Quote:I'm sorry to confuse you... Well, I don't think there is value in a distinction between natural and supernatural, but if I had to, I would say that we are all supernatural, believing that we are natural (uh, i think that may sound even more confusing ^^'). But I'm more comfortable with "natural". God is definitely natural. No point in adding "super" just to make it sound flashy.well when you are talking about something that there can be no empirical evidence of the existence of...and that would be 'miraculous' and operate differently to the laws of the universe, then I would call that supernatural.
I would say "God" that can perform 'miracles' 'create the universe' and exist before then or create it at the same time as 'creating himself' I would call that all supernatural because there is no evidence of it and it certainly isn't how the natural world is understood.
So I'm just saying - what do you believe God is capable of...? What miracles, great acts, etc? And where is the evidence of 'him'/'her'/'it'? And where is the evidence of the 'miracles' or 'acts' he/she/it can do?
And where is the evidence "God" exists and that he/she/it created the universe, etc?
Finally, do you believe God is specifically a he or she? And if not, I'll just say 'it' from now on, saying all 3 is getting kind of annoying lol.
Quote:Simplified it's something along these lines: the piano is matter, the music is the spirit. But it doesn't help describing it, just like describing a song won't make you actually hear it... (but that's partly my fault for not being a virtuoso with words, I'll try to think of something better)
Where is the evidence that the 'music' is spirit? The sound is sound waves - which is SOMETHING it is matter, energy, etc - its made out of stuff (i.e,, it's material).
And as for how it 'feels good' when you listen to 'good music' or 'music you like' as far as we know all feelings come from the natural (or non-spiritual if you prefer, what can be explained normally by science, and/or hasn't been explained otherwise)...I know of no evidence of feelings coming from the something 'spiritual', it's all just matter, specifically our own biology and its interaction with the environment and others, etc, as far as I know?
All natural...um...
Now here's the thing, how are you defining 'spiritual' that cannot be encompassed by science? I mean some things haven't been yet....but as far as we know all natural things in the world can be tested naturally or scientifically...OR some things can't perhaps but then as far as we know nothing else can! The natural world (the only world we know of) is studied through the natural science - and it at least requires some kind of evidence...
As far as we know scientific empirical evidence is the way to go when it comes to dealing with reality - the natural world.
Quote:Well, once again, you are applying the rubber to the nail, no matter how you hit it, it'll just bounce back (sorry to be annoying XD). But you can't see a microbe with a telescope and neither another planet with a microscope.
How about this: do you believe in virtue? Probably. Can you prove it? Well, I would be surprised. Sure, you can find virtuous people, but there is no material thing such as virtue. Yet, would it not still "exist" and have meaning and value even without people? You see, evidence and existence don't really mean anything in this realm.
Well I don't believe in virtue (to take your example) as a 'thing' I believe that certain people, etc, are more virtuous than others and there is no 'virtue' ITSELF, just some have more of it than others...
Like it is a fact that some people are better than others, and we have empathy to understand and realize this. But that is not to say that there are absolute objective morals in the world...I mean where's the evidence of that? Who's to give it? Where are they? It's all subjective...it's just a good thing some people are more caring
and a bad thing some are less 
- it's the way it is.Now...what I'm wondering is...you believe in hell presumably (the thing about us going to hell, in an almost apologetic way it seems) - are you calling that natural? Because you say you don't draw a distinction between the natural and the supernatural; and you personally prefer the term "natural"?
Well where's the evidence for this hell outside a book that simply says it exists?? Circular logic as it were :p
I mean where is the black and white here? Is it all grey according to you?
Where is the contrast between the "natural" (nonspiritual), or normal and the supernatural (or spiritual if you prefer) and non-normal?
I mean the whole eternal damnation thing isn't exactly natural is it? Where's the evidence for it? The whole thing seems a bit weird to me
Where is the distinction between the normal and not so normal, the spiritual and non-spiritual here? There not being a hell because there's no evidence; and there being a hell for whatever reason you believe?
Hell just seems kind of outside the box for me! (as does heaven equally of course, I'm just using hell since you mentioned it )
So where is the distinction here? Where is the contrast?
EvF
