NationStates Jolt Archive

"Is God super-natural?", was the question...



But I don't believe in the super-natural, as "nature" covers everything..!

So I'm an Asupernaturalist.

When presented with the idea of the super-natural, I believe it's silly, and
unbelievable.

When I was first asked (probably by myself) whether I believed in the super-
natural, I had to say "Yes", because I knew nothing more than the name of
the thing.

..then, about 12 seconds later, I realised that to be "super" natural a thing
would have to be outside of nature, which I couldn't believe, and therefore
had to disbelieve (no choice).

I still haven't seen anything to explain how anything could be "super" to
nature, thus I remain an asupernaturalist.

But,.. for a short time I was a "super-naturalist", because I didn't know
anything about it except it's "name".

..at which point the "name" created the doubt that forced me into my belief
that the super-natural was silly.

Thus the word, the idea behind the "name", created a part of my world. The
not-supernatural part. And the "name" was the name of "doubt", and it
contained within itself it's own destruction. Yet it was not destroyed, for it
had a job to do, and it would do that job forever in burning torment while
simultaneously existing in the world. And that job was to fill the world with
doubt to clarify that which IS from that which ISN'T.

The word behind the "name" had, indeed, created my (real) world. And the
world of the word was good.

That story is the genesis of the world. From the "word". All else is elaboration
on this first story.

(( The "word" is God. The "name" is Satan. The "word" has no name.
The "name" is the servant of the word. ))


-Iakeo

Interesting. Needlessly poetic/postmodernish, but you do make a good point about how modern religions secretly acknowledge their own incorrectness.

Thus the word, the idea behind the "name", created a part of my world. The
not-supernatural part. And the "name" was the name of "doubt", and it
contained within itself it's own destruction. Yet it was not destroyed, for it
had a job to do, and it would do that job forever in burning torment while
simultaneously existing in the world. And that job was to fill the world with
doubt to clarify that which IS from that which ISN'T.

The word behind the "name" had, indeed, created my (real) world. And the
world of the word was good.

That story is the genesis of the world. From the "word". All else is elaboration
on this first story.

(( The "word" is God. The "name" is Satan. The "word" has no name.
The "name" is the servant of the word. ))


-Iakeo

This is where I lost you.

Interesting. Needlessly poetic/postmodernish, but you do make a good point about how modern religions secretly acknowledge their own incorrectness.

Hmmm...

That's not really what I was going for.

It's a "story" of how God and Satan come into being.

In fact it's the exact process of how God and Satan became real entities to
me, personally.

This is my proof that God and Satan, as defined by me, do actually exist in
the world.


-Iakeo

This is where I lost you.

What is your question?

How does it "lose you"..?


-Iakeo

How does it "lose you"..?

I understand each indivudal word, but not the whole group together.

Speak plainly. As if you were explaining to a small child, or an American.

Perhaps you are focusing too much on the word because words are so limiting and can rarely encompass the true meaning behind anything. Words are often misused, or not understood fully because of this limitation.

Actually, the concept of something that is 'supernatural' is an inherent logical self-contradiction - a logical impossibility. I had a proof around here somewhere....here we go...

1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

This can be applied equally well to any supposed 'supernatural' entity, being, effect, etc. It's the generic concept that counts, though I originally wrote this for a discussion on religion.

Haha!

Creating an ideology, are ye?

I still haven't seen anything to explain how anything could be "super" to
nature, thus I remain an asupernaturalist.
Not outside of nature --there is no "outside" to nature, any more than there is an "outside" of the universe.

"Super-" is "above" and "beyond". Like Superman.

(( The "word" is God. The "name" is Satan. The "word" has no name.
The "name" is the servant of the word. ))
(If you have to explain your analogies, then they are not working (for you).)

Actually, the concept of something that is 'supernatural' is an inherent logical self-contradiction - a logical impossibility. I had a proof around here somewhere....here we go...

1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
So... A is God's existence, with "existence" as a trait. Okay. What is existence a trait of? God (the concept)? Then God must first exist in order for his existence-trait to exist. This is what you have said, here.

i.e. "existence" is not a trait of anything. At least, that is not logical.

4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
So, he has some other kind of existence. 'Supernatural' perhaps?

7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
So... the "logic" really begins here with this premise, as what comes before is made redundant by these statements. To exist, a thing must have the kind of existence that God does not have.

This is not logic.

9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
And now we are asked to accept a premise that conflicts with an earlier premise.

11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.
But wait... you defined God's "existence" as a trait of God. So if A exists, God exists.

Brain frying... logical meltdown... !

