(July 26, 2012 at 7:37 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(July 24, 2012 at 11:45 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't? I think if it exists, it's natural.
If a god existed, it could explain why existence is. For proponents of Occam's razor, the occurence of a series of highly unlikely events as being random is a step (or several) too far.
As we are created within existence, and are part of it, it would explain a cause for it. I'm not proposing any more than that.
I don't claim to know or dismiss the supernatural, I just claim it's a possibility as I don't place huge emphasis on humanity's abilitiy to determine this question. You're welcome to assume it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better for whatever reason.
To answer your question, to me the whole is other/greater/different than the sum of his parts, so considering that a creator must be 'in' nature is bizarre position to hold.
You assume incorrectly, perhaps ask for clarification before you base an entire paragraph on an assumption in future.
I mean supernatural as it is defined in most dictionaries:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
Why should something outside the natural world effect the natural world? On what are you basing this? You can't possibly claim to have knowledge of the supernatural, its supposedly beyond our understanding. How can you make specific claims of what supernatural entities exist and operate outside the boundaries of your understanding?
You can't have it both ways, either it is beyond what we can prove or not. What are you basing your claims of specific supernatural entities existing on?
Strange that you supply the defintion of supernatural as I assumed and then claim I assumed incorrectly.
I said: "Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't".If I assumed incorrectly, are you stating that which cannot be observed,measured or any evidence be found to support is not natural? If so, the natural does not consist of what exists, but rather what there is proof for.
I've always considered the natural to be what actually exists, not what is proven to exist. These definitions are seemingly interchangeable for you.
I don't make claims about the supernatural, I merely claim I cannot dismiss them due to a lack of evidence, which I hope you've managed to see the paradoxical nature of this by now.