Is there a Supernatural Nature, or a Natural Nature?

[austintorn@aol.com]

That is ever the question, its answers, or not, ever defining actions as large as new laws and large group movements, or as small as the personal realizations.

New science equals new insights equals new progress on the age-old question.

I realize that this thread's momentum may suddenly go to zero, as in its glorious predecessor thread, but I did feel that we were getting somewhere, even drawing most members in, who were hopefully getting some learning out of the better posts, and even learning about good and bad methods of responding, too.

I still have lots of material, and maybe this thread will even turn out better in the ways that the quite popular old one didn't. It's OK, then, to put repeat stuff here, except for any nonsense diversions and outright preaching, which are not my rules, but Robert's.

As usual, I would think that TQ posts generally require some amount of proof, logic, or measurement, all three being best, rather than just flat out proclamations and pronouncements of what 'is', or, at least, say 'seems', if what you have as a wish is merely just a theory, hopefully with some kind of information behind it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Science has looked at things pretty closely, finding only the natural, such as planets moving on their own, etc., with no outside guidance of any supernatural kind, which comes from way back, from Newton.

Victor Stenger even took another close look at just about everything, finding only the natural, even noting that evolution fine-tuned us for the Earth, rather than any other way around.

(Evolution has been confirmed by both fossils and DNA, they even each matching the other.)

[Nobody Nowhere]

That is ever the question, its answers, or not, ever defining actions as large as new laws and large group movements, or as small as the personal realizations.

New science equals new insights equals new progress on the age-old question.

I realize that this thread's momentum may suddenly go to zero, as in its glorious predecessor thread, but I did feel that we were getting somewhere, even drawing most members in, who were hopefully getting some learning out of the better posts, and even learning about good and bad methods of responding, too.

I still have lots of material, and maybe this thread will even turn out better in the ways that the quite popular old one didn't. It's OK, then, to put repeat stuff here, except for any nonsense diversions and outright preaching, which are not my rules, but Robert's.

As usual, I would think that TQ posts generally require some amount of proof, logic, or measurement, all three being best, rather than just flat out proclamations and pronouncements of what 'is', or, at least, say 'seems', if what you have as a wish is merely just a theory, hopefully with some kind of information behind it.

I remember years ago on the CBED forum the stressing of supernatural, but I always propose subnatural because the natural is composed of and governed by its subfunction.

Even the biblical god, in the exodus, used a natural means to part the red sea through a strong east wind. Why on earth would it be necessary for an almighty god to use such a means instead of, say, thinking it done and it would be done.

"In the beginning was the word (aum (om) amen, the sacred vibratory fluctuation) and the word was god. In him (anthropormorphic, as was common back then) was life, and the life was the light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." - Interpretation mine

Science has proven that light creates matter, etc..

I hope that's considered preaching. It's just my intention to put forth some possibilities and seek a common ground in understanding.
...was light, and science has proven that light creates matter.

[austintorn@aol.com]

That's an analysis an and analogy, not preaching.

Did light and matter need each other's product, or did one or the other come first, or are virtual particles both, somehow?

[Nobody Nowhere]

Science has looked at things pretty closely, finding only the natural, such as planets moving on their own, etc., with no outside guidance of any supernatural kind, which comes from way back, from Newton.

Victor Stenger even took another close look at just about everything, finding only the natural, even noting that evolution fine-tuned us for the Earth, rather than any other way around.

(Evolution has been confirmed by both fossils and DNA, they even each matching the other.)

I think whether we believe in it or not, the story is a big one.

There is the human DNA gap, implying genetic alteration through a horizontal transfer, to distinguish the beasts of the field from first humans; instantaneous formation of stars and planets; different conditions in strata from a global flood forcing fossils deeper into the ground; etc..

[Nobody Nowhere]

That's an analysis an and analogy, not preaching.

Did light and matter need each other's product, or did one or the other come first, or are virtual particles both, somehow?

I think they are one and the same, and the process is continual through instantaneous annihilation and creation - like a perpetual machine. Also I don't believe in science virtual particles are treated different than real ones. They are just short-lived real particles, like the W and Z bosons which I aim to get rid of, but I'll keep that out of your thread.

[Meem]

Austino,

I knew you would love this!

We're bustin, we're bustin, we're bustin down the stereotype
GO SCIENCE!!

Nature is super, just ake a look around. You are too, right in the middle of it.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Love those scientists, Meem. They open Pandora's box of truths.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Bertrand Russell on God...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw&feature=related

Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-526v0T4Q&feature=related

Bertrand Russell on Relativity...(21 videos)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bepHCrcdrKQ&NR=1

[Nobody Nowhere]

Bertrand Russell on God...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPOMUTr1qw&feature=related

Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-526v0T4Q&feature=related

Bertrand Russell on Relativity...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bepHCrcdrKQ&NR=1

I agree with video 2 and 3, but video 1 requires a suspension of judgment - in his own words. I don't know why he would then proceed to proclaim there is no afterlife, certainly it can't be judged as true.

I think of it this way: What would prevent an afterlife exactly like the one you're living now? What would prevent a slightly different afterlife? Perhaps the quasi-fractal nature of the universe allows for a mutation and highest-evolved state of living, based upon on an improved life that you may not even think you would want because you haven't experienced enough yet to know what would truly make you happy.

Of course, the universe being absolute would have naturally, or supernaturally, overcome all evolutionary obstacles in no time because there can be no time for the absolute universe. Whereas humans have to go through the processionary stages.