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

This can be applied equally well to any supposed 'supernatural' entity, being, effect, etc. It's the generic concept that counts, though I originally wrote this for a discussion on religion.
Let me try this...

1. A.
2. 'A' can be any thing, in that something that is A must be A.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God, hence A is God existing.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe. (For the sake of argument, I will keep this horrid definition.)
5. That which has concrete existence in reality is defined as 'natural', 'material', and 'explicable'.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence. God is supernatural.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality.
8. God has existence and is not real.
9. God created life and concrete existence.
10. Life and concrete existence is not God.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist.
12. Um...
13. A.

Good logic (not).

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
How does it "lose you"..?

I understand each indivudal word, but not the whole group together.

Speak plainly. As if you were explaining to a small child, or an American.

Some content is (apparently) not for folks like yourself.

If you can form a question from your non-understanding, I'll do my best to
answer it.

If not, have a SUPER day..!!


-Iakeo

Actually, the concept of something that is 'supernatural' is an inherent logical self-contradiction - a logical impossibility. I had a proof around here somewhere....here we go...

1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

This can be applied equally well to any supposed 'supernatural' entity, being, effect, etc. It's the generic concept that counts, though I originally wrote this for a discussion on religion.

I am talking about religion.

Also,.. your "proof" is not a proof because it makes assertions that are
nowhere supported in the proof itself.

Such as #6 and #9.

Thanks for playing.

-Iakeo

Haha!

Creating an ideology, are ye?



I still haven't seen anything to explain how anything could be "super" to
nature, thus I remain an asupernaturalist.

Not outside of nature --there is no "outside" to nature, any more than there is an "outside" of the universe.

"Super-" is "above" and "beyond". Like Superman.


I choose to think that anything located "not-in" nature (both above and
outside satisfy this condition) is an impossiblity.

And NO..! I'm not creating an ideology. Simply coining a term to describe my
belief in the silliness of supernaturality.

The text of the original posting was a "poem" (as it were) of my derivation of
the concepts of God and Satan, or more properly, my derivation of
the "universal ineffable thing" and the "universal doubt-producer", and their
relationship to each other and to their "user".

I'm the "user".

-Iakeo

I am talking about religion.

Also,.. your "proof" is not a proof because it makes assertions that are
nowhere supported in the proof itself.

Such as #6 and #9.

Thanks for playing.

-Iakeo

#6 and #9 are supported by previous statements. Respectively: #6 is derived from the steps directly preceding it (#4 and #5), and #9 is derived from the given definition of God. (#4)

But with our minds having a limited comphrehension capacity, wouldn't you agree it's impossible to really comphrehend to any large degree something outside our reality or something infinitely powerful? And following that, just because we can't understand something, how does that invalidate its existance?

But with our minds having a limited comphrehension capacity, wouldn't you agree it's impossible to really comphrehend to any large degree something outside our reality or something infinitely powerful? And following that, just because we can't understand something, how does that invalidate its existance?

We may not be able to comprehend everything about it, but we can comprehend that it is infinite, and we can easily comprehend infinity. That's how you subject it to logic.

Free Mercantiles, you're lucky in that the main thing you assume is the thing Iakeonui is arguing, namely that supernatural means outside of reality, and therefore nonexistent. Iakeo just tries to say that said being is not actually supernatural.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I am talking about religion.

Also,.. your "proof" is not a proof because it makes assertions that are
nowhere supported in the proof itself.

Such as #6 and #9.

Thanks for playing.

-Iakeo

1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.


#6 and #9 are supported by previous statements. Respectively: #6 is derived from the steps directly preceding it (#4 and #5), and #9 is derived from the given definition of God. (#4)

I take the obverse of #6 to be axiomatic.

I take #4 to be simply wrong, as it is utterly incorrect except for it's inclusion
of the word "inexplicable".

Therefore, you are correct in that #6 is derived from #4 (and #5), but a
conclusion derived from incorrect presuppositions is not a correct conclusion.

All your "proof" does is tell me how you define various terms, and that A!=A,..
which is obviously correct.

The condition in #13 ("as defined") is the "out" for both of us to agree that
the sequence is "logical as defined", but it has nothing whatesoever to
do with the question of God's existence.

If you can define God OUT of existence, it's just as simple for me to define
him INTO existence,.. in far fewer steps.

#1: God is. (axiom and conclusion)

And where does this get us?

We're STILL both asupernaturalists, aren't we..?


-Iakeo

But with our minds having a limited comphrehension capacity, wouldn't you agree it's impossible to really comphrehend to any large degree something outside our reality or something infinitely powerful? And following that, just because we can't understand something, how does that invalidate its existance?

