derogatory in any way towards you nietzsche just in case you took that the wrong way.

 

[Apos]

Like all of these debates it all falls apart because of peoples definitions of words etc.

Definitions are not a problem: they are arbitrary and the only important thing is that people agree to understand what each person means by a word. Then there comes a point where you can't dodge around questions by waffling over words: you've got to justify your position.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

What habit would that be then?

 

[Stone]

I personnally believe that there is no such thing as supernatural, just things that people refuse to believe... the human mind is quite adapted at not seeing what it doesn't want to see!?!...

and this is all I am going to comment on this topic, as I feel that most of my comments in the debates so far, have been taken wrong and it's ended up in me and FarrowleSparrow debating heatedly ;(

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

You're right. The human mind is amazing when it comes to not seeing things it doesnt want too.
It blocks things out that it doesnt think are possible.

Like i said in another topic. These debates really are pointless. Noone actually gains anything from them except what is likely to be a false impression of the person they are debating with and a more zealous approach to their point of view.

 

[ROD]

There is no need to get too complicated. Just think of it this way. Most scientists agree that the universe is expanding as a result of the Big Bang theory. So the question is, WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE? This is really mind-boggling. Would it be white? black? A parallel universe? We WILL find the answer one day. I am 100% sure of this. The human race should not be underestimated.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Some day maybe, but since thats such a long way off is it really worth wasting effort on?

 

[ROD]

Yes, because if we keep on leaving all the work to our posterity, the process will never commence. But then again, we don't have the technology to travel to the edge of the universe...yet.

 

[Stone]

Originally posted by ROD
There is no need to get too complicated. Just think of it this way. Most scientists agree that the universe is expanding as a result of the Big Bang theory. So the question is, WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE? This is really mind-boggling. Would it be white? black? A parallel universe? We WILL find the answer one day. I am 100% sure of this. The human race should not be underestimated.

Actually most believe, nower days, that the universe is actually like a spring... It expands until it gets so far and then sucks back in on it's self (causing a big bang effect) and it starts expanding again until it gets so far and then sucks back in on it's self (causing a big bang effect) and it starts expanding again until it gets so far and then sucks back in on it's self (causing a big bang effect) and it starts expanding again until it gets so far and then sucks back in on it's self (causing a big bang effect) and it starts expanding again ........................

/me wonders off still talking to himself...

 

[Draklyne]

Wha?! I thought this thread was gone along with the Clashing Opinions forum. Oh well.

I agree that definitions of words are different for everyone, seeing as definitions are themselves made of words that have definitions. Words will bring up different memories, experiences, and thus different meanings.

I somehow doubt that humans will find the answer to anything, seeing as we're having trouble trying to prove that humans exist.

And as for the universe being a spring, I prefer to think of it as a slinky going down an infinited set of stairs. Y'know, cuz I like slinkies.

 

[ROD]

Ok. Now, let us never speak of this again.

 

[Apos]

Stone: actually we now have pretty solid measurements that tell us that the universe is saddleshaped (hard to imagine, it's a 4d concept), meaning that it will not collapse, but will expand forever, dying of heat death. In other words, it's expanding faster than gravity can pull it back.

There is no "other side" of the universe, at least no necessarily. It's space ITSELF that's expanding in a sense: it's not expanding "into" anything.

 

[Draklyne]

Of course, any theory is exactly that - pure theory. And a mechanistic one at that.

 

[Apos]

I'm not sure what you mean Draklyne. Do you understand what "theory" means in science? It doesn't mean "guess" or even "hypothesis.'

 

[Dave]

Untill I actually see evidence for myself, I cannot believe in 'super natural' goings on. Sure, i've seen hundreds of programs with 'evidence', and Derron Brown is awesome, but they could still be feigned, I suppose.

However, if such things do exist, I would regard them as demonic activities.

 

[ROD]

Originally posted by Dave
However, if such things do exist, I would regard them as demonic activities.

Haha! Hey, are you religious?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by ROD
Haha! Hey, are you religious?

Evangelical Christian.

 

[Draklyne]

Why are you so vehement, Apos? Jeeze, calm down. Theory is:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I was taking it for definition number 6. You see what Sparrow said earlier about definitions? I suggest you calm down.

Breathe...(six seconds) Hold...(six seconds) Exhale...(six seconds)

 

[Apos]

You're a weird dude Drak, that can magically tell what mood someone is in through a messageboard: you seem to be the one all worked up.

If you were taking it for 6, then what thing in particular were you talking about? What is just an assumption based upon limited knowledge, as opposed to 1? We were talking about explicable phenomena, and you seemed to be saying that it's all 6, when nope: there's a lot of 1 as well.

Farrow is simply wrong about definitions. The point of words is to convey meanings, not prove anything: definitions don't decide or block debate. It's the underlying ideas that you discuss, and any arbitrary definitions, once simply agreed upon, are no bar to discussion at all.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Look obviously it didnt come out the way i meant it too. Its incredibly difficult for me to explain. n fact i cant so im just going to shut up. I wrote out about 3 paragraphs before deleting them because they simply didnt convey what i wanted.