not really, since i was heavily religious until i was 21. i know what the other side is like...it just appears less empty from the inside.

YES

Big Erf, How are you doing?

Supernatural Phenomena does exist. The Word of God makes a very vivid point of dividing all things into two realms: The physical realm and the spiritual realm.

Science and the five-senses man biblically called the "natural man" can only know and analyze the physical or material world. Anything dealing with the spiritual realm, the supernatual, is not within the scope of science or the natural, scientific, sense-knowledge relying man to understand or even grasp.

What does science know or even believe about the existance of two gods? The bible explicitly shows that supernatural phenomena must come from one of these two antithetical powers whose exclusive domain is the spiritual realm.

1. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. Satan, the god of this world, the false god who would decieve the very elect of the true God if he could.

Science nor the natural man knows nor believes nothing of these two or do they really believe that there are two realms. It is foolishness unto them.

1Cr 2:9-15 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Pletho,
Have a great day..

quite honestly i think there likely is a 'supernatural realm,' in that i think there is probably something outside this universe...perhaps another universe, perhaps an infinite amount of universes. but i dont know, and theres no way to know by definition. (if you can sense it, then its a part of this universe, and therefor natural.) but you can go on pretending that you know something that isnt possible to know.

people like you terrify me. i bet youd blow things up if your god told you to.

LOL
BOO!

How much would you be willing to bet?

Nothing.

Oh wait...I guess we should add the millions upon millions of people who've died as a result of not believing along with you.

bwahahaha

Just post the damn video. You're not the teacher and he's not the student. Wait, before responding, I'd like five links from different sites showing you're actually interested in discussing my post.

I'm so glad how well you know many of us guys.

You're really serious, aren't you? I almost thought you were leveling with us. Do you think about what you say, or do you think with your heart? Have you heard of such a thing as inductive reasoning? In case you haven't, it's a wonderful tool we use in many sorts of situations, from the mundane, day-to-day life activities all the way up to the highest levels of research.

Tell me, what happens when you, personally, make an observation in the world for the first time? The second time when it follows the same pattern? The nth time when it follows the same pattern? Do you mentally record (actively store in memory) your observations? Do you measure any variables and its effects (if any) on your observations? Remember, you're just an average guy going about your business unable to form a testable hypothesis, because you won't be able to test it in the natural environment anyway. But you don't know that, remember. You're not in a lab wearing a white coat looking through a one-sided mirror with assistants and colleagues frantically taking notes and punching data into a computer.

What happens when Joe Average observes several dozen situations and comes to some conclusion? We call it a layman's opinion. What happens when a scientist comes to the same conclusion? We call it scientific research. Results-oriented lol..(Yes, obviously the latter approach and process is the use of the scientific method, but it's not the holy grail of epistemology. In fact I think it's probably erroneous to think of epistemology having a holy grail.) What happens when thousands of Joe Averages come to same layman conclusion, which accidentally happens to be correct (or as statistically close to correct as possible)? Are you seriously going to dismiss its validity because it doesn't fit into some standardized research model that we made up? That would be pretty damn arrogant, and foolish.

People live and die. That's a fact of life, not science. Some, but not all, facts of life are a science, but science is not a fact of life. Science is, however, a tool to find and study facts of life.

In case you're wondering, no, that's not some sneaky logical ploy or linguistic gymnastics.

I will be fair, though. I did use an absolute statement in the example at which I supposedly failed miserably. What I should have done was added the qualifier, "with nearly 100% certainty," after the words, "I know." You can't know anything without using science, no? Isn't this the core of what you were getting at?

Please, throw the horse in the grave now. Thank you.

It was not meant to be interesting, profound or some such. It was meant to be elementary and lucid.

To borrow a phrase, you seem to be confusing, "what is the meaning of life," with, "why are we here?" Let's have some fun with the second one: Who the hell cares? A few thousand humans pondering the reason for their entire species' place in the universe is negligible on both the macro and microcosm, regardless of whether or not they are the leaders and cream of the human crop. On the other hand, every single human being capable of this inquisitive thought pondering the question makes it significant. "Why are we here" is not a question necessitating an answer, unless that answer is detrimental to our well being and progress as a whole. Answering this question will not solve some of the world's major problems like disease, poverty and corruption. What it might do is provide solace and stem the tide of incessant questioning by satisfying idle curiosity on the individual level.

OK, try this frivolous exercise: Firstly, how do you acquire your knowledge? Before you attempt actual the task, what's your definition(s) of experience.

