@huxley2,

I've waited to see how you faired this morning in addressing these issues; but let me help you sort out once again why atheistic fallacious logic is the very undoing of the type of atheism you seem to espouse in your naturalistic worldview.

huxley2:

Funny, you ask this question. Let me turn it round to you. How do you know for certain that the claims of Z&T are true and that the things they report really happened.

You're welcome to turn it around to me, and I shall deal accordingly in a credible manner.

1. I've said plainly several times that these examples are proffered as attested by credible sources, and there's no way I could have first-hand certainty of what was reported in the research. Reminder:
'I have no independent way of verifying the event for myself and
only posted it second-hand for others to draw their own inferences.'


2. Credibility is not a matter of personality bias, but of examining a report of a research from conditioned and controlled criteria. To this end, I'd first consulted several sources and borrowed from their criteria to evaluate the examples for my discussion. Having examined Z&T and weighted them on the 11 criteria proffered by the 'Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' [here], I thought Z&T scaled them and so could be accounted credibly.


3. One of such controlled criteria to guard against fraud is what has been repeatedly stated: "adequate precuations against fraud and sensory leakage" - and Z&T adhered to such criterion. I've repeatedly posted such measures to point this out:
Zammit: '. . .With extreme care, I (and others) checked the security for fraud myself
and guarantee, with absolute certainty, that it was physically impossible for accomplices
to have participated in the materialization experiment.'
It so happens that every charge of fraud by skeptics has been roundly addressed and a challenge given out by Z&T for such skeptics to apply themselves to the a repeatability of the process ANYWHERE they so choose. So far, none of these skeptics has taken on such a challenge.

4. The willingness of Z&T to provide the same process for repeatability is another point. They offered the challenge that anyone is welcome to call for such a test for repeatability ANYWHERE OF THE ENQUIRER'S CHOICE -
Zammit: 'We would be confident to take the medium to anyplace – of your choice -
where trapdoors – floors, walls and ceilings do not exist. That the room, floor, walls and
ceilings are solid concrete with no windows and only one door which would be secured,
sealed and guarded all the time by any independent party.'


5. Queries and objections have been duely addressed by Zammit, especially all the sort that you've repeatedly brought up. You were the very same person who reposted his answers from his own website; and I wonder if you even took the time to read it before repeating the same objections.


6. It so happens that those who assume a role to be 'paranormal-debunkers' have not been brave enough to take on the challenge by Z&T. These 'debunkers' have not given any credible reason why they cannot investigate the findings in Z&T's research in order to make informed statements or conclusions.


7. The report is well-sourced, published in the appropriate media recognized for such investigations, and made available to the public.


These and more would be my reasons for selecting theirs as an example for my discussions. After repeatedly answering your objections, I also asked you pointedly to answer two basic questions:

A. how do you know for certain that IN ACTUALITY people were being
let into the room from an adjacent room?

B. what is the likelihood of a fraud and sensory leakage?

I don't see you making any calm resolve to proffer answers to those questions other than shifting responsibility. Do you care now to deal with A and B above? Thank you.

huxley2:

If you believe them, you should I not believe the others?

You're free to believe anyone of your choice. I've given reasons why the example I used seems credible enough, and I gave reasons as well answered your objections - repeatedly referring you to answers already provided within the same article you reposted from Zammit. It's amazing that you only have been trying hard to find loopholes in the research and yet have not been able to show how their research could be faulted apart from your personal bias.

huxley2:

Lady, your thinking is so screwed and lopsided it is just not worth continuing? You are obsessed with personalities, your methodology is wrong and there is really no point continuing until you sort out your methodology.

I'm not obsessed with personalities as it's obvious my focus is on the research itself. On the contrary, if you're not a personality slave, what were you thinking in inferring that you'd submit yourself to Randi? It's really amusing watching you chase your tail around and arrive nowhere, but I'd be looking to see where you can come back to the gist of this thread.

huxley2:

Like I said in the other thread, nature, in the commonsense view, is the stuff and processes that interact with stuff.  Stuff is matter, energy, time, experience, events(or process), and experience (or consciousness).  So far,, this is what WE know is nature, and using our senses we have consistently manipulated, interacted, harness, poked, this stuff of nature.

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.  If we had been able to, then you would have two options;

1)  Bring that into the field of stuff

2)  Declare it non-stuff (or supernatural)

Now, that is my attempt at defining the natural.  Can I have you attempt of the natural and the supernatural to see if there is some common ground?

Sorry I didn't see the last bit, that's why I didn't address it.  

First we need to make a distinction between natural and naturalism.  Naturalism is the ideology that says that everything that exists is Natural and all processes are Natural processes.  This is an -ism.

I can't think of any definition of Natural that fulfills all the needs of naturalism.  ie that includes all phenomena.

