|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2007 : 16:42:14 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis claimed:
quote:
Supernatural DOES NOT mean "outside of nature".
Guess you better start writing in to dictionaries.
Supernatural: (from Merriam Webster's unabridged)
quote:
of, belonging to, having reference to, or proceeding from an order of existence beyond the physical universe
ascribed to agencies or powers above or beyond nature or based upon such an ascription : initiated, effected, continued, or supported by means that transcend the laws or observed sequences of nature
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 17:33:35 [Permalink]
|
Physical! Hello, what did I say last post! Nature in the dictionary refers to all that exists in the physical material universe. The word nature does not include all that could possibly exist. You already admitted that, thus something can exist and not be in nature (by your own admission) and something can exist and exceed the limits of nature as per my cited definition. All I have to do to win the argument is show that something can exist that is supernatural as per the definition of nature. Your definition of nature does not exist in any dictionary. Even using that definition/assertion (nothing can exist except in nature) this definition of supernatural.
"The supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation —yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science."
All of the others assume the dictionary definition of nature.
"Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical universe, material world or material universe."
See all those qualifiers, physical and material. God is neither, and thus supernatural by those definitions also.
You loose Dude. You cannot prove that things or entities cannot exist outside of the natural world nor can you prove that something cannot exceed the limits of nature and its laws. So no defintion of supernatural is gibberish, even by your definition.
Why do you keep flipping the definition of the words we are using? I used nature as you claimed and then you try and bust me for making a false claim, when it is only falsified by the dictionary definition you weren't using in the first place and by which you loose the argument. I don't get it.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 23:17:19 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
Your definition of nature does not exist in any dictionary.
Ummm yes, it does. No matter how many times you say, you are still wrong. You can correct your ignorance by taking five minutes and looking up the word. Start with a Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary.
quote:
The word nature does not include all that could possibly exist.
Who said it did? "The totality of physical reality, exclusive of things mental". That certainly doesn't include anything that could "possibly" exist. It does, however, pretty well cover all things that do exist. (your knowledge of their existence is not relevent)
Obviously you are having some reading comprehension problems.
quote:
You loose Dude. You cannot prove that things or entities cannot exist outside of the natural world nor can you prove that something cannot exceed the limits of nature and its laws. So no defintion of supernatural is gibberish, even by your definition.
Neither I, nor anyone else, has any need to "prove" that such things "cannot exist". You are fooled by your own stupidity if you think any burden of "proof" lies with me on those negative claims.
You sound like a good little religious boy, in fact. Parroting some apology for a deity that you memorized in sunday school. "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does!".
What utter tripe.
quote:
thus something can exist and not be in nature (by your own admission) and something can exist and exceed the limits of nature as per my cited definition.
You look more and more stupid as this goes on. It is beyond reason to say that you actually fail to comprehend my posts here, so perhaps you are blinded by your own arrogance and are just incapable of admitting your error.
All real things exist in nature. No real thing can "exceed the limits of nature". If you ever discover some real thing that appears to do so, then what you have actually discovered is the border of your current knowledge, not anything "supernatural".
quote:
See all those qualifiers, physical and material. God is neither, and thus supernatural by those definitions also.
If you are implying that "god" is imaginary, then we can agree on something.
But you are still wrong about everything else.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 23:25:45 [Permalink]
|
Obviously you have the problem comprehending.
Ok pay attention. Unless you are claiming that everything that can possibly exist must exist in nature, then there is no way for you to claim that something cannot be supernatural, meaning existent but outside of nature.
If you are claiming to use the word nature to include all things that do exist, then the word supernatural can still be used according to dictionary definition number two in the Oxford English Dictionary.
""The supernatural (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise mysterious explanation —yet remains firmly outside of the realm of science."
Because it does not prevent the supernatural thing from being natural, it simply means not limited or detectable by nature or using nature.
