RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
May 30, 2020 at 9:00 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2020 at 9:29 am by Succubus#2.)
(May 30, 2020 at 4:44 am)Belacqua Wrote: If something did an act which is completely against its nature, that would be supernatural only if the action were self-originated. That is, frogs can't sing Italian duets, so such an action would be supernatural.
You really don't see the insanity of bringing singing frogs into a discussion when it's clear to all bar philosophers that frogs cant sing. And by 'philosophers' I mean your particular brand of stoner philosophy. I suspect even that great spouter of shite Paul Tillich would balk at the dross you post here.
Quote:If we observed such an action, however, the cause in fact might be outside of the frog. That is, the frog is being manipulated puppet-wise by an unseen agent.
You're taking the piss.
(May 30, 2020 at 5:26 am)Belacqua Wrote: I don't believe it's possible.
I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.
(May 30, 2020 at 8:28 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:(May 30, 2020 at 5:26 am)Belacqua Wrote: I don't believe it's possible.
I also don't believe it's possible to prove it's not possible.
How can you say "there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural" and then say you don't believe it's possible?
This whole thing is a masterclass in obfuscation. As long as Bel won't commit himself to a position we will forever go round in circles. He can't lose this debate not while the goalposts are a moving target.
Miserable Bastard.