However I would say that in Nature all agents of change are bodies that exist in Spacetime and extend their influence via the medium of space and time onto other bodies.  Influence can only travel in a futureward direction in time but can extend in all directions in space.  
In this instance my pot of water is getting hot because there is a stove beneath it which is giving off energy in the form of heat that is travelling across the space between the stove and the pot to heat up the pot.  

If my pot of water got hot without a source of heat in the nearby vicinity (space or time) then something non natural has happened.

Pastor AIO:

Sorry I didn't see the last bit, that's why I didn't address it.  

First we need to make a distinction between natural and naturalism.  Naturalism is the ideology that says that everything that exists is Natural and all processes are Natural processes.  This is an -ism.

I can't think of any definition of Natural that fulfills all the needs of naturalism.  ie that includes all phenomena.

However I would say that in Nature all agents of change are bodies that exist in Spacetime and extend their influence via the medium of space and time onto other bodies.  Influence can only travel in a futureward direction in time but can extend in all directions in space.  
In this instance my pot of water is getting hot because there is a stove beneath it which is giving off energy in the form of heat that is travelling across the space between the stove and the pot to heat up the pot.  

[size=18pt]If my pot of water got hot without a source of heat in the nearby vicinity (space or time) then something non natural has happened.  
[/size]

In principle, maybe, but in practice NO. How would you know that there is no heat source in the vicinity. To know this, you will require full knowledge of the enitre sample space of heat sources. And you will also need to define what vicinity is. Is 5 light-years considered vicinity? Is 1000 LY, is 100000000 LY vicinity. Remember that heat source from pulsar, millions of LY away can still reach us here.

And there may be yet other undiscover forms of heat. Remember before radioactivity was discover, nobody could adequately explain why the core of the earth was so hot. When radioactivity was discover, it all became "natural".

So your definition for the supernatural amounts to the following:

Anything that cannot yet be adequately explained using naturalistic scientific means is supernatural.

Do you agree?

huxley2:

In principle, maybe, but in practice NO. How would you know that there is no heat source in the vicinity. To know this, you will require full knowledge of the enitre sample space of heat sources. And you will also need to define what vicinity is. Is 5 light-years considered vicinity? Is 1000 LY, is 100000000 LY vicinity. Remember that heat source from pulsar, millions of LY away can still reach us here.

And there may be yet other undiscover forms of heat. Remember before radioactivity was discover, nobody could adequately explain why the core of the earth was so hot. When radioactivity was discover, it all became "natural".

So your definition for the supernatural amounts to the following:

Anything that cannot yet be adequately explained using naturalistic scientific means is supernatural.

Do you agree?

No I don't agree! Not in the least!! There are rules and laws in Nature. IF my pot of water suddenly got to boiling in 2 minutes that means there's got to be an appreciably intense source of heat in the vicinity. A star in a remote galaxy is not going to boil my water.

I have offered a definition of Natural that said that influence had to pass from one body to another via the medium of Space and Time. That is just one working definition that I am working with.
If I imagine a vision of my sister winning the lottery and dancing for joy which prove to be true despite the fact that there is no way that light waves could have travelled from where she is across space to my field of vision then that would be a supernatural event.
If I see an event that will happen tomorrow despite the fact that lightwaves from that event cannot travel across time backwards then that is a supernatural event.

If Science then discovers that it is possible for influence to travel across another medium other than space and time, like say some extradimensional reality, a hyper space, that will not make it natural. That would mean that science has found a way to explore the non-natural.
Things don't change willy nilly when you have proper definitions and you know what you are talking about.

Proper definitions do not rely on the as yet unknown.

Pastor AIO:

No I don't agree! Not in the least!! There are rules and laws in Nature. IF my pot of water suddenly got to boiling in 2 minutes that means there's got to be an appreciably intense source of heat in the vicinity. A star in a remote galaxy is not going to boil my water.

Agreed, but does it really happened. That is why I said, "maybe" but NO to the pragmatic question. This is the equivalent of seeing an object falling freely against gravity. From what we know of gravity, this CANNOT happen. But if it should happen, then we have two recourses;

1) Declare that our knowledge of gravity is inadequate.

2) Declare it supernatural

The main question is an epistemological one - How would you know when you have ruled out all natural explanation? This is what I what you to address.

Pastor AIO:

I have offered a definition of Natural that said that influence had to pass from one body to another via the medium of Space and Time. That is just one working definition that I am working with.
If I imagine a vision of my sister winning the lottery and dancing for joy which prove to be true despite the fact that there is no way that light waves could have travelled from where she is across space to my field of vision then that would be a supernatural event.
If I see an event that will happen tomorrow despite the fact that lightwaves from that event cannot travel across time backwards then that is a supernatural event.