So go ahead Dude. Prove that something cannot exist that is supernatural. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 23:34:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Neither I, nor anyone else, has any need to "prove" that such things "cannot exist". You are fooled by your own stupidity if you think any burden of "proof" lies with me on those negative claims.
You sound like a good little religious boy, in fact. Parroting some apology for a deity that you memorized in sunday school. "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore he does!".
What utter tripe.
Yet another example of your pigheadedness and stupidity. I have never claimed that god exists. I have simply claimed that if god did exist he could be supernatural as per all of the definitions of supernatural available in the dictionary.
You are making the claim that god cannot exist and/or he cannot be supernatural. You also have claimed that things can only exist in nature, but have never supplied a definition of nature that does not include physical and material. See you have invented a false dichotomy that things must be either physical or mental, but there could be far more states and there is no way to prove otherwise. Face it Dude, you can never disprove god, thus you can never prove that something supernatural cannot exist.
quote:
"All real things exist in nature. No real thing can "exceed the limits of nature". If you ever discover some real thing that appears to do so, then what you have actually discovered is the border of your current knowledge, not anything "supernatural"."
Prove that assertion and you win. Now you are the one claiming evidence from absence. The fact that god can exist and can be supernatural is all that I need to establish. Actually, all I need to establish is that the word is defined and guess what every dictionary agress with me, the word has meaning and could describe something that exists. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 23:44:35 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
Ok pay attention. Unless you are claiming that everything that can possibly exist must exist in nature, then there is no way for you to claim that something cannot be supernatural, meaning existent but outside of nature.
Your head is like a brick wall. If you fail to comprehend what I have said so far, then nothing else I say will likely make it penetrate your skull.
And, once again, no one is saying that nature = "everything that could 'possibly' exist". That is a strawman of your own creation, and I hereby piss on it for the last time.
The obvious failure of your mind to comprehend basic logic is appalling. Nature is the set of all real things. If a thing is real (exists outside of your imagination) it exists in, and as a part of, nature.
quote:
So go ahead Dude. Prove that something cannot exist that is supernatural.
The burden of "proof" aside (as you obviously don't understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that something "supernatural" is real), here is a logical proof. A rather self evident one of you understand the definitions of nature and exist.
Nature is the set of all real things.
Therefore
No real thing exists outside of nature.
And once again, the definition you keep using for "supernatural" is nothing more than an expression of ignorance. Filling in the word for things you don't understand doesn't lend it any weight with reason or science.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 00:45:38 [Permalink]
|
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 10:55:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude you are pissing me off here. You must prove that the word supernatural is gibberish so produce a syllogism or logic statement or stop talking.
You keep admitting that something can exist outside of the definition of nature. That means I win because those things can be described as supernatural. I do not have to prove they exist because I am making no such claim. I am claiming that supernatural has a definition that can be used.
Here is my logic:
We [from the OP] are discussing the possiblity of things that can exist and not be in nature. Such things can be existent and outside of nature. The word supernatural can mean "outside the limits of nature". Therefore, supernatural can be used to describe those things that could possibly exist, and the word has meaning in this discussion. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 11:03:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The burden of "proof" aside (as you obviously don't understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that something "supernatural" is real), here is a logical proof. A rather self evident one of you understand the definitions of nature and exist.
Why do you keep saying this? Are you that fucking stupid! I am not claiming anything except that the word supernatural can be used to describe something that could possibly exist. I am claiming nothing about such thing's existence. You have obviously confused words and symbols with reality. The imaginary number 'i', is a symbol for the square root of -1. I do not need to prove that the square root of -1 can be achieved in order to prove that this symbol has meaning and is useful in mathematics. In the same way, I am claiming that supernatural is a word that describes something that could exist and is useful in a conversation over whether something can exist outside of objective testing. I do not need to prove supernatural things exist. You are claiming it has no meaning. You must prove your position. The dictionary is on my side because it defines supernatural which gives it meaning and things that are described by that meaning can exist.
quote:
Nature is the set of all real things.
