(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Supernatural fits very well. Potentially natural supernatural, as you propose, doesn't.What grounds can one rationally posit such an oxymoron? I don't just propose it doesn't, it is the default option. My question is how does one bridge the gap between no grounds for plausibility to attempting to justify it as potential?
(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: How do you think people assert these claims? That sounds a little like you're demanding more than would be possible of the truly supernatural.Not so. At one point the Sun rising was by definition a supernatural occurrence, that became understood as natural, and the turtle example I gave, absurd or not, would have served as a more possible explanation than invoking an explanation from that which is imaginatively possible, i.e. God.
(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We draw upon our rationalising abilities that a world we are able to rationalise made possible.Agreed, my question still stands. From what position do you justify conjuring explanations that are not grounded in the world you rationalize and then attempt to claim they are in fact, rational?
If the question is, "Where did the universe come from?" At what point is it rational to throw out the world around us, and simply posit that The Universe was created?...rationally? That is to say, with good reason?