If Science then discovers that it is possible for influence to travel across another medium other than space and time, like say some extradimensional reality, a hyper space, that will not make it natural. That would mean that science has found a way to explore the non-natural.
Things don't change willy nilly when you have proper definitions and you know what you are talking about.

Proper definitions do not rely on the as yet unknown.

Are you now suggesting that things like "visions", dreams, transes, hypnotisms, etc, etc are supernatural? These are states of minds that you think are static in the spaciotemporal domain, althought I disagree. I disagree because your definition suggest that natural could not have existed until there were minds in nature.

Did nature exist 4 billion years ago?

It is not the state of mind that is supernatural, but rather the manner of perception. Natural vision sees events via light waves that travel across space and time. Any sort of visual perception of reality that doesn't depend on lightwaves travelling across space/time would, according to my definition of Natural, be considered non-natural.


Something can either be considered natural via aspects of nature that we are as yet unfamiliar with or it can be supernatural. Yes. But there is a school of thought that says that the easiest explanation is the best and most elegant.

According to a definition of nature that says influence has to traverse space and time (in a futureward direction), precognitive visions has to be supernatural.

Or can you think of how a future event can naturally make an impression on a mind without destroying the definition of nature.

Pastor AIO:

It is not the state of mind that is supernatural, but rather the manner of perception.  Natural vision sees events via light waves that travel across space and time.  Any sort of visual perception of reality that doesn't depend on lightwaves travelling across space/time would, according to my definition of Natural, be considered non-natural. 


Something can either be considered natural via aspects of nature that we are as yet unfamiliar with or it can be supernatural.  Yes.  But there is a school of thought that says that the easiest explanation is the best and most elegant. 

According to a definition of nature that says influence has to traverse space and time (in a futureward direction), precognitive visions has to be supernatural.

Or can you think of how a future event can naturally make an impression on a mind without destroying the definition of nature. 

Is this definition restricted to entities capable of perception?  Like I said ealier, was there a natural world 10 billions years ago?   How would you answer that in the light  (pun intended   ) of your definition?

Wow so Pilgrim is back!

How was the hiatus? Guess you had a lot of fun with your zina activities! I read your reasons why you converted from Islam to Christianity and Men you must have had good zinas from your exes to have made you de-convert!

So now that your back, did Zina play a role again to deconvert you to Scientology or Hinduism? No wonder your name is pilgrim. Using Zina as a search to find everlasting religious peace!

I envy you though! I wish i could use Zina to swop religions and women like you!

So carry on with your atheism bashings. Very soon, you will engage in a wonderful Zina session with an Atheist and i cant wait for you to defend the so called dark side!

Wow seven pages of threads attempting to revive the religion vs science debate at attempting to explain the Known and unknown universe, which had separated along parallel lines since the separation of science from alchemy, spiritualism and the supernatural more than over 5 centuries ago.

At least I've been able to demonstrate the fallacious logic of typical atheistic excuses. None of you have been able to adduce the sort of "evidence" for your own disbelief in precisely the same way as you demand of others. If you haven't seen this, it is because you never honestly wanted to see it. If on the other hand you have seen it, please proceed and adduce such had evidence against the existence of the supernatural in all possible worlds. I'm eagerly waiting, thank you.

Pilgrim.1, who have you been able to demonstrate to, the so called fallacious logic of the typical atheist excuses? can you name any atheist that sees your logic? or is it a member of your religious sect that you have been able to demonstrate your logic to? I think you have been able to demonstrate your logic to your self.You are engaging in intellectual maturation, and espousing of self stimulating logic make you feel euphoric.
I have decided not to even go into your so called logic, because to me it defies the very definition of logic. The ancient Greeks who believed that the universe is made up of four elements - water, earth, wind and fire, had better logic.

Pilgrim.1 keeps throwing all kinds of stories from around the world to support her belief in the supernatural - ghosts demons, devils and goblins. How do you expect anyone especially atheists to believe these stories? Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story. Now if we are to believe everything that we are told or read, then we would become a candidate for Yaba Psychiatric Hospital.

I have been told lots of bulshit stories by people i know, A friend told me he had an encounter with a mammy water in his village once, but when i asked further whether the mammy water breaths with fins or lungs or both, or if the mammy water is a physical or spiritual being, i could not get a satisfactory answer, so i discarded the story. I have heard people say a woman turned to goat, snake or even bird. I disregard all the stories. A lot of other people might believe due to different belief system.

When i was younger, i believed a lot of what i will term rubbish today, I was a ardent follower of Lobsang Rampa before i discovered he was just an Irish Plumber who had red the book "7 years in Tibet", I believed in UFOs and all of Arthur C Clacks stories, the Lockness Monster, Yeti.  I did a lot of research on the so called supernatural and found all the stories inconclusive. If someone can provide hard evidence (verified  photos, videos and audio) of their existence these things, then It might begin to dent my long established belief system.

