RE: Problems understanding naturalistically the beginning of the universe
May 7, 2016 at 6:17 am
(This post was last modified: May 7, 2016 at 6:20 am by robvalue.)
Yeah. Trying to label something based on whether we understand it or not, and then calling it anything other than "unknown" if we don't, if just pointless and dishonest.
The whole thing is stupid. To me, the most sensible definition of "supernatural" would be something that can act upon nature (our reality) but which nothing in our reality can act upon in return. One way only. For example, I can mess with a virtually created computer world as much as I want, by altering it directly, but no potentially self-aware parts of the program can mess with me in return. So I'd be "supernatural" compared to that manifested reality.
The whole thing is stupid. To me, the most sensible definition of "supernatural" would be something that can act upon nature (our reality) but which nothing in our reality can act upon in return. One way only. For example, I can mess with a virtually created computer world as much as I want, by altering it directly, but no potentially self-aware parts of the program can mess with me in return. So I'd be "supernatural" compared to that manifested reality.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum