This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
" William Dembski writes: "For the theist attempting to understand nature, God as creator is fundamental, the creation is derivative, and nature as the physical part of creation is still further downstream". [1] dead link" While he's better qualified as a theologian than as a mathematician or scientist, he's not a reliable source, so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article makes a big assumption in some points that supernatural realities and religious worldviews are identical. Furthermore it uses the word in many different ways confusing to the reader. For example, a genetically modified organism could be considered "supernatural" as it is completely above the natural order. Also, the point about Hindu vs christian eschatology has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural realm; it seems like a lot of these points are thoughts that individuals here have had d not hardline philosophy. I think the article needs to be cleaned up. 68.60.53.141 ( talk) 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
a genetically modified organism isn't "above the natural order", it's simply pushing the envelope as far as what has manifested so far in the world. It's completly natural and as big a part of this world as we and any other form of life, the only real difference being that it was "forced" into being rather than spontaneously appearing. Supernatural phenomena relates to aspects of the world that are beyond the physical reality without being, according to those who believe in such things, in direct conflict with the fabric of reality or "how things work". It's breaking the rules while playing by them. Genetic modification is replicating a process that occurs constantly in nature by it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 ( talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This Wikipedia entry is fascinating proof of the supernatural. An extension of these very profound proofs exist in regard to the Tunguska Event. which should be included in the article and made available for the cognitive Wikipedia audience. It makes it very difficult to be NPOV in regard to supernaturalism.
we are not here to "prove" whether or not there exists supernatural phenomena, we're here to convey information deemed important by the wikipedia standards. As far as proof goes for supernatural going-ons, the fact that someone yet has to explain something and describe how it came to be is far from proof that it's part of a supernatural world view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 ( talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement "science cannot approach the supernatural." I don't necessarily disagree but I wish to see attribution so I can evaluate how widely accepted this statement is, by whom, and why. The scientific method article does not mention the supernatural. Cheers. Schmitty120 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
<- Honestly seems tagged on there, and think the article is better off without it. -- Nate 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What would you do if you were suddenly in touch with a 'sixth' sense for example one day you felt as if you had a telepathic experience(s)? Wouldn't that be 'supernatural' in a way and possibly suggestive of some 'god' or otherworldly experience or at least a very strange one? Now it could be the 'cargo plane phenomenon' verse god(s)/spirits-or not. Perhaps there is something to it - 'god(s)' and 'ghosts/spirits' and even more in some 'dimension' or place that as yet is undefined by science. Perhaps we just might not have the ability to find it with our present technology and our limited human capacity for understanding. Maybe there are some people who have had 'sixth' sense experiences. I disagree that it is technically impossible to capture beliefs in 'supernatural'activity unless its added that its true only by present experimental methods and at the present time. Scientists have studied geese - see Princeton Sixth Sense Study that were able to migrate by sensing magnetic fields and another study that proved certain sharks sensed prey by electrical feedback. These were senses previously undiscovered but once found shed light on unexplained behavior. Perhaps a particular sense(s) may one day be discovered with people who have experiences with the 'supernatural'. It may seem like a long shot but science has to admit that knowledge is an ongoing endeavor and what is the unknown today is tomorrow's truth. Thank god (pun intended) those geese weren't waiting for science to prove that they could find their way home. The tough part in all this is keeping a reasonably open mind despite the unknown and the frivolous. There might even be different degrees of 'supernatural' with 'god' turning out to be plausibly explained or eternally outside of our efforts. I like unexplained better than paranormal as it lends itself to the sideshow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.134.202 ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"Many suggested supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative results[7][8][9][10][11](a single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance)."
-- Integraracer1989 ( talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Integraracer1989 09:36 EDT 20080805
See link: A Secondary World with codes -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
"Arguments in favor of a supernatural reality" - I feel kind of cheated. No argument was actually presented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.64.175 ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This view is essentially subset of the following "Another part of a larger nature" (the title of which should probably be changed). Lynn Thorndike's thesis concerns Christian Europe during the early middle ages, during which time the scientific method was not in use. Many Greek schools of thought, such as the Epicurean school, considered the universe as primarily a natural phenomenon centuries before the scientific method. Similarly, early Buddhism also denied supernatural and magical explanations. I am deleting this view as it is redundant and in error by merit of being too culturally specific (if it is valid at all). 24.80.229.203 ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am going to end this argument: God is not real, and that is final. The supernatural is not real either, because the definition of the word "supernatural" means "anything that breaks the laws of nature and/or physics".-- 98.199.76.184 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I know its probably not the place to ask, but I don't care -- I don't want to eff with wikipedia's forums. Some years ago I came across a book talking about the man-made phenomena of placing buildings in a series of towns, i.e. a church with a tall steeple in the center of town, so that they line up with a similar tall building in the next town, which lines up with a structure on a hilltop nearby, and so on. What's the name of this? You can draw a perfectly straight line through the series of markers, and they can go for many many miles. Apparently there are a number of places in the UK where this can be observed. Maybe this is more of an occult question than a supernatural one? -- RyanTee82 ( talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
" William Dembski writes: "For the theist attempting to understand nature, God as creator is fundamental, the creation is derivative, and nature as the physical part of creation is still further downstream". [1] dead link" While he's better qualified as a theologian than as a mathematician or scientist, he's not a reliable source, so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this article makes a big assumption in some points that supernatural realities and religious worldviews are identical. Furthermore it uses the word in many different ways confusing to the reader. For example, a genetically modified organism could be considered "supernatural" as it is completely above the natural order. Also, the point about Hindu vs christian eschatology has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural realm; it seems like a lot of these points are thoughts that individuals here have had d not hardline philosophy. I think the article needs to be cleaned up. 68.60.53.141 ( talk) 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
a genetically modified organism isn't "above the natural order", it's simply pushing the envelope as far as what has manifested so far in the world. It's completly natural and as big a part of this world as we and any other form of life, the only real difference being that it was "forced" into being rather than spontaneously appearing. Supernatural phenomena relates to aspects of the world that are beyond the physical reality without being, according to those who believe in such things, in direct conflict with the fabric of reality or "how things work". It's breaking the rules while playing by them. Genetic modification is replicating a process that occurs constantly in nature by it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 ( talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This Wikipedia entry is fascinating proof of the supernatural. An extension of these very profound proofs exist in regard to the Tunguska Event. which should be included in the article and made available for the cognitive Wikipedia audience. It makes it very difficult to be NPOV in regard to supernaturalism.