@ Pastor,

To me the supernatural is what is not understood under our present stage of scientific development. At one time and with all cultures, thunder and lightening was a supernatural event, Leprosy and other bacteria and viral infections were demonic attacks, madness and other mental conditions was a spiritual attack, so was movements of the planets and comets, volcanoes,   earthquakes, etc. If a witch can be verified to fly on a broomstick, then we will need to examine the process which propels the broom and replicate the system. that is the way an atheist like me reason, it will  not be enough for me to accept the notion that the propulsion system of the broom is too mysterious to understand so it must be the work of God, Satan, Angels, Demon or Santa Claus.

@wirinet,

wirinet:

Pilgrim.1, who have you been able to demonstrate to, the so called fallacious logic of the typical atheist excuses? can you name any atheist that sees your logic? or is it a member of your religious sect that you have been able to demonstrate your logic to? I think you have been able to demonstrate your logic to your self.You are engaging in intellectual maturation, and espousing of self stimulating logic make you feel euphoric.

I didn't enter this discussion to win euphoria but to engage atheist thought - from definition to essence. That point has been well proven, and it's up to folks like you to show that is not the case. There's no need to get upset if you have nothing to set forth worth considering.

wirinet:

I have decided not to even go into your so called logic, because to me it defies the very definition of logic. The ancient Greeks who believed that the universe is made up of four elements - water, earth, wind and fire, had better logic.

The above would simply mean you have no idea of what you're talking about.

wirinet:

Pilgrim.1 keeps throwing all kinds of stories from around the world to support her belief in the supernatural - ghosts demons, devils and goblins. How do you expect anyone especially atheists to believe these stories? Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story. Now if we are to believe everything that we are told or read, then we would become a candidate for Yaba Psychiatric Hospital.

Lol, I sincerely hope for your sake you're not a candidate for Yaba Psych; but what you've just argued above simply rubbishes the basis of your worldview. Just listen to yourself:

     (a) 'If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system,
           you take the story as true'

     (b) 'but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with
           your own store of experience and stored information, you reject
           the whole story'

First, empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or "belief system" - such an idea is the very crass that informed enquiry does away with. That being so, what is left of your fallacious logic?

wirinet:

I have been told lots of bulshit stories by people i know, A friend told me he had an encounter with a mammy water in his village once, but when i asked further whether the mammy water breaths with fins or lungs or both, or if the mammy water is a physical or spiritual being, i could not get a satisfactory answer, so i discarded the story. I have heard people say a woman turned to goat, snake or even bird. I disregard all the stories. A lot of other people might believe due to different belief system.

I wasn't arguing "belief system(s)" such as the one that you're mistaking for thoughtful analysis.

wirinet:

When i was younger, i believed a lot of what i will term rubbish today, I was a ardent follower of Lobsang Rampa before i discovered he was just an Irish Plumber who had red the book "7 years in Tibet", I believed in UFOs and all of Arthur C Clacks stories, the Lockness Monster, Yeti.  I did a lot of research on the so called supernatural and found all the stories inconclusive. If someone can provide hard evidence (verified  photos, videos and audio) of their existence these things, then It might begin to dent my long established belief system.

What is the likelihood that such things (verified photos, videos, and audio) are not available? And what is the likelihood that anyone could not manipulate what you're asking for and present them in a convincing manner to you? You don't seem to be objective but merely seeking to worsen your grounds for your "belief system" and become a candidate of inconsequence. There's still hope to betake yourself to real research rather than armchair sentiments - then you'll know the difference between a "belief system" and objective appraisals.

Ciao.

wirinet:


@ Pastor,

To me the supernatural is what is not understood under our present stage of scientific development. At one time and with all cultures, thunder and lightening was a supernatural event, Leprosy and other bacteria and viral infections were demonic attacks, madness and other mental conditions was a spiritual attack, so was movements of the planets and comets, volcanoes,   earthquakes, etc. If a witch can be verified to fly on a broomstick, then we will need to examine the process which propels the broom and replicate the system. that is the way an atheist like me reason, it will  not be enough for me to accept the notion that the propulsion system of the broom is too mysterious to understand so it must be the work of God, Satan, Angels, Demon or Santa Claus.

To make my point, let me turn things around.  I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural.  Everything is supernatural.  thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything.  A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens.  Nature is a fallacy.

ps, I believe the world is made up of 4 elements.

Pastor AIO:

ps, I believe the world is made up of 4 elements.

That's interesting. What do you have in mind?

Pastor AIO:

To make my point, let me turn things around.  I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural.  Everything is supernatural.  thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything.  A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens.  Nature is a fallacy.  

Yes, we have seen this before and it is pretty damn difficult to refute, although it is generally agreed that it is an absurd  proposition.  Can think of all the absurdities related with it now.

