What I think of them is not the point. Your own argument asserts that they are imaginary. Angels are supernatural. Supernatural things are only supernatural because they have not been observed.
No it doesn't, you just want it to. I didn't say "Supernatural things are only supernatural because they have not been observed." You did. This is why I use definitions. Because mindsets like yours are tricky and desperate. Jan.
That is a misrepresentation. If something is "imaginary" it exists only in the imagination. So it can never be observed. Look up any of the definitions of "supernatural" and tell me if there are any restrictions. Like I said, you're tricky, and you're desperate. Jan.
Another non-answer. I showed the logic. Saying nu-uh doesn't make it go away. Argue in good faith, or admit you're not. I have pulled out the extra words to show that you did indeed say that they will stop being supernatural once observed. This paraphrasing does not change the meaning of your words; it simply clarifies it: "... if they are supernatural ... they will be natural, once having been observed..." Yes, you actually said once a supernatural thing is observed, it stops being supernatural. Demonstrably, dishonestly false: Show me this definition. You are cornered and thrashing. If you don't want all this attention, stop making such a spectacle of yourself.
Of course we cannot yet prove it (provide evidence). However there is overwhelming evidence that life MUST exist elsewhere. Life on earth emerged spontaneously and uses some 500 different biochemical molecules which can be found throughout the universe and any "cinderella" planet with similar chemistry would have a high probability, if not an imperative, of forming biochemical molecules and given enough time will most produce some form of life. Robert Hazen demonstrates this in this excellent informative lecture at Carnegie Institute for the Sciences. {quote]ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE [/quote] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start the lecture @ 25:00 to skip the introduction.
It's not meant to be an answer. You want to bring 'imaginary' into the discussion, because you need to You've shown no logic at all. I've given my definitions of 'supernatural, and all of them say roughly the same thing, that it is something that is above, or beyond human general human perception. I say' general because it's not restricted to everyone. The 'supernatural is a perspective, not a category of any particular nature. So how do you arrive at the supernatural being imaginary, instead of something that cannot be scientifically observed? Do you think because science can't observe it, it is therefore imaginary? Yet you fail miserably at demonstrating it. I'm in the dragons den. As long as I remain positive about God, God consciousness, and generally show the weakness of mindsets like yours, I don't mind if you see me as a spectacle, it only shows that you cannot argue effectively. Jan.
False. I am imagining an exoplanet covered entirely by ocean. No such planet has been observed. That does not mean it can never be observed. We know. If unobserved suits you, we can use that word. Ah yes. The one where you define it as "a perspective". I must have missed it can you show it to me?. Why did you insert the word scientific? Why did you insert the word science? You are trying to move the goalposts, right after trying to accuse me of doing so. You are making increasingly illogical arguments, and then when called out on them, you actually, literally start whining about being picked on.
Who says there are no water covred planets? http://gizmodo.com/5887003/hubble-discovers-a-new-type-of-world-made-of-water Moreover, I believe we have discovered many planets completely covered with ice (frozen water)
And speaking of the earth's oceans. We know almost nothing of what life can develop in water, even our home planet. Watch these astounding new discoveries and abilities of marine dwellers. http://www.ted.com/talks/alejandro_sanchez_alvarado_to_solve_old_problems_study_new_species? http://www.ted.com/talks/david_gallo_shows_underwater_astonishments
Or perhaps looking at it from another perspective. I provide links for your perusal and I never argue against accepted science. p.s. Are there ocean angels? Do they fly or swim? The very variety of life argues against some special status of humans in the evolution of the planet itself. As Carlin said: To the earth man is but a surface nuisance. What we have named Angel (in the classical sense) are names we have given to sets of certain human behavior patterns. They are mathematically pleasing or abhorrent to our mirror functions and imaginations.
Because the choice of my imagination was arbitrary. Jan claims That is a very broad statement, ostensibly ruling out an arbitrarily large class of things. Yet, there are an arbitrarily large number of things that violate his assertion. I am imagining an exoplanet covered entirely by algae. No such planet has been observed. That does not mean it can never be observed. I am imagining binary black holes. No such thing has been observed. That does not mean it can never be observed. etc.
My point is, whatever you want to call it; abstract concepts such as gods and angels as causal entities, THEY would still have to follow a form of mathematical laws. Order is achieved mathematically by certain means and values, such as universal Constants.. Order and Mathematics are inextricably connected. In context of the OP, "Are angels natural or supernatural? It requires a specific definition of an angel or a demon. IMO, they represent a shared, but internal ability of cognizing similar patterns of human behavior . We have given names to those patterns of behavior and mirror response; angels = good, demons = bad behavior . "Patterns" formed in the mirror function of the brain, often from personal experience and passed on as memes. But even in the beginning there was a hierarchy of gods, demi-gods and their powers and weaknesses had a mathematical aspect to their powers and limits.
Yes, it does. It has to be the planet in your imagination, not just a similar one. Why is that conclusion, not definition, objectionable? Because it seems the only type of evidence you accept must be scientific. Am I mistaken? Only when folk edit my quotes. Such as? It wouldn't surprise me if the central image was something quite like this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or this. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