Understanding a thing is not a precondition of that thing's existence.

Therefore, I agree with you.


-Iakeo

I take the obverse of #6 to be axiomatic.

I take #4 to be simply wrong, as it is utterly incorrect except for it's inclusion
of the word "inexplicable".


So would that make you a Pantheist?

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I take the obverse of #6 to be axiomatic.

I take #4 to be simply wrong, as it is utterly incorrect except for it's inclusion
of the word "inexplicable".

So would that make you a Pantheist?

No. This makes me a strict monotheist who believes in an "ineffable" God.


-Iakeo

No. This makes me a strict monotheist who believes in an "ineffable" God.


-Iakeo

Pantheists are not Polytheists, Pantheists are people who believe that God exists in everything, and that everything is God. Many of them are Monotheists. Beyond that, God being physical would have to make him effable, thus a physical God could not fall under your beliefs and you would support #4. So are you a Pantheist?

Pantheists are not Polytheists, Pantheists are people who believe that God exists in everything, and that everything is God. Many of them are Monotheists. Beyond that, God being physical would have to make him effable, thus a physical God could not fall under your beliefs and you would support #4. So are you a Pantheist?

If God is "in" everything, then it would be impossible to say what was NOT
God.

If you can't distinguish God from non-God, then you can't point at either God
or non-God.

"Naming" is merely "pointing at" a thing (linguistically).

If you can't "name" a thing, it is ineffable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ineffable).

Am I pantheist? I suppose I am, with the proviso that in my understanding
God is not IN everything, he IS everything.

Does that break the definition of "pantheist"..? :)


-Iakeo

If God is "in" everything, then it would be impossible to say what was NOT
God.

If you can't distinguish God from non-God, then you can't point at either God
or non-God.

"Naming" is merely "pointing at" a thing (linguistically).

If you can't "name" a thing, it is ineffable (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ineffable).

Am I pantheist? I suppose I am, with the proviso that in my understanding
God is not IN everything, he IS everything.

Does that break the definition of "pantheist"..? :)


-Iakeo

Actually, that is the definition of Pantheist. Congratulations, you've found your religious/philosophical calling, shared with various Hindus and Spinoza.

I choose to think that anything located "not-in" nature (both above and
outside satisfy this condition) is an impossiblity.

-Iakeo

Wooo! Time for a type of diagram I learned in geometry years ago! OK it's like this.

Numbers
|------------------|
|...._____
|../rational\
|.| #'s......|
|..\______/
|
|...._______
|../irrational \
|.| #'s.........|
|..\________/
|------------------|

now, assuming that comes out right when i hit post... replace "Numbers" with "existence"
Replace "rational #'s" with "natural existence"
Replace "irrational #'s" with "supernatural existence"

2 different natures within one existence (reality).

Rational and irrational is right.

http://the-brights.net/

I choose to think that anything located "not-in" nature (both above and
outside satisfy this condition) is an impossiblity.
Imagine if you will a bright sunny beach on Alpha Centauri. Pink sand, red water, and bright blue sun shining overhead.

Does that, the thing that you have imagined, the thing you image in your mind, exist in nature?

I say no, it is a thing that exists only in the imagination. It is unreal, and unreal things do not exist in nature.

And NO..! I'm not creating an ideology. Simply coining a term to describe my
belief in the silliness of supernaturality.

The text of the original posting was a "poem" (as it were) of my derivation of
the concepts of God and Satan, or more properly, my derivation of
the "universal ineffable thing" and the "universal doubt-producer", and their
relationship to each other and to their "user".

I'm the "user".

-Iakeo
Any "-ism" is an ideology. ;)

Wooo! Time for a type of diagram I learned in geometry years ago! OK it's like this.

Numbers
|------------------|
|...._____
|../rational\
|.| #'s......|
|..\______/
|
|...._______
|../irrational \
|.| #'s.........|
|..\________/
|------------------|

now, assuming that comes out right when i hit post... replace "Numbers" with "existence"
Replace "rational #'s" with "natural existence"
Replace "irrational #'s" with "supernatural existence"

2 different natures within one existence (reality).

Irrational numbers are numbers that can't be described as ratios.

All numbers are merely discreet points on a continuum.

The fact a particular point on that continuum can't be expressed as one
arbitrarily chosen point divided by another arbitrarily chosen point does not
make the "irrational" point (number) "above" (apart from, outside) the
continuum.

Reality IS nature, not a subset OF nature.