Pastor,

Am still waiting to see your response on this one. As the only voice of reason and wisdom in the camp of the supernaturalist, a lot rests on your shoulders, you know? Just kidding.

Pastor AIO:

It is not the state of mind that is supernatural, but rather the manner of perception. Natural vision sees events via light waves that travel across space and time. Any sort of visual perception of reality that doesn't depend on lightwaves travelling across space/time would, according to my definition of Natural, be considered non-natural.


Something can either be considered natural via aspects of nature that we are as yet unfamiliar with or it can be supernatural. Yes. But there is a school of thought that says that the easiest explanation is the best and most elegant.

According to a definition of nature that says influence has to traverse space and time (in a futureward direction), precognitive visions has to be supernatural.

Or can you think of how a future event can naturally make an impression on a mind without destroying the definition of nature.

Is this definition restricted to entities capable of perception? Like I said ealier, was there a natural world 10 billions years ago? How would you answer that in the light (pun intended ) of your definition?

huxley2:

Is this definition restricted to entities capable of perception?  Like I said ealier, was there a natural world 10 billions years ago?   How would you answer that in the light  (pun intended   ) of your definition?

Perception is nothing more than an impression made upon the brain by something else.  that something else, for example a meteor, can make other impressions.  To stick with the example of a meteor an impression can be made on the earth in the form of a crater. 

The laws of natures say that the crater is formed subsequent to the impact of the meteor, never before. 

Similarly according to the laws of nature an impression can not be formed on the mind prior to the event that causes the impression. 

Whether or not there were minds then (another interesting idea but miles divorced from the trend of this thread now) the fact of nature is that impressions were being made by objects upon each other.  The laws of nature tell us that marks of water erosion upon landscape cannot have been formed prior to water being present on that landscape. 
So it seems that whether or not there is a mind to perceive events those events are still believed to interact according to the laws of nature. 

When I say prescience or precognition is a sign of supernatural I don't mean that as something special to minds and cognitive faculties. What is supernatural is the fact that the impressions from the future can travel across time in an nonnatural direction and make an impression on my mind. It is the travelling of the impression that is non natural not the perception itself.

pilgrim.1:

That's interesting. What do you have in mind?

That is another topic entirely. I don't think I can go into this now. Maybe some other time on some other thread.

huxley2:

Yes, we have seen this before and it is pretty damn difficult to refute, although it is generally agreed that it is an absurd  proposition.  Can think of all the absurdities related with it now.

It's impossible to refute and no, it isn't absurd. It might be counter intuitive, but it isn't absurd.

The point I'm making is that defining something as 'everything', such as when you say Nature is Everything that exist, is the Grandaddy of all absurdities. The very essence of words, language, semantics is that words are distinguishing things. There is no word in any language in the world that does not distinguish something from other things.

The word 'green' doesn't just tell you that something it green, it also tells you that the something is not black, or blue, or orange. the word 'up' distinguishes one direction from another 'down'. Nature (being a word in a language) should also be a distinguishing thing. It can't mean everything. Even the word Everything distinguishes everything from somethings, or Nothing. Words specify. Therefore words must have definitions. Arguing around a word without an idea of the notion that it defines is the great ancestor of absurdities.
Pick a definition so we know what you are talking about. Then we can discuss. But a discussion based around a bias against the word supernatural whatever it might mean is madness. I get a feeling that some atheists just don't like the sound of the word. And they love the sound of Nature, regardless of what it might mean. They don't care what it means.

May I suggest rather than the word supernatural to use the word Art.

Is there Art in the world or is everything Natural? What is the relationship between Art and Nature?

Pastor AIO:

Perception is nothing more than an impression made upon the brain by something else.  that something else, for example a meteor, can make other impressions.  To stick with the example of a meteor an impression can be made on the earth in the form of a crater. 

The laws of natures say that the crater is formed subsequent to the impact of the meteor, never before. 

Similarly according to the laws of nature an impression can not be formed on the mind prior to the event that causes the impression. 

Whether or not there were minds then (another interesting idea but miles divorced from the trend of this thread now) the fact of nature is that impressions were being made by objects upon each other.  The laws of nature tell us that marks of water erosion upon landscape cannot have been formed prior to water being present on that landscape. 
So it seems that whether or not there is a mind to perceive events those events are still believed to interact according to the laws of nature. 

When I say prescience or precognition is a sign of supernatural I don't mean that as something special to minds and cognitive faculties. What is supernatural is the fact that the impressions from the future can travel across time in an nonnatural direction and make an impression on my mind. It is the travelling of the impression that is non natural not the perception itself.

I just don't get it. Your definition seem too loose. So far what I have gathered from your comments is that supernatural is inherently related to perception. Is that a correct characterisation?

I have offered a definition of Natural that says that influence passes from one event or object in a futureward direction across space. 

Perception is nothing more than an impression made by an event upon the senses.

