The "Cultural Context" Excuse
September 7, 2016 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2016 at 12:26 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(September 7, 2016 at 11:58 am)Whateverist Wrote:(September 6, 2016 at 8:59 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Then, by that definition, things which were formally considered supernatural transform into natural phenomenon just as soon as science catches up with them? If that is all there is to the supernatural, why not just use "unexplained"?
Just going to bump this Huggy because I'd really like to know if you think of the 'supernatural' as something forever unexplainable by natural means or if you think of it as something which so far is with out natural explanation. My impression is that many theists think of it in the first way, as though God just operates through pure intentional magic for which His will is both the way and the means. That is what I don't buy. If there were gods I would assume they are savvy to some know how that escapes us. Your thoughts?
Exactly. And taking it a step further if I could, how does one go about distinguishing between the two? By what methodology does one differentiate an unusual natural event with a yet-undiscovered natural explanation, from a "supernatural" event with NO natural explanation?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
