But you also added the word "current" to justify your position.

(June 29, 2015 at 11:28 pm)pool Wrote: According to logic i can ignore the other part.Because those two parts were connected by a "or" not a "and".Therefore i just have to prove atleast one of the part,not both.

The idea that the universe chugged along for billions of years obeying the laws of nature, but has to be considered supernatural until life evolved with the ability to explain it is fucking absurd. I think you should go look up the word obtuse.

(June 29, 2015 at 4:15 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 4:02 pm)pool Wrote: I think you misunderstood me.I didn't mean that you assume the existence of the aliens that made this discovery.
I meant that your argument assumed that humans knew about and had a clear idea of the discovery these aliens made.Which would make it natural because we can now explain it according to our scientific knowledge.
But since we don't,we can't.
I understand your frustration,it i were you i would get frustrated too.

---

@Simon Moon,


Supernatural: " attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "

I don't know what you just did there but you definitely made a logically incorrect assumption.
According to this definition, 
The inability to explain something does make it supernatural, by default.

If it doesn't,there is something wrong with the definition,not with my argument.

Yeah, you're here just to yank everyone's chain, right?


Yes, that is the definition of supernatural alright.

But who says that if teleportation were to occur in my presence, I would "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature"?

I might just say, "That was weird. I wonder what the explanation is?". 

Again, just because something is unexplained, does not mean that it is supernatural. It just means that it is unexplained. 

It doesn't matter what you might just say now does it.
Furthermore the theoretical aspect of teleportation is completely natural the only supernatural aspect of teleportation is the practicality.
Therefore i do not believe teleportation is purely supernatural.
As i said before the reason of me using teleportation and invisibility was so that they would make others better understand the point i was trying to get across.

You're saying that just because something is unexplained that doesn't make it supernatural.
I'm saying that just because something is unexplained that does make it supernatural.

The basis for my conclusion is the very definition of supernatural.
What is the basis for your conclusion?

---

(June 29, 2015 at 11:48 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:28 pm)pool Wrote: According to logic i can ignore the other part.Because those two parts were connected by a "or" not a "and".Therefore i just have to prove atleast one of the part,not both.

The idea that the universe chugged along for billions of years obeying the laws of nature, but has to be considered supernatural until life evolved with the ability to explain it is fucking absurd. I think you should go look up the word obtuse.

Ah,you're making a few wrong assumptions.
I'm not saying that the universe has to be considered supernatural with respect to universe itself.
Everything is natural with respect to the universe(unless some phenomenon where to take place for the first time on the universe,which would then make the information available that the said phenomenon would be possible and completely natural at time t(present time)but as of time t-n it would make the phenomenon supernatural).

I looked up the word obtuse,it says: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
I agree with my insensitivity but i'm not sure if i'm slow to understand.Up until now my life experience have provided me with many examples that others(most of the others)are just too slow.Of course i could be wrong.

(June 29, 2015 at 11:49 pm)pool Wrote: Of course i could be wrong.

You are.

(June 30, 2015 at 12:07 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 11:49 pm)pool Wrote: Of course i could be wrong.

You are.

Am i supposed to just believe what you are saying and accept that?
Where is the evidence?
Of course to gather the evidence you'd have to come to where i live and converse with the people i thought were slow and me and prepare a paper 
and provide with enough proof(i have no idea how you're going to gather them)that you are right.Good luck.(I live in India)

Let's try this.
Let's continue the conversation but without the word "supernatural".
Let's see how far we can go.

The word supernatural means nothing and anything, just like the word "god".
We cannot even give examples of these words. They are just theoretical concepts.

(June 29, 2015 at 11:49 pm)pool Wrote: Ah,you're making a few wrong assumptions.
I'm not saying that the universe has to be considered supernatural with respect to universe itself.
Everything is natural with respect to the universe(unless some phenomenon where to take place for the first time on the universe,which would then make the information available that the said phenomenon would be possible and completely natural at time t(present time)but as of time t-n it would make the phenomenon supernatural).

I looked up the word obtuse,it says: annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
I agree with my insensitivity but i'm not sure if i'm slow to understand.Up until now my life experience have provided me with many examples that others(most of the others)are just too slow.Of course i could be wrong.

Two issues:

Since we're all being obtuse:
Technically your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  n could equal 0.

Second:
The reason no one accepts what you are saying is because you are to some extent denying object permanence.

@ Aristocat ,
I wouldn't go ahead and say that Supernatural is a quality.
It doesn't make sense,Supernatural is a label at best.

I think Supernatural would be the summation of several supernatural qualities,a set of supernatural qualities if present would categorize whatever is possessing those supernatural qualities as a Supernatural.

Also if you do not believe in aliens or believe in superior(superior in the sense that what any person x would value as a quality i'll explain it below).
My whole argument would fall apart.
Most atheists believe in aliens and are humble enough to accept the fact that they aren't the most superior beings in the whole of the universe.

Suppose the earth were populated by 3 human beings A,B,C
And suppose A valued a set of qualities X,B valued a set of qualities Y and C valued a set of qualities Z.

Another human being D enters the picture

Supposed D had a set of qualites X and suppose the X that D possesses far surpasses the X possessed by A
Then D would be Superior to A.
But D would still be inferior in every aspect to B and C if the intersection of X(D) and Y(B) and Z© would be a null set.Even if it weren't a null set then the X(D) would still have to surpass the intersection of Y(B) and Z©.
If D(X) were to surpass A(X),B(Y) and C(Z) then D(X) would be superior everyone on planet earth.Therefore it would be fair to say that D is a superior being.

I tried to explain them in those terms because i had a feeling that you'd better understand them when i say them in those terms if they have some technical error i apologize,i hope i got my point across.

EDIT: Ah n>0 .i thought you'd automatically assume this and hence didn't put forward the effort to explicitly pointing it out,thank you for pointing it out that it could be pointed out.(In simple terms i mean the past 1(or greater)(second,minute,hour etc) before the present time.

Right, I understand what superior means. We are discussing whether a far superior being is synonymous with supernatural being.

(June 30, 2015 at 12:54 am)Aristocatt Wrote: Right, I understand what superior means.  We are discussing whether a far superior being is synonymous with supernatural being.

In that case,

A superior being would have far superior understanding of the universe and hence have technological advancements than humans which can categorize them as Supernatural beings as long as we do not have an understanding of or haven't yet reached an understanding of the universe with science that is on par with their science.

Note that it is according to me that a Superior being should have Superior knowledge.
A Bodybuilder may not agree with me,according to him the Superior being would have to have Superior muscles xD.
Then the Superior being would have to be A being with Superior knowledge and Superior muscles.
But as long as knowledge is valued among humans a superior being to be classified as superior would have to have Superior knowledge.