Must the Divine also be Supernatural?

[Technosoul]

Just go for it. Interpret the question as you see fit and answer away.
Thanks.

All remarks are subject to debate.

[ZNFYRH]

I take "supernatural" to mean something that is beyond our current ability to explain.

What is supernatural now might be normal in the future.

I think the Divine represents the ultimate in that which is supernatural, and you only know the answer, one way or the other, when you're dead.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: T Must the Divine also be Supernatural?

Yes.

[Technosoul]

Because human logic would be supernatural, if a chimp is natural ,then can we honor Logic as being Divine?

[Passivist]

Because human logic would be supernatural, if a chimp is natural ,then can we honor Logic as being Divine?

Are you trying to raise a new question, or are you mistakingly taking "anything divine must be supernatural" for "everything supernatural is divine"? For it is either illogical, or it rests on a questionable premise (or, at least, a disputable definition of supernatural).

As for your initial question: no, I think banana flavored ice cream is divine.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Technosoul Because human logic would be supernatural, if a chimp is natural ,then can we honor Logic as being Divine?

Techno, while I applaud your out of the box thinking, you often go way beyond the box over to the rhombus where the kids from the Egress play.

In other words, your post is nonsensical.

Human logic is not "supernatural".
Chimps are natural.
Logic is not divine.

Since you have offered no reasoning or evidence for your claims, a counter claim is all that is needed to refute your argument.

[texasdave]

A creator for the natural would necessitate a supernatural being. Because He would have to exist PRIOR to the natural. He would also have to possess a power greater than the natural creation. He would also have had to create the natural from some supernatural material or from absolutely nothing which either way would be a supernatural event.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: texasdave A creator for the natural would necessitate a supernatural being. Because He would have to exist PRIOR to the natural.

You've demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the Big Bang. It's where we start counting time. There is nothing "before" it because time begins there. Your statement is akin to discussing the person who was president of the United States before George Washington: it's nonsensical.

He would also have to possess a power greater than the natural creation. He would also have had to create the natural from some supernatural material or from absolutely nothing which either way would be a supernatural event.

This process violates a tremendous amount of what we already know to be true through science. I'm sorry you've been indoctrinated to believe bronze age hippies, dave, but science trumps the silly claims in the bible.