The for REAL God.

[Zhavric]

Although events happening within the universe are concidered to be natural they are none the less supernatural compared to our human abilties.

We are powerless when it comes to hurricanes and many of the other forces that can happen, such as earthquakes, and so forth. Compared to us those events are supernatural because we cannot do the same with our limited powers, although we are coming close due to nuclear power. But in the olden days such was not the case. Relative to us the forces of nature are superpowers, the gods that can bless us or that can distroy us with a kind of wrath. Even if "thinking" is not part of the wrath, it none the less has the same effect.

The forces of the universe created earth, and caused life to happen here.
This is the heavenly father of earth and life here-in.

The sun, the waters, the soils, and the air all combined together with energy to produce life, and consciousness.

One would not even need to call this a theory or to get the idea peer reviewed because it is so self-evident, and yet it could be confirmed by science and likewise by primitive belief systems.

Kingdoms and human progress were due to rivers that allowed for us to farm and to remain in one place.

I cannot imagine how anyone could debate that this is not so.

What are you trying to debate? Please clarify your position.

[Technosoul]

No.



supernatural - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Many things that are natural in nature are not yet fully comprehend by scientific research or by our current technolgical abilities to 'measure" some aspects of the natural processes that effect us. So some have termed that those parts not yet known about are supernatural, but none the less, if we were not lacking in such knowledge then such so-called supernatural aspects of nature would not be supernatural in our minds and therefore the very definition you propose would be of non-effect and the real definition could be re-instated. "Natural events that humble us or observations of nature that humble us".

That is different then something we imagine as being supernatural. Our perceptions of life are molded both by the impacts upon us physcially and phychologically. If something happens that seems to be paranormal we could interpret that with our imagination or we could conduct tests to see if there is a reality (physical cause and effect) for the event reported.

Now the imagination is somewhat "supernatural" in that it operates outside of the pale of logic and/or scientific testing. However the imagination is still part of the natural adaptations of natural conscousness on the level of thinking things. But what you are talking about is anything about nature that science cannot yet fully explain.

Death is in fact natural. The "afterlife" is how our imagination has adapted to the facts that people fear death where-at it appears that our life ends "being alive" based on the facts of decay and so-forth. It is a real "adaptation" we have effected in our imagination so we can continue doing things in a normal way without hiding out forever inside of a bomb shelter (etc.). A way to overcome the parts of knowledge we do not wish to beleive in anymore. Believing in such so-called supernaturals as discribed in that one dictionary is called "dis-belief". Not believing in nature by calling death the "great unknown" instead of a known reality.

But if we placed our faith in what nature will teach us within the codes of our DNA (genetics) we might someday discover the keys of immortality as well as a effecting substainable health, and as well when we understand biology better we can effect the technology (machines and gadgets) needed to overcome novelty mutations, for chemical manipulaton of evolutionary processes. None the less, the mind can likewise generate chemical modifications towards those ends through the inate powers of yearning and belief, which potentials have not been fully explored or tested to date.

[Technosoul]

What are you trying to debate? Please clarify your position.

First off - I am not debating some other theory or religious belief system.

My position is that the modern gods, goddesses, or non-gender superbeings, are not real and that the real divine influence (god )is nature (including the whole universe).

Now dictionaries are not in the business of making up words, names, or definitions. They simply report about how the words are commonly used by the population. Even if the definition changes by miss-use.

Now a hoe is something farmers or gardeners use as a tool. But if rap singers use that word to mean "women" then the dictionary would report that new useage as a "meaning" also.

We the people are the ones who establish the meaning for the words we use.

If people started to use the word 'supernatural' in the same sense as we use the words 'superstorm, superbomb, or supersized' (etc.) then the dictionary would report that definition also. And then the meaning would reflect how the word should be used according to my explaination of what is 'actural'.

Super nature as constrasted with the norms of nature. But still 'just nature being natural".

[Kamehameha34]

Many things that are natural in nature are not yet fully comprehend by scientific research or by our current technolgical abilities to 'measure" some aspects of the natural processes that effect us. So some have termed that those parts not yet known about are supernatural, but none the less, if we were not lacking in such knowledge then such so-called supernatural aspects of nature would not be supernatural in our minds and therefore the very definition you propose would be of non-effect and the real definition could be re-instated. "Natural events that humble us or observations of nature that humble us".

"Real definition" is a misnomer, when proposing a different one. Let go of this word. It means something else.

[Technosoul]

"Real definition" is a misnomer, when proposing a different one. Let go of this word. It means something else.

So what is the point? Lots of words mean something else. Or rather, many words can have more then one meaning.

The word 'check' would be used differently by a banker then by two guys musing over a pretty girl and saying ' check that out dude".

The word "heart' can have both a medical meaning as well as a metaphysical meaning.

A mouse might be a small animal or something connected to a computer. Multi-meanings are not taboo.

Meanings in dictionaries are not authorities about words because such meanings can be putty in the hands of social opinons. The people make up the meaning and change the meanings at will and the dictionary writers just try to keep up with it all.

Time to change the word Supernatural. The real definition orginated before the first dictionary was published and by that time religion had changed how people vision a dieity, from nature to this superman that walked around in the garden in the cool of the day. Time to get back to the roots that had been uprooted.

[Kamehameha34]

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.


You see, if we could simply use a word however we please, that would make some sense.

Language is used to make sure 2 or more parties are on the same "page" while communicating. Getting creative with the definitions is a little antithetical to the whole process.

[Technosoul]

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.


You see, if we could simply use a word however we please, that would make some sense.

Language is used to make sure 2 or more parties are on the same "page" while communicating. Getting creative with the definitions is a little antithetical to the whole process.

The purpose of the post is not about getting poetically creative with words and so your debate is just a sidetrack of the intended topic.

The word supernatural is composed of two words.

Super and natrual. Just like the word superstorm is made up of two words. Super and storm.

In my opinon it was someone else who got creative and put two words together to mean only that we are talking about the Biblical God. Otherwise they should have correctly paired super with un-natural. For if god is natural then god is a part of nature just like you and I are.

In the beginning when people talked about the powers of nature they were talking about 'the great spirit" or whatever (now named God) and not about some unseen identity beyond what is comprehendable.

To allow the definition to stand as it is now discribed in that Dictionary is to allow for a major distortion in the words we use for purposes of communication.

And what about the sacred white Buffilo - can I call it Superbuff?

[Kuldeep]

And what about the sacred white Buffilo - can I call it Superbuff?

Better call it uncommon Bull !

To my mind, origin of life in any specie's cell, of consciouness and existence of life after death...and the like topic belong to super-natural. The terms which do not have explanation within our natural gifted senses. Im am not trying to name them as supernatural but they do not fall within the realm of nature around us.

[Technosoul]

Better call it uncommon Bull !

To my mind, origin of life in any specie's cell, of consciouness and existence of life after death...and the like topic belong to super-natural. The terms which do not have explanation within our natural gifted senses. Im am not trying to name them as supernatural but they do not fall within the realm of nature around us.

Life After Death is another topic. I never said that Nature as a Great Spirit gave people such information... pro or con.

[Kuldeep]

Life After Death is another topic. I never said that Nature as a Great Spirit gave people such information... pro or con.

The basic problem is to get such information within perview of natural capabilities, which rarely do occur in a miraculous manner but not in reproduceable manner as scientific facts are watched. But then, such miracles do compel us to think such informations as possibilities if not realities.