12 Sep 11
Originally posted by Agergyou get a cushy job working in an office crunching numbers and your complaining? my
Tell you what...if I'm granted a lifeline out of this hell-hole job I started recently with a firm PhD offer I'd given up on two months ago[hidden](got an unexpected call from a former professor this morning and I have revoked my unthinking statement that I cannot do it (since I\'m working) by email this evening)[/hidden]then maybe...just maybe I'll lower the bar and be receptive to the idea someone is looking out for me in unseen places! ;]
goodness man, try nine below zero working outside in a Scottish winter, freeze, balls,
brass monkeys, you know the routine!
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are being cynical again.
That very much depends on how you define 'supernatural'. The usual definition of that word I find incoherent, so under the usual definition, I cannot answer the question because I cannot understand the question.
The same applies to most religions concepts of 'God'. As long as I find them incoherent, I cannot answer the question.
Its like asking what ...[text shortened]... irst ask 'are they pink or are they invisible?' because I find the combination incoherent.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I find the distinction between the natural and supernatural opaque. But if you're asking what I would take as really good evidence of the existence of agents like those described as 'divine' by the world's religions, it would take an appearance by the agent in question and a series of demonstrations of his/her/its power that 1) are done on demand by a crowd of onlookers that includes me personally, 2) are inexplicable by current scientific knowledge and 3) indicate a temporary suspension of the laws of nature seemingly by his/her/its will. Then I'd need a personal question and answer session.
What would it take to pursuade you of the existance of a supernatural being/ deity?
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59For the Israelites it took a myriad of Egyptian plagues, the parting of the Red Sea so they could cross and then have the Egyptian army drowned while trying to follow them. Oh, and then they needed manna to come down from heaven as dew so they could eat in the desert.
What would it take to pursuade you of the existance of a supernatural being/ deity?
Of course, they then felt compelled to brush aside this God of miracles and make a golden calf to worship instead. 😛
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThe question presupposes a dualism of reality into the supernatural and natural world. Some answers given to this question require the occurrence of evidence of the supernatural, in the natural world; specifically, evidence that overthrows one's thinking about the currently supposed regularities of the natural world. It seems to me impossible that such evidence would be necessarily convincing about a supernatural; it would only demand a rethinking of the regularities of the natural world, or in the extreme, abandoning the idea that there are regularities in the natural world.
I find the distinction between the natural and supernatural opaque. But if you're asking what I would take as really good evidence of the existence of agents like those described as 'divine' by the world's religions, it would take an appearance by the agent in question and a series of demonstrations of his/her/its power that 1) are done on demand by a crowd o ...[text shortened]... ature seemingly by his/her/its will. Then I'd need a personal question and answer session.
The question "What would it take to pursuade [sic] you of the existance of a supernatural being/ deity" can be best addressed by looking at the word "you." If there is a supernatural world, and a natural world, the "you" that is of that natural world may be unreachable, WRT persuasion about anything supernatural. And it may be unimportant. The "you" that is of the supernatural world, may be that which it is of importance to reach. This is the basis for my answer to this question: go about life receptive to direct divine revelation. (Or something like that.)
Assuming the dualism implied by the question, that is.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut not totally sure,right?
I am fairly sure someone made up that story. I don't believe that one must have seen something before before one can visualise it. That's total nonsense. If anything people tend to visualise what they haven't seen.
Aparently out of the 10 000 "fragments" of info we recieve each hour(?),that is sound and light vibrations, we only percieve about 2000 of them.
I got this and the other info from a movie called "What the Bleep Do We Know"(amonst other scources) ,which is all about quantum. Anyone seen it?
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI am totally sure the explanation given in the story is not true.
But not totally sure,right?
Aparently out of the 10 000 "fragments" of info we recieve each hour(?),that is sound and light vibrations, we only percieve about 2000 of them.
I am not sure how that is relevant. The question is whether or not someone will fail to see something because they haven't seen it before which seems to me the most ridiculous proposal ever. We know perfectly well that much of what we see throughout life we have never seen before.
13 Sep 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadA lot of quantum theory is just bits and pieces which haven't been tied together satisfactorily by a unifying theory yet.
I am totally sure the explanation given in the story is not true.
[b]Aparently out of the 10 000 "fragments" of info we recieve each hour(?),that is sound and light vibrations, we only percieve about 2000 of them.
I am not sure how that is relevant. The question is whether or not someone will fail to see something because they haven't seen it befo ...[text shortened]... r. We know perfectly well that much of what we see throughout life we have never seen before.[/b]
So it's relevant to me and my way of understanding.
I suspect there a more discoveries to be made in this field yet that will shed some light on these problems.
Do you know the movie I referred to? It's full of some very compelling arguements without reaching any real conclusions other than ruling out certain theories.