The impression cannot precede the event in a Natural world.

ie.  I cannot perceive something before it occurs.  I cannot see rosy-fingerred dawn before the sun is about to rise. 

If I do see it (ie receive an impression of the dawn on my senses) accurately prior to the sun actually rising then it could not have occurred by natural means.

Pastor AIO:

I have offered a definition of Natural that says that influence passes from one event or object in a futureward direction across space.

Perception is nothing more than an impression made by an event upon the senses.

The impression cannot precede the event in a Natural world.

ie. I cannot perceive something before it occurs. I cannot see rosy fingered dawn before the sun is about to rise.

If I do see it (ie receive an impression of the dawn on my senses) accurately prior to the sun actually rising then it could not have occurred by natural means.

Pardon me. Can you try again? What is the SUPERNATURAL, according to your definition of the NATURAL?

Okay let me try again. Under a natural regime (according to my definition of Natural) in order for influence to pass from one body to another it will have to do so across space. In order for the influence of the Sun's gravity to pass to earth it does so across space.
In order for light from the Sun to brighten up your day the light has to travel across space from the Sun to the earth. This trajectory of influence across space fits in with Nature's requirements.

If however a glass of water on my table were to disappear and instantaneously reappear on a shelf without seeming to travel across space then that would flout the laws of Nature. It would be non natural.

Not only do bodies and their influence have to travel through Space in a natural regime, but also they have to travel through time. They must travel through time in a futurewards direction. Influence cannot pass from the present into the past. Only from the present into the future.

(By influence I mean something that Flows from one thing to another.

Main Entry:
1in·flu·ence
Pronunciation:
\ˈin-ˌflü-ən(t)s, especially Southern in-ˈ\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin influentia, from Latin influent-, influens, present participle of influere to flow in, from in- + fluere to flow — more at fluid
Date:
14th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence

What I'm saying is that in nature all influence passes through space and also through time in a futureward direction. If we have any indication of influence passing otherwise then we have an instance of the non-natural.

I looked at the Z.M case and can't help but wonder about this ''ectoplasm'' issue.
If everyone had spirits, the we should all emit ectoplasm yet he says just 4 or 5 people in the whole world can do it.
It's entirely possible this ectoplasm might be as a result of some kind of genetic mutation or special ability not necessarily supernatural for example, contortionists can move their joints in akward angles, few dogs who climb trees or humans who have amazingly sharp eyesight. . .

Tùdor:

I looked at the Z.M case and can't help but wonder about this ''ectoplasm'' issue.
If everyone had spirits, the we should all emit ectoplasm yet he says just 4 or 5 people in the whole world can do it.
It's entirely possible this ectoplasm might be as a result of some kind of genetic mutation or special ability not necessarily supernatural for example, contortionists can move their joints in akward angles, few dogs who climb trees or humans who have amazingly sharp eyesight. . .

Hi Tùdor,

It's great that you gave a hard look at Zammit's claim of having investigated David Thompson's materialization. However, perhaps the reasons for your concerns may issue from mixing things up. Ectoplasm is not something everyone is supposed to 'emit' - for Thompson does not claim he "has" ectoplasm; rather, that he is a medium, and as such demonstrates the reality of the claim he makes.

On the other hand, while I'm not in a position to deny your suppositions about ectoplasm, my observation is that it is uninformed. To suggest that it may be 'as a result of some kind of genetic mutation' requires that you had first studied it for yourself to be able to make an informed statement about its nature. Yes, it has been thus suggested - but that is all there is to it: a suggestion. It does not deny the reality of such phenomena, but rather that it cannot make a conclusive statement about its nature.

Pastor AIO:

If however a glass of water on my table were to disappear and instantaneously reappear on a shelf without seeming to travel across space then that would flout the laws of Nature. It would be non natural.

I'm enjoying your perspective in trying to delineate and distinguish between 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Pastor AIO:

Okay let me try again. Under a natural regime (according to my definition of Natural) in order for influence to pass from one body to another it will have to do so across space. In order for the influence of the Sun's gravity to pass to earth it does so across space.
In order for light from the Sun to brighten up your day the light has to travel across space from the Sun to the earth. This trajectory of influence across space fits in with Nature's requirements.

So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

Pastor AIO:

If however a glass of water on my table were to disappear and instantaneously reappear on a shelf without seeming to travel across space then that would flout the laws of Nature. It would be non natural.

Agree also. To flout the laws of Nature would be non-natural. But here-in lies the problems. Do we have knowledge of the full sample space of the laws of nature.

For instance, if you were to ressurrect Isaac Newton today in the mindset of a 16/17th century man, in the first few hours or days of in this "new" world, he would probably consider all our modern technologies as flouting the laws of nature. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, of electronics, of electrons, of genetics, of strong/weak nuclear force, etc, etc. In the eyes of 16/17th century man, the modern world is non-natural.