-Iakeo

I think that God is 100% all natural. Like a wholesome cereal. :)

I think that God is 100% all natural. Like a wholesome cereal. :)

..and VERY high in fiber, too.

-Iakeo

I'm gonna edit your diagram a bit, ok? Ok.
Numbers ----------------------------- And way over here are the complex
------------------------------------- numbers
|------------------|............................____
|...._____ ............|........................../.........\
|../rational\...........|.........................|Complex|
|.| #'s......|..........|.........................|.#'s......|
|.|...........|.........|...........................\______/
|..\______/...........|
|.........................|
|...._______..........|
|../irrational \........|
|.| #'s.........|.......|
|..\________/........|
|------------------|
Here's a little math for all you. Complex numbers are numbers that are impossible, stumbling blocks for mathmeticians, if you will. The most common Complex number is i, which is the sqaure root of negative one. Without this number, you could not take the sqaure roots of negative numbers, but, this does not fit in with the rest of the numbers, they are "above & beyond" normal numbers. They are your "supernatural numbers". Can you really comprehend the square root of Negative one? Can you think in five dimensions? Can you believe that black holes shrink? No? It's true. Anyways, things are not always as they seem. Like the previous diagram, some things are left out by mistake, accident, or forgetfulness. Anyways, have some "supernatural numbers" to ponder over while I go get my breakfast.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
I choose to think that anything located "not-in" nature (both above and
outside satisfy this condition) is an impossiblity.

Imagine if you will a bright sunny beach on Alpha Centauri. Pink sand, red water, and bright blue sun shining overhead.

Does that, the thing that you have imagined, the thing you image in your mind, exist in nature?

I say no, it is a thing that exists only in the imagination. It is unreal, and unreal things do not exist in nature.

Then what are you pointing at with your description (your words)?

It exists in nature as what it is (in your head), and the consequences of it's
existence in nature are "what they are". In this case, it conjures a pleasant
feeling in me, as one example.

Your description of an "unreal thing to you" given to me has caused my state
to change. Your "unreal thing" has created an effect in nature (mine).

Your "unreal thing", therefore is neither unreal to me, or to nature, as I'm a
part of nature.



Originally Posted by Iakeonui
And NO..! I'm not creating an ideology. Simply coining a term to describe my
belief in the silliness of supernaturality.

The text of the original posting was a "poem" (as it were) of my derivation of
the concepts of God and Satan, or more properly, my derivation of
the "universal ineffable thing" and the "universal doubt-producer", and their
relationship to each other and to their "user".

I'm the "user".

-Iakeo

Any "-ism" is an ideology.


OK,.. but I'm not "creating" and ideology,.. I'm simply discovering one, as I've
never heard the word "Asupernaturalist" used before, and I can't claim to
have "created" a thing very much akin to mathematics.

No one CREATED mathematics,.. many people discovered it, and continue to
discover it.

-Iakeo

I'm gonna edit your diagram a bit, ok? Ok.
Numbers ----------------------------- And way over here are the complex
------------------------------------- numbers
|------------------|............................____
|...._____ ............|........................../.........\
|../rational\...........|.........................|Complex|
|.| #'s......|..........|.........................|.#'s......|
|.|...........|.........|...........................\______/
|..\______/...........|
|.........................|
|...._______..........|
|../irrational \........|
|.| #'s.........|.......|
|..\________/........|
|------------------|
Here's a little math for all you. Complex numbers are numbers that are impossible, stumbling blocks for mathmeticians, if you will. The most common Complex number is i, which is the sqaure root of negative one. Without this number, you could not take the sqaure roots of negative numbers, but, this does not fit in with the rest of the numbers, they are "above & beyond" normal numbers. They are your "supernatural numbers". Can you really comprehend the square root of Negative one? Can you think in five dimensions? Can you believe that black holes shrink? No? It's true. Anyways, things are not always as they seem. Like the previous diagram, some things are left out by mistake, accident, or forgetfulness. Anyways, have some "supernatural numbers" to ponder over while I go get my breakfast.

Complex numbers have a use in the nature of "Mathematics".

They interact with the "number" (value) continuum.

Since they have "use" and "interaction", they exist (in the aforementioned
nature of mathematics).

They are therefore NOT supernatural, as they are WITHIN the nature of
the "thing" that concerns them (that "contains" them).

It's really much simpler than even this.

Does infinity exist? Yes. (as one chooses to define it)

Does God exist? Yes. (as one chooses to define him)

(..and don't get hung up on the pronoun! It's my personal "infuriator" and
inside joke to my conversation partners. :) )

-Iakeo