(October 10, 2018 at 1:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: (I put this in the wrong thread earlier)
About this ‘supernatural’ business:
If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural. If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’
Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.
We can discuss ET again. The structure of the definitions are similar. And so the answe is similar. Nothing in the definition precludes an extra-terrestrial from interacting with the terrestrial and still maintain the description.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
