Is the Supernatural Natural?

[man]

The natural and the supernatural are obviously two very different things.

The supernatural exists outside of what we call natural, it is by definition not natural.

If something is not natural calling it unnatural is the same as saying it is not natural.

If god is supernatural then by definition god is unnatural.

[Blastcat]

You are corect, I have a hypothesis.

If you want anyone to CARE about it in here.. as in "debate" about it.. please provide evidence in support.

OR drop the claim.

[man]

[Replying to post 41 by Blastcat]

I disrespectfully refuse to drop the claim.

Maybe I'll verify it tomorrow if you are nice to me and I feel like it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 42 by man]

I disrespectfully refuse to drop the claim.

Maybe I'll verify it tomorrow if you are nice to me and I feel like it.

[center]
You should at least try to be a little respectful.. some people get touchy about that kind of thing.
Blastcat is nice to people - a real horror to bad reasoning. [/center]

[Yahu]

You need to show me some scriptural proof.

Like I said, the gift of 'discernment of spirits' is mentioned as one of the 9 spiritual gifts but is not explained in scripture.

I Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

Nine spiritual gifts are given but they are not specifically defined. Granted, the gifts of healing, miracles or prophecy don't need explanation.

You have to be aware of how those gifts operate by experience with them.

Here is another passage:

Heb 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Note it references 'senses'. I have said that 'discernment' can operate on different 'senses'. Some operate on sight while I have it operate on 'smell' and 'feel'. Discernment of spirits operates on different senses for different individuals but ONLY in those individuals that are given that gift. Not everyone gets any or all of those gifts but it is up to the Spirit to give those gifts.

[Monta]

The supernatural is more advanced ( perhaps on the fringes ) , but is still within the set of all things we call nature.

>> Not limited by the laws of nature and time/space. I believe there are people who are more advanced and are not bound by the laws of nature in many ways.
Angelic beings also (as those who have died) have advanced from natural to supernatural.

In other words, are you saying that when people use the word "supernatural" they really just mean "plain old natural that we don't have any evidence for yet ?"

>> No no, nothing plain old natural about natural. I believe there is evidence for those who genuinely want to explore and learn.

Does the proposition "God" relate to a perfectly natural being, within nature, subject to the natural laws of nature, or outside of nature itself?

>> I do not see God as a perfectly natural being or subject to it's laws. He is the Creator, He is the Law therefore Order.
He is not outside of nature but wihin it sustaing its existence.

Would you mind elaborating on this?
I'm confused.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 45 by Monta]

( Paraphrasing Monta )
The supernatural is more advanced ( perhaps on the fringes ) , but is still within the set of all things we call nature.

>> Not limited by the laws of nature and time/space. I believe there are people who are more advanced and are not bound by the laws of nature in many ways.
Angelic beings also (as those who have died) have advanced from natural to supernatural.

In other words, are you saying that when people use the word "supernatural" they really just mean "plain old natural that we don't have any evidence for yet ?"

>> No no, nothing plain old natural about natural. I believe there is evidence for those who genuinely want to explore and learn.

You believe there is evidence.

Ok, I genuinely want to learn. I can't say that I will begin to "explore" until I know there is somewhere TO explore.. where do I begin the journey? I used to think that I was already there.. turned out to be false. So, if you have a better way.. fine.

But I have to know what that is.
So.. we could start with your evidence for the phenomenon.

Does the proposition "God" relate to a perfectly natural being, within nature, subject to the natural laws of nature, or outside of nature itself?

>> I do not see God as a perfectly natural being or subject to it's laws. He is the Creator, He is the Law therefore Order.
He is not outside of nature but wihin it sustaing its existence.

Would you mind elaborating on how something that is in nature is not subject to the laws of nature ? Are you equating the concept "God" with the laws of nature?

I'm trying to understand.. and it's not yet clear to me.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 46 by Blastcat]


"Would you mind elaborating on how something that is in nature is not subject to the laws of nature ? Are you equating the concept "God" with the laws of nature?"

What is that which is natural and not subject to the laws of nature?

I don't think I understand your questions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 47 by Monta]


[center]A clarification.[/center]

"Would you mind elaborating on how something that is in nature is not subject to the laws of nature ? Are you equating the concept "God" with the laws of nature?"

What is that which is natural and not subject to the laws of nature?

I don't think I understand your questions.

Then we are on an equal footing.. I don't understand your assertions.
That's why I have to ask for clarifications.

Allow me to ask those questions in a different way. Maybe that will help you understand what the questions mean:

1. You've stated that Some "beings" are "Not limited by the laws of nature and time/space. I believe there are people who are more advanced and are not bound by the laws of nature in many ways. " Could you clarify what it means to be not limited by the laws of nature? Are you describing magicians for example?

2. How can beings within time/space not be bound by the laws of time/space?

3. Are you saying that "God" is the universe?

4. A new question that just occurred to me to ask you is : " How can we verify your assertions?"

[man]

[Replying to post 38 by man]

You all might be interested to know that science views god as natural.

Given our evolutionary past and the resulting structure of our brain belief in god arises naturally in humans.

[center]You have a hypothesis.
you forgot to present the supporting evidence[/center]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... eve-in-god

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -in-god-ii

https://www.psychologytoday.com/search/site/god?f[0]=

It's kind of foolish to even ask for supporting references, of course science sees god as natural.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 49 by man]

!

[center]The two propositions "Belief in God" and "God" are not the same.[/center]

You have a hypothesis.
you forgot to present the supporting evidence

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm

It's kind of foolish to even ask for supporting references, of course science sees god as natural.

These links don't demonstrate that "God is natural" but that the BELIEF in a god might be. The proposition "God" and the proposition "Belief in God" are NOT identical.

It's kind of foolish to present evidence for one thing when you are talking about another.