|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 10:19:56 GMT
And, how could one tell the difference?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,667
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 18, 2017 11:53:06 GMT
I went with impossible to tell - if you did discover something supernatural, you'd probably have good reason to assume it was your mind playing tricks on you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2017 14:00:27 GMT
I went with impossible to tell - if you did discover something supernatural, you'd probably have good reason to assume it was your mind playing tricks on you. But supposing that being unable to tell was a condition of the supernatural's 'hold' over one? The argument that the supernatural must exist, since only a trickster supernatural would be able to confuse the existence of itself most sufficiently when the answer, either way, ought to be unambiguous?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 14:04:03 GMT
"how could one tell the difference?"
Independent corroboration, example if you encounter something and look it up later to find other people experiencing the same thing with specific details intact. The experience (discovery) comes first with discovery of other reports coming after the fact.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 18, 2017 15:59:26 GMT
The supernatural is a nonsensical concept. How would something like that even exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2017 16:48:40 GMT
The supernatural is a nonsensical concept. How would something like that even exist? I understand super-natural as meaning above/beyond nature. And nature is defined as a single source (monism) with its own mechanisms that are causally closed. Like in d'Holbach's system of nature for the best example/usage of it. So things like souls or telelogy are secondary to nature making them supernatural. Really, it's just a word game and there will be different interpretations of it.
|
|
Lynx
Sophomore
@lynx0139
Posts: 345
Likes: 195
|
Post by Lynx on Jul 18, 2017 18:58:51 GMT
I think we've all had experiences we can't explain....depending on your age of course. Most people just don't want to talk about them for fear of being ridiculed.
I've had quite a few myself in my 63 years....some that would make your hair stand on end, but I too would only share them with my closest friends.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2017 8:44:05 GMT
The supernatural is a nonsensical concept. How would something like that even exist? Well I suppose the question is more why the supernatural necessarily cannot exist, although I appreciate the arguments against having to disprove a negative. For instance if we admit that we do not know everything there is to know about the natural world then we must accept that we do not know its limitations, at least to absolutely exclude something other, on the basis that the natural is all there can be.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 19, 2017 17:34:40 GMT
I'm going with both. Some discoveries are regarded as supernatural for a time, then later as they become better understood get reclassified as natural. Other "discoveries" that are more irrational, non-factual, and in fact about things that don't actually exist (eg. elves and fairies) I would consider an invention, reserving "discover" for real things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2017 0:29:47 GMT
Have you ever been thinking about someone then amazingly they phone/text you?
Well, you're either psychic or................ you know, coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 24, 2017 1:00:46 GMT
The supernatural is a nonsensical concept. How would something like that even exist? Good point, since there really is no way to define the term such that it has any ontological meaning. If there are realms, dimensions, beings etc. that don't follow what we consider "natural law", that just means we don't currently know what laws these things/entities do follow. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that there are places or things that follow no rigid/consistent laws, which is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 24, 2017 8:42:43 GMT
IMO the consumption of psychoactive plants is what triggered our ancestors into a higher form of consciousness.
The tools to access the mystical dimension were made readily available to us.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2017 11:27:47 GMT
Invent it. You can tell because it doesn't exist beyond the fiction of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 18:33:19 GMT
There has never been, and never will be, anything supernatural. It's either self-delusion, coincidence, lies or the human mind playing tricks on us.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 15, 2017 17:02:55 GMT
At the end of the day, the coin\change has two sides and all your you are left with is the whole. If you based your views on objective, verifiable reality, there is exactly one side: no supernatural at all. But we all know you prefer make believe over reality.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Aug 16, 2017 2:22:59 GMT
As the Earth is our God, and there is so much we don't understand about it, I would say that the supernatural is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 5, 2017 11:36:34 GMT
We know you prefer reality— which is just as much an illusion—over the holistic. I guess you still have a long journey ahead of you. All the best. Since you and your view are, by this definition of my reality, necessarily a delusion then I shall treat you as such and ignore you. It is reasonable to want to avoid delusions and illusions, especially those which readily confess to being such.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 5, 2017 11:39:17 GMT
I went with impossible to tell - if you did discover something supernatural, you'd probably have good reason to assume it was your mind playing tricks on you. The trouble with this is that quite obviously there are plenty who do not see those "good reasons". That is not to say that they cannot be found, just that on the evidence we can see by looking around it appears that they are not convincing, and never have been, to so many others.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,667
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 5, 2017 12:57:47 GMT
I went with impossible to tell - if you did discover something supernatural, you'd probably have good reason to assume it was your mind playing tricks on you. The trouble with this is that quite obviously there are plenty who do not see those "good reasons". That is not to say that they cannot be found, just that on the evidence we can see by looking around it appears that they are not convincing, and never have been, to so many others. Just because people think they can tell doesn't mean they can.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 5, 2017 13:09:47 GMT
The trouble with this is that quite obviously there are plenty who do not see those "good reasons". That is not to say that they cannot be found, just that on the evidence we can see by looking around it appears that they are not convincing, and never have been, to so many others. Just because people think they can tell doesn't mean they can. I agree; but of course this precept can also apply to those who think they can tell the "good reasons".
|
|