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

Pastor AIO:

Not only do bodies and their influence have to travel through Space in a natural regime, but also they have to travel through time. They must travel through time in a futurewards direction. Influence cannot pass from the present into the past. Only from the present into the future.

(By influence I mean something that Flows from one thing to another. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence

What I'm saying is that in nature all influence passes through space and also through time in a futureward direction. If we have any indication of influence passing otherwise then we have an instance of the non-natural.

Further, of the main natural laws that we currently know, how often do these get flouted?

1) Have you ever seen the law of gravity flouted?

2) Have you ever seen a half-duck half-crocodile creature?

3) Have you ever seen contravension of the law of conservation of energy?

Hi pilgrim.1

I have been busy for the last 72 hours and I can see that the discussion has taken a new twist but it is still very interesting.

huxley2:

So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

I glad you said the above first because it shows that you haven't yet quite got what I'm getting at, so I know more explanation is necessary. What I said doesn't tie in with what you said earlier, neither can it for a number of reasons.

First the word definition. Definition, by definition ( ) puts a limit around something. De - Fine. -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary. In-finite. Is without boundary, without limit. So when you define something, you give it boundaries. Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not. We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Secondly, having pointed that out I tried to help out with a possible definition of Nature. Nature occupies space and time and Natural influences traverse Space and Time (in a futureward direction). This is the definition that we are working with at the moment and any reference to any other definition will only confuse issues because with differing definition what I'm calling nature might not be what you are calling nature.

huxley2:



Agree also. To flout the laws of Nature would be non-natural. But here-in lies the problems. Do we have knowledge of the full sample space of the laws of nature.

With a definition of Nature you do not need to have full knowledge of all the laws of nature. Once you have defined Nature when you discover a Law you can then determine whether it is a natural law or some other kind of law.

For example, We all know there is a Biological definition of a genus called Canine. We know that dogs are canines. However you don't need to know absolutely every example of a canine in the world before you recognise one. Once I know what a canine is If I run into a wolf for my first time I will know that it fits the definition of a canine. If I run into a Bear for the first time which looks remarkably different from a dog, upon closer study I'll realise that it too is a canine. It fits the definition. If however I ran into a duck for the first time, on close examination I'll correctly conclude that it isn't a canine. (or is it Canus).

Once you have the definition of Nature you don't need to know every natural thing that can possibly happen. When you come across something you can assess against your definition whether or not it is Natural.

huxley2:

For instance, if you were to ressurrect Isaac Newton today in the mindset of a 16/17th century man, in the first few hours or days of in this "new" world, he would probably consider all our modern technologies as flouting the laws of nature. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, of electronics, of electrons, of genetics, of strong/weak nuclear force, etc, etc. In the eyes of 16/17th century man, the modern world is non-natural.

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

Funny that you should use Newton as an example. I don't think Newton would be that phased and I know he certainly won't think our modern technologies were supernatural. Newton was a lot deeper that many people imagine. Principia Mathematica was only the tip of the iceberg.
Now, if Newton were to use our definition he might be amazed at the wonderful things of nature but he would not think any of our technologies were supernatural. They all employ forces and effects that traverse space and time.

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural. If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law. A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law.

huxley2:

Further, of the main natural laws that we currently know, how often do these get flouted?

1) Have you ever seen the law of gravity flouted?

2) Have you ever seen a half-duck half-crocodile creature?

3) Have you ever seen contravension of the law of conservation of energy?

Laws of Nature are flouted all the time and it has been evidenced.

I personally haven't seen gravity flouted, or ducrodile or conservation of energy flouted.

Pastor AIO:

I glad you said the above first because it shows that you haven't yet quite got what I'm getting at, so I know more explanation is necessary.  What I said doesn't tie in with what you said earlier, neither can it for a number of reasons.

First the word definition.  Definition,  by definition ( ) puts a limit around something.  De - Fine.  -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary.  In-finite.  Is without boundary, without limit.  So when you define something, you give it boundaries.  Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not.  We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists.  Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all. 

Ah, you are now try to play semantics now, aren't.   "Definitions" encapsulate our way of understanding the world and reality.  "Defintions" do not instantiate reality.  So by making the object contingent on its semantic definition is wrong.  You approach would suggest that an entity only comes into existence after it has been defined.  This is clearly absurd.

You say a "definition" cannot include everything that exists -  how about the definition of the words "existence", or reality, or the universe, or the multiverse?

How would you fit these word and concept with your concept of definition?

Pastor AIO:

Funny that you should use Newton as an example.  I don't think Newton would be that phased and I know he certainly won't think our modern technologies were supernatural.  Newton was a lot deeper that many people imagine.  Principia Mathematica was only the tip of the iceberg. 
Now, if Newton were to use our definition he might be amazed at the wonderful things of nature but he would not think any of our technologies were supernatural.  They all employ forces and effects that traverse space and time. 