we are not here to "prove" whether or not there exists supernatural phenomena, we're here to convey information deemed important by the wikipedia standards. As far as proof goes for supernatural going-ons, the fact that someone yet has to explain something and describe how it came to be is far from proof that it's part of a supernatural world view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 ( talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement "science cannot approach the supernatural." I don't necessarily disagree but I wish to see attribution so I can evaluate how widely accepted this statement is, by whom, and why. The scientific method article does not mention the supernatural. Cheers. Schmitty120 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
<- Honestly seems tagged on there, and think the article is better off without it. -- Nate 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
What would you do if you were suddenly in touch with a 'sixth' sense for example one day you felt as if you had a telepathic experience(s)? Wouldn't that be 'supernatural' in a way and possibly suggestive of some 'god' or otherworldly experience or at least a very strange one? Now it could be the 'cargo plane phenomenon' verse god(s)/spirits-or not. Perhaps there is something to it - 'god(s)' and 'ghosts/spirits' and even more in some 'dimension' or place that as yet is undefined by science. Perhaps we just might not have the ability to find it with our present technology and our limited human capacity for understanding. Maybe there are some people who have had 'sixth' sense experiences. I disagree that it is technically impossible to capture beliefs in 'supernatural'activity unless its added that its true only by present experimental methods and at the present time. Scientists have studied geese - see Princeton Sixth Sense Study that were able to migrate by sensing magnetic fields and another study that proved certain sharks sensed prey by electrical feedback. These were senses previously undiscovered but once found shed light on unexplained behavior. Perhaps a particular sense(s) may one day be discovered with people who have experiences with the 'supernatural'. It may seem like a long shot but science has to admit that knowledge is an ongoing endeavor and what is the unknown today is tomorrow's truth. Thank god (pun intended) those geese weren't waiting for science to prove that they could find their way home. The tough part in all this is keeping a reasonably open mind despite the unknown and the frivolous. There might even be different degrees of 'supernatural' with 'god' turning out to be plausibly explained or eternally outside of our efforts. I like unexplained better than paranormal as it lends itself to the sideshow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.134.202 ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
"Many suggested supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative results[7][8][9][10][11](a single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance)."
-- Integraracer1989 ( talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Integraracer1989 09:36 EDT 20080805
See link: A Secondary World with codes -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
"Arguments in favor of a supernatural reality" - I feel kind of cheated. No argument was actually presented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.64.175 ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This view is essentially subset of the following "Another part of a larger nature" (the title of which should probably be changed). Lynn Thorndike's thesis concerns Christian Europe during the early middle ages, during which time the scientific method was not in use. Many Greek schools of thought, such as the Epicurean school, considered the universe as primarily a natural phenomenon centuries before the scientific method. Similarly, early Buddhism also denied supernatural and magical explanations. I am deleting this view as it is redundant and in error by merit of being too culturally specific (if it is valid at all). 24.80.229.203 ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am going to end this argument: God is not real, and that is final. The supernatural is not real either, because the definition of the word "supernatural" means "anything that breaks the laws of nature and/or physics".-- 98.199.76.184 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I know its probably not the place to ask, but I don't care -- I don't want to eff with wikipedia's forums. Some years ago I came across a book talking about the man-made phenomena of placing buildings in a series of towns, i.e. a church with a tall steeple in the center of town, so that they line up with a similar tall building in the next town, which lines up with a structure on a hilltop nearby, and so on. What's the name of this? You can draw a perfectly straight line through the series of markers, and they can go for many many miles. Apparently there are a number of places in the UK where this can be observed. Maybe this is more of an occult question than a supernatural one? -- RyanTee82 ( talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)