If you truly believe in the supernatural

[The idea]

...when are you going to use the term "supernatural"? To you, wouldn't there simply be some natural things that many people doubt the existence of?

If the natural world is thought to have been created by God, then why wouldn't other things thought to have been created by God also be classified as "natural"? For example, if you make a fire then it is artificial. If God makes a burning bush, then wouldn't it be a natural fire because it was created by God?

It makes some sense to say that God didn't create God, so we might classify God as "supernatural" rather than "natural" (assuming that "natural" means created by God). If the burning bush was created by the direct action of God, then we could say that supernatural agency was involved. However, the burning bush itself would be natural.

Someone who says, "It was a supernatural burning bush" is like someone who says, "Hello, this is my father. I'm sick, so I can't go to school today."

[whitefork]

Take the soul for example. It is said to have a supernatural quality but manifests itself in the natural world and is said to be a divine creation.

Other examples might be the Platonic forms, angels, demons, the laws of mathematics.

There are those who hold that some of the above are supernatural. There are also those who believe in the supernatural quality for some or all of them, yet deny the existence of god.

[Phil]

The term 'supernatural' and the belief therein are not mutally exclusive.

Webster's defines 'supernatural' as follows:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

Your example about the burning bush is a little awkward and forced, but there are certainly similar instances when a true believer would use the term 'supernatural' as it's defined above.

[Iacchus]

The natural is only the outcropping of the spiritual. :)

Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent. And yet it's up to the butterfly to lay the eggs which create the caterpillar.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The natural is only the outcropping of the spiritual. :)

Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent. And yet it's up to the butterfly to lay the eggs which create the caterpillar.

I'd be willing to bet the Butterfly is also subject to gravity.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Phil
The term 'supernatural' and the belief therein are not mutally exclusive.

Did I say they are mutually exclusive or did I ask a question?

Originally posted by Phil
Webster's defines 'supernatural' as follows:

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

According to this definition, no one ever saw God's back and there is no risk involved in looking at God's face. There's nothing to see.

Originally posted by Phil

2 b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

I think this definition is a little awkward because it deliberately applies the adjective "supernatural" to things that are supposedly acknowledged to not be supernatural.

If the royal touch cures people of disease, then you can distinguish between a royal touch and an ordinary touch. If the touch is not special, then the most you can say is that there is something special about the person who is doing the touching.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Andonyx


I'd be willing to bet the Butterfly is also subject to gravity.
I'll take a piece of that action, too.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent. And yet it's up to the butterfly to lay the eggs which create the caterpillar.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Andonyx


I'd be willing to bet the Butterfly is also subject to gravity.

No! All butterflies are equipped with graviton repellant!

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by c4ts


No! All butterflies are equipped with graviton repellant!

So how would that affect Franko?

[c4ts]

They give him the power to disobey TLOP.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Andonyx

I'd be willing to bet the Butterfly is also subject to gravity. Or, maybe it's just in denial huh? ;)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The natural is only the outcropping of the spiritual. :)

Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent. And yet it's up to the butterfly to lay the eggs which create the caterpillar.

A butterfly is not subject to gravity? Do you make your own rope you use to hang yourself?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, maybe it's just in denial huh? ;)

When a butterfly does not flap it’s wings does it simply just stay there levitating? When it rest does it do so simply levitating? If it is not subject to gravity why does it need wings? Why does it simply not just levitate to space?




My friend it is subject to gravity, it works within the law of gravity using wings, you know lift etc.

Do you believe a airplane is not subject to gravity? Hey the people in it must not be either, right?

My friend it is subject to gravity, it works within the law of gravity using wings, you know lift etc.


Hint, before you make a statement stop and rate from 1-10 how silly the statement is going to make you liik then post.

[Pahansiri]

One last piece of help for you

Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent. And yet it's up to the butterfly to lay the eggs which create the caterpillar.

It is clear someone was not paying attention in 3rd grade science. The “relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly” is that the caterpillar is the butterfly, they are the same creature in the transformed form.

When the butterfly lays the eggs it is not like a dog laying elephant eggs.
:rub:

get off the computer and read some books.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


A butterfly is not subject to gravity? Do you make your own rope you use to hang yourself? You seemed to have missed the point. It has nothing to do with the butterfly being subject to gravity, but in the butterfly existing in an exalted -- and hence "elevated" -- state over the caterpillar.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
You seemed to have missed the point. It has nothing to do with the butterfly being subject to gravity, but in the butterfly existing in an exalted -- and hence "elevated" -- state over the caterpillar.
You have chosen the word exalted, then chosen a synonym of the word, elevated, and then mixed that in with the idea that the caterpillar is subject to gravity and thus underneath the elevated butterfly, which uses a different meaning of the word elevated. I would recommend a rewording of your idea.

~~ Paul

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You seemed to have missed the point. It has nothing to do with the butterfly being subject to gravity, but in the butterfly existing in an exalted -- and hence "elevated" -- state over the caterpillar.

Consider the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly. One is earthbound (subject to gravity) and the other is transcendent.:rub:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You have chosen the word exalted, then chosen a synonym of the word, elevated, and then mixed that in with the idea that the caterpillar is subject to gravity and thus underneath the elevated butterfly, which uses a different meaning of the word elevated. I would recommend a rewording of your idea.

~~ Paul I think your problem is that you over-analyze things too much. :D

[pupdog]

Here we have a terrific case of metaphor and imagery completely obfuscating the point. Caterpillars are subject to gravity but butterflies transcend gravity? This is not true (very easily testable--put butterfllies in a vacuum jar and see if they can fly). It's not true, so what does it mean?

The butterfly is in an elevated/exalted state over the caterpillar? What, because it can fly it might at times be higher than the caterpillar? So what? Does this imply that getting high lends one some sort of moral superiority?

A butterfly is merely a caterpillar's way of making more caterpillars.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by pupdog
Here we have a terrific case of metaphor and imagery completely obfuscating the point. Caterpillars are subject to gravity but butterflies transcend gravity? This is not true (very easily testable--put butterfllies in a vacuum jar and see if they can fly). It's not true, so what does it mean?Don't you understand what poetry is? You're obviously one of those people who have take to take everything literally right? Of course, how else could you possibly knit-pick then?


The butterfly is in an elevated/exalted state over the caterpillar? What, because it can fly it might at times be higher than the caterpillar? So what? Does this imply that getting high lends one some sort of moral superiority? And you're not willing to acknowledge that it may have a totally different perspective?


A butterfly is merely a caterpillar's way of making more caterpillars. And adults are merely a teenagers way of making more adults, right? :p

[pupdog]

Don't you understand what poetry is?

If you used a rhyme, or maybe meter
Your poem would have been much neater.
But as it was, it lacked direction
And with this thread, no intersection.