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural.  If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law.  A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law. 

I used Newton here for illustration.  In fact, Newton was a mystic, so in that frame of mind, if he were alive today, for the first few hours or days of his ressurection, it is likely that he would consider our modern technology as mystical (or supernatural) products.  Obviously, as he catches up with modern science, he will soon learn that these are the products of naturalistic science.


Anyhow, the substantive point was this - IF something flouts currently known laws of nature, how can we know that there is no other laws of nature that it obeys?  This is the questions you keep avoiding and I keep asking.  Please, if you respond to nothing else, attempt just this one.

Pastor AIO:

Laws of Nature are flouted all the time and it has been evidenced.

Can you oblige us with some examples of the flouting of the laws of Nature, stating specifically what particular laws of nature were flouted?

I can't believe that we are still on different pages.

huxley2:

Ah, you are now try to play semantics now, aren't.   "Definitions" encapsulate our way of understanding the world and reality.  "Defintions" do not instantiate reality.  So by making the object contingent on its semantic definition is wrong.  You approach would suggest that an entity only comes into existence after it has been defined.  This is clearly absurd.

I'm not trying to play semantics.  I'm  not making any object contingent on its semantic definition.  I'm making a CONCEPT contingent on it's semantic definition.  There is a vast different.

Nature is not an object.  Nature is a concept of one way the world works that is contrasted with the super-natural.  In order to know what you are talking about when you say Nature we need to have it defined well.  Do you get that?

I don't know if it was on this thread or the other one about 'what is supernatural' that I said that even the word Everything makes a distinction from somethings, or Nothing. 

So Existence is defined against another concept called Non-existence.

From the definition of Universe I know that the statement "The Earth is The Universe" is wrong. Can you tell me Why?

huxley2:

I used Newton here for illustration.  In fact, Newton was a mystic, so in that frame of mind, if he were alive today, for the first few hours or days of his ressurection, it is likely that he would consider our modern technology as mystical (or supernatural) products.  Obviously, as he catches up with modern science, he will soon learn that these are the products of naturalistic science.

No Huxley, being a mystic does not mean that you called everything that you don't understand supernatural.   I wonder if my points are going totally over your head. 

Once you have a definition, then what determines how you classify events rests on whether or not they fit the definition.  It is an arbitrary definition but the one we are working with at the moment.  Nature relies on Space and Time and it's influences traversing space and time.  Armed with this definition there is not way that Newton would think that modern technology were supernatural. 

huxley2:


Anyhow, the substantive point was this - IF something flouts currently known laws of nature, how can we know that there is no other laws of nature that it obeys?  This is the questions you keep avoiding and I keep asking.  Please, if you respond to nothing else, attempt just this one.

First I want to make sure that you are aware that we are using a working definition of Nature at the moment.  We can know that it is not obeying another natural law because it does not require space or time to operate.  Since all natural laws require space and time to operate it is easy to check if a phenomenon seems reliant on space time.  IF not then it cannot be a Natural phenomenon.

William_C:

Hi pilgrim.1

I have been busy for the last 72 hours and I can see that the discussion has taken a new twist but it is still very interesting.

Hello William_C,

Glad to know you're doing okay and glancing over to get the gist between busy schedules. We all get busy sometimes, and look forward to your chipping in comments when you can manage to get some time off. Enjoy.

@Pastor AIO,

I was waiting to see how your reply to huxley2's turn out. Yours is appreciated, and I'd just like to make a comment on the episode of definintions.

____________________________

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Pastor AIO link=topic=279631.msg4008705#msg4008705 date=1244660636:

First the word definition. Definition, by definition ( ) puts a limit around something. De - Fine. -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary. In-finite. Is without boundary, without limit. So when you define something, you give it boundaries. Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not. We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists. Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Ah, you are now try to play semantics now, aren't. "Definitions" encapsulate our way of understanding the world and reality. "Defintions" do not instantiate reality. So by making the object contingent on its semantic definition is wrong. You approach would suggest that an entity only comes into existence after it has been defined. This is clearly absurd.

No, huxley2. I don't think you got his (Pastor AIO's) point at all. I may be wrong, but it does not appear that he inferred that definitions 'instantiates' reality; nor did he argue that 'an entity only comes into existence' after it is defined.

Definitions are necessary so as to make informed statements about whatever phenomena may exist or be experienced. We first experience or encounter something before proceeding to identify or define it - that's the point I think Pastor AIO was making. He did not suggest that a definition brings something (or anything) into existence. It is when we seek for meaning in what already has been encountered in existence that definitions come into play. By extension, it is this quest for meaning that necessitates a distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Again, I may be wrong - but that is what I'd picked up from Pastor AIO's post.