$1,000

You can't really claim peanut butter exists as an absolute. It could be an illusion of your mind, you would have to accept the existence of a wealth of items you have most likely never seen and what you see as peanut butter might not be what everybody else sees. And heck - if you go into solipsism there might not even be any "everybody else".

This ofcourse isn't really very interesting. It just shows that argument by absolute is ridiculous.

Of course, if we're working with the assumption that the peanut butter (or anything) is simply an illusion of the mind, this whole discussion, heck, any discussion, is meaningless since it's impossible for anything to be verified, ever.

And this is why a logical framework for evaluating truth has to be established before a meaningful discussion can be had.

It doesn't have to be complex. Two people agreeing too "If we both can see it - then it exists" is such a framework. Working within confines of science is (usually) a more complex example of such a framework.

So if one in a theological debate revert to an absolute (you can't disprove blabla) to make your point, then the argument isn't bothersome because it can't be argued against. It is bothersome because one is just assuming that this viewpoint is beyond evaluation.

And then one has to ask the inevitable: Is it even an argument?

My point is by establishing that (as of now) none can prove nor disprove the supernatural realm, it may be easier to understand why one would believe it even exists. I use this: because it shows just where the supernatural idea stands in this world. A non-believer doesn't believe simply for the reason that it's by definition outside the realm of science and a believer simply believes (or has faith) that it exists. It's two people agreeing that neither can be satisfied with an absolute but both parties have to be willing to accept that they may be wrong and therefore be open to the opposing side. And in doing so you may find the answers you need to secure your faith or throw it out the window.

If you are sure that this realm doesn't exist then the case is closed the same as if I was sure that the realm does exist. If either one of us is sure then that means there's the so-called scientific data required to be assured. But there's not and therefore it's possible for one of us to be wrong, correct?

This supernatural realm is a faith based realm so to evaluate the integrity of believers you have to look at results. Because results are the only bit of "evidence" you have to base your research on. And my argument is that you will find the results of those to be in favor of what the supernatural realm stands for. And that would be personal growth of morality and inner strength. And I will say that from what I have observed of those who lack this faith also lack the growth of morality and inner strength compared to a believer. And this is why I can say it's plausible that one should at least pursue the notion of such an existence.

I guess that throws gravitons out the window then huh? You can't see a graviton but believe (have faith) that they exist because of the results that are supposedly produced because of them, right?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life."

truth != usefulness / usefulness != Jesus

Ok now using your own common sense and everything you know and feel to be correct about the world around you, what would this tell you about the god who tells someone to blow things up?

I haven't thought about it in denominational terms very much. They might like to claim it because of the comparisons to Mary and because Catholics participated and witnessed it but I really don't know if that gives them a right to claim it exclusively.

If you believe that Catholics are misguided, then wouldn't God be doing them a massive disservice by presenting this miracle to them entirely in the context of their own false belief structure?

Since dragonystic won't post them Aaron W.

Here's a couple of interesting videos from a former Vatican exorcist (just listen to what he says. He makes an interesting observation about the usefulness of an atheist point of view. Please excuse the overkill with the movie Exorcist footage.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91jUTGyNCQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKrSA...eature=related

I don't have any opinion on this because I don't hold any strict denominational position at this time.

Surely though you see that there is a larger gap between Catholicism and most Protestant sects than between the Protestant sects themselves.

There is but I don't know that God didn't intend it. Jesus says he came to bring division.

Besides while I lean towards Protestantism because I like to study scripture I still see a lot of very deep things in Catholicism.

There are times when the Catholics out spiritualize the Protestants with some pretty deep ideas and maybe the dialecticalism actually acts as a orthodoxy tightrope for both groups.

Religion is a practice. Which means you live it. Maybe some people find it easier to live the Catholic way. Its not up to me to stumble them or sit in judgment on them. People have to arrive at purpose and meaning on their own.

Might as well make it 5,000 since we will never find out. LOL

EDIT: ill actually waste my time and show you why this is wrong. (though im sure you'll find something to argue your way back to your faulty logic with.)

not all forms of 'is' are transitive. for instance, if i said Jesus is powerful, and Jesus is hungry. That doesnt mean powerful = hungry.

in your above quote, in logic we would represent that as Jw, Jt, Jl. as in, Jesus (J) has the properties of being the way, the truth and the life.

you cant toss those into an equation and come out with anything meaningful. your attempt at logic is basically jibberish.

Hey Pletho.

I'm hanging in there buddy how about you? Decided to take a break for about a week but am back once again. I'm glad you decided to stick around yourself.