Therefore
No real thing exists outside of nature.
Texas is a real state with people in it.
Therefore, no people reside outside of Texas
You are a dumbass if you think like that.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/20/2007 11:04:37 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 11:42:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nature is the set of all real things.
Therefore
No real thing exists outside of nature.
Texas is a real state with people in it.
Therefore, no people reside outside of Texas
(a)Nature is the set of all real things. If (a) is true, than no real thing exists outside of nature.
The Texas analogy would be better put as: (a)Texas is a state that holds all the real people that exist inside its borders, therefore, if (a) is true, then no real people exist outside of Texas.
If nature is the set of all real things, then anything else is not real. If by supernatural, you mean those things that exist outside of nature, then by supernatural you mean something that is not real. Supernatural may have other qualities than unrealNESS, but by that definition, it cannot be real. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 02/20/2007 11:53:45 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 12:22:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Nature is the set of all real things.
Therefore
No real thing exists outside of nature.
Texas is a real state with people in it.
Therefore, no people reside outside of Texas
(a)Nature is the set of all real things. If (a) is true, than no real thing exists outside of nature.
The Texas analogy would be better put as: (a)Texas is a state that holds all the real people that exist inside its borders, therefore, if (a) is true, then no real people exist outside of Texas.
If nature is the set of all real things, then anything else is not real. If by supernatural, you mean those things that exist outside of nature, then by supernatural you mean something that is not real. Supernatural may have other qualities than unrealNESS, but by that definition, it cannot be real.
Wrong because all things that exist don't have to be in nature. Nature is one set of real things, that does not exclude the existence of other real things. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 12:25:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
me:
The word nature does not include all that could possibly exist.
you:
Who said it did? "The totality of physical reality, exclusive of things mental". That certainly doesn't include anything that could "possibly" exist. It does, however, pretty well cover all things that do exist. (your knowledge of their existence is not relevent)
You said it here
"All real things exist in nature"
And here
"No real thing exists outside of nature."
and here
"Nature is the set of all real things."
and everywhere else.
Go ahead prove that nothing can exist and not be physical. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/20/2007 12:28:01 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 12:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wrong because all things that exist don't have to be in nature. Nature is one set of real things, that does not exclude the existence of other real things.
All I mean to say is that your analogy was wrong. If (a) is correct, and (a) equals (b), then (b) equals (a). If nature only includes some of real things, then it may be possible that things outside of nature include real things. I have to say, that makes no sense to me, and I think it's wrong, but I did not get into that part of the discussion. That's a little like "alternative" medicine. Either it's medicine or it ain't. The adjective "alternative" serves only to confuse. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 02/20/2007 12:37:44 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 12:42:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
quote:
Wrong because all things that exist don't have to be in nature. Nature is one set of real things, that does not exclude the existence of other real things.
All I mean to say is that your analogy was wrong. If (a) is correct, and (a) equals (b), then (b) equals (a). If nature only includes some of real things, then it may be possible that things outside of nature include real things. I have to say, that makes no sense to me, and I think it's wrong, but I did not get into that part of the discussion. That's a little like "alternative" medicine. Either it's medicine or it ain't. The adjective "alternative" serves only to confuse.
Yes but I was trying to be sarcastic to show that Dude is concluding that since he only knows of nature that only nature can exist, like a texan or primitive culture, or an Earthling, may foolishly conclude that only they exist because their experience is only themselves.
Sure if 'a' were true 'b' would follow, but 'a' is not proven.
Edited to add:
Alternative medicine does not describe non-medicine. That is the point. Alternative medicine is supposed to be medicine not practice by the main stream. Alternative medicine just so happens to not be medicine, however, that is just the claim. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/20/2007 12:44:11 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2007 : 12:51:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Alternative medicine does not describe non-medicine. That is the point.
But it doesn't describe medicine either, and that's the more important point. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
