Is there a Supernatural Nature, or a Natural Nature?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Photons tell us the direction, intensity, shape, etc., of an object "out there". "Out there" is shown to be true, since that is what senses are for and take in. We also fully understand "out there", manipulating it "out there" to make devices that function "out there".

[austintorn@aol.com]

Descartes was a dolt__in this area — Lloyd

Lloyd, you are too funny, and alliterative, too.

Let us even put Horace before DesCartes.

[austintorn@aol.com]

If the supernatural, or I would prefer subnatural, controls everything exactly the way it is observed to be controlled, how would one possibly differentiate between the two?

What makes no difference is no difference. Physics, one and the same.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Photons tell us the direction, intensity, shape, etc., of an object "out there". "Out there" is shown to be true, since that is what senses are for and take in. We also fully understand "out there", manipulating it "out there" to make devices that function "out there".

According to Lloyd's infallible videos, the senses can be decieving, as is true of all observations. I think too that maybe supernatural is a misnomer because we are within the universe and the universe is within us.

[Nobody Nowhere]

What makes no difference is no difference. Physics, one and the same.

Then it boils down to terminology because there was no universal term for the cosmos back then. What was invisible was deemed spiritual.

Perhaps we can change god's name to Planck! But I don't think planck can be deemed physical.

[austintorn@aol.com]

What was then mysterious was labeled supernatural, but, mystery is just mystery. Scientists embrace mystery, then solve it, but 'dogmatics' do not embrace mystery, saying there is none, for, by definition, dogma is unchangeable, having been carved in stone on day one.

[labelwench]

According to Lloyd's infallible videos, the senses can be decieving, as is true of all observations. I think too that maybe supernatural is a misnomer because we are within the universe and the universe is within us.

My thoughts are that as a species, we are frustrated with our inability to determine the origins of the universe, or even mankind, with certainty, and that would be part of the opposing energy that gets unleashed whenever various theories are debated.

Exactly because so much as yet remains unknowable, and therefore so many trains of thought can neither be entirely proven or disproven, is the cause of our exasperation.

Each new discovery opens the door to greater understanding and even more questions.

Pandora's box indeed!

We are on a quest that can never be fulfilled.

We recognize that fact.

Yet, still, we are compelled to seek.

It's either in our DNA or something in the air or water perhaps? I'm only half-joking........

[austintorn@aol.com]

ILL-DEFINED ‘DEFINITIONS’ OF GOD

Here are some “God” definitions refuted
As self-contradicting,
Or are not even definitions at all:


“God is not definable”.

This tells us what God is not,
Rather than what God is;
So, there is no definition
And thus nothing to refute.

The word ‘undefinable’ even means
That there is no definition.


“God is the universe.”

This is a tautology saying only that A=B,
And so we just as well might say
That the universe is the cosmos.

As such, it says that God
Not only does what nature does,
But is one and the same with it,
A very restrictive position.

Another problem here is that this ‘God’
Doesn’t follow the common usage meaning of God
As a separate being who made the universe
And so this definition
Is somehow trying to slip that in,
But, it doesn’t work.
A rose is still a rose by any other name
And so then is a universe.

We already know a fair amount
About the universe
And so at least that part is defined;
It’s just that A=B doesn’t tell us anything,
As that is just like a synonym.


“God made Himself.”

This is saying the contradiction
That something already made
In a design can make itself.


“God is consciousness.”

Consciousness is seen to be
The latter portion of a brain process,
Indeed coming 300 milliseconds
After the brain completes its analysis;
Thus it is as far from being some kind of
Initial stand-alone thing in itself
As it could ever be.


“God is perfect.”

Again, this is not a full definition,
But only of one trait of one not making mistakes;
However, this is followed by another fact or trait
Such as “God made a mistake
When He caused the Great Flood
And so he invented the rainbow to show that
He would never do it again.”.

The statements are seen
To be contradictory;
This happens a lot.


“God is all loving.”

Similar to the previous case,
As vengeance is supposedly done on us,
This is not all love.


“God is the First.”

Taking God as a system of mind—a being,
Then it is that systems always have parts
And those parts have parts, etc.
And so those lowest parts
Would be among the truly fundamental.


“God is infinite.”

This is trying to make God very large
And all encompassing
And thus somehow beyond reproach.

One definition of ‘infinite’ comes from math
In which one can infinitely divide a finite length,
And another definition is that
Of the counting of numbers being never ending;
There are actual infinities and potential infinities.

This God definition probably means
That God has an infinite amount of energy;
There are then two problems,
The first being that finite infinities never complete
And so this is saying that God,
A complete being, never completes.

The second is that God uses up
All the energy available,
As His energy is endless and infinite;
However, then it would be
Pretty crowded around here
And there would be
No room left to move around.


“God is one”

God would then be solid, like an unbreakable statue
And thus have no pieces and no movement.


“God made the universe.”

This is fine, kind of, as part of a definition,
But it begs the larger question of what made God,
And so it settles nothing,
Even adding in an unnecessary step.
It is not an answer at all,
But just a larger question.


“God exists, but is invisible.”

This is not known and so it cannot be claimed.


“There was a virgin birth.”

Virgins do not give birth.


“God existed forever.”

Here we have a case of something,
Actually the ultimate complexity,
Being defined as such
That it was never even defined
In the first place, for there was no first place.

God’s earliest memory is then
Forever out of reach to Him
Since there is no first memory;
Anyway, it indicates that a forever
Has already completed
For something real and defined,
But it is the nature of infinity
That it can never complete;
This all goes for all kind of things,
As well, even strings.

Only space or nothing
Can be infinite or eternal,
The necessarily finite
Only lying in-between.


“God is all knowing.”

Then God faces no surprises,
Which is fine, but is a pretty boring life;
No need then to design a human nature
To see how it turns out.


“God is everywhere.”

Then there would be no room for us.


“God detests evil.”

Then He wouldn’t allow it
Or the Devil to live and tempt.


“God micromanages every quark and electron.”

This would interfere with
Their natural movement.
Also, they are always seen to act
According to their properties.


“God works in mysterious ways.”

This is a catchall that
Permits God to do anything,
Whether unreasonable, crazy,
Or even against his own Ten Commandments,
Such as the murder of mankind.


“God is outside of time.”

Then how was there a beginning of our universe
And a sequence of further creations?


“God is known by faith.”

Faith is a belief in the unknown,
Not the known, so there is no ‘known’.


“We have free will.”

Only if it matches His will.


“God might exist.”

‘God’ is undefined and thus self-contradictory;
What is it that might exist?
(One then has to make it up.)

[austintorn@aol.com]

We are on a quest that can never be fulfilled. — Label

Only two big things are not yet completely knowable, although we certainty know a lot so far, for they have been locally bounded: life and consciousness.

My new consciousness thread, not yet ready, will take care of one.

And, sometimes, as in the case of the ultimate basis, we know of but two answers, one of which must be right, and that's pretty good progress.

[labelwench]

What was then mysterious was labeled supernatural, but, mystery is just mystery. Scientists embrace mystery, then solve it, but 'dogmatics' do not embrace mystery, saying there is none, for, by definition, dogma is unchangeable, having been carved in stone on day one.

The greatest mystery might be why our species has this apparent need to have something to anchor our thoughts to.

The fear of the unknown is a survival trait, that has somehow transferred itself into belief systems.

As an aside, the psychology of marketing knows just how to play into our 'dogmas' of fear and desire.

We desire to know and we fear an end to the experience.

We create the supernatural so that the natural shall not end......for us.....