What If Tarot Is Real?

[ContraBardus]

 

I never cared much for the term 'supernatural'. It's actually kind of an oxymoron.

 

If something like that does exists, then it is by definition natural. Even if it is spiritual in nature, it's a part of the natural order and therefore not 'super' natural at all. Unknown perhaps, undefined perhaps, but natural none the less.

 

So you are declaring based on your own faith that the supernatural does not exist because anything supernatural would be natural. That is stupefyingly circular.

 

 

What kind of idiot are you? Seriously.

 

Normally I'd be a little nicer in a first reply, but it's obvious that you intentionally misrepresented my statement to sound smug and pat yourself on the back.

 

I said it's a bad description of unexplained phenomenon. 'Supernatural' is just a poor description and an oxymoron. If something like God/magic/psychic powers exists then it is by definition a natural but unexplained phenomenon, not something that exists 'outside' of the natural world.

 

There really is no such thing as something that exists outside of the natural world. The definition of unnatural is something that was made by or processed by humans. Something that would not occur in nature if it wasn't created by us. If God is 'un' or 'super' natural, then he is something that was created by men and would not exist in nature without us. Nature is not limited to this planet by the way. You could argue that there is no life outside of it, but that still doesn't change the fact that the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets, as well as things like velocity, mass, energy, matter, and gravity are still natural phenomenon.

 

Even 'unnatural' things have some basis in the natural world. They are just things that would not normally occur without our intervention, despite being made up of components that all exist in nature. A car is made of metal, wires, rubber, plastic, and assorted other things that are all made up of things that are found in nature. They just don't come together as a car without us to build it. [Resist the urge to try and turn this into a [failed] argument for Intelligent Design, because it's not even remotely evidence for it. It's an unrelated concept and a horse that's been beaten to death on this forum already.]

 

For example, glass exist in the natural world as well as oil, metal, fabric, leather, etc. All things that might or do occur in the natural world, but not together or in the precise shapes, configurations, or amounts needed to create a car. Glass is unlikely to naturally form in a place where rubber naturally occurs, and metal isn't likely to occur in a place you might find a cow hide lying about. Humans combine these things to make something that is 'unnatural', even though none of the individual elements are 'unnatural' or 'supernatural' on their own.

 

If there is a God/Devil/Magic/Psychic powers that were not created or imagined by men into existence, then they are not 'supernatural' at all. They are in fact natural.

 

That's not 'circular reasoning' its just pointing out that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron and a misnomer. It's a poor description of such phenomenon that doesn't fit what they would actually be if they did exist.

 

That was incredibly obvious in my original post, and I see no possible way outside of you being extremely stupid to the point that you wouldn't be able to use your keyboard to post your inane rebuttal to begin with if you really mistook what I posted as 'circular reasoning'.

 

You were just being a smug jerk, and you deserve every insult in this post for it.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this. There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue. He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen.

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them. The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

If you think about that verse its absurd. How can a invisible cause lead you to know its self by its visible effect. You would never know a cause of an effect if the cause was not detectable.

 

For goodness sake, a cause can be inferred through properties of the cause. If one can deduce properties of a causal agent then one can infer a plausible cause. We as humans use this type of inferential reasoning all the time.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So if God made existance obvious to everyone, than why aren't babies made instinctively aware of it. There are some things that babies are aware of naturally that are critical to life, such as breathing, moving, and crying out for attention. Wouldn't implanting the child with an innate instinct to do good and follow the godly ways be better? Why continue to allow humanity to have the curse of Adam and Eve with an instinct to embrace sin? That poor child didn't have anything to do with Adam and Eve. 

At what age should they be aware in your estimation?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Or perhaps people will jump through absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural because deep down it scares the shit out of them.

 

I, on the other hand, am not the least bit scared of "the supernatural."  My woo-ish side has been tinkering with it since I was about 9 or 10 years old, and I'd like nothing better than to obtain empirical evidence that magic is real -- So that I can tap into its power more effectively.  

 

(Springy G cracks Her knuckles, pets the 20-pound tabby cat that's lounging on Her desk, and takes a sip of the cocktail She invented this evening from soda water and Green Chartreuse)  So here's the deal, OC:  For the next 100 days or so, I am going to specifically target *you* at random dates and times with My divine powers, with the specific intent of turning your life inside-out, upside-down and ass-backwards.

 

And that's all you get to know.  Defend yourself... If you can.

 

Green alcoholic drink, eh, well the Parisians have been there done that gig. It didn't go anywhere but down.

 

Defend myself? It is amazing how little you understand of Christianity.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

I never cared much for the term 'supernatural'. It's actually kind of an oxymoron.

 

If something like that does exists, then it is by definition natural. Even if it is spiritual in nature, it's a part of the natural order and therefore not 'super' natural at all. Unknown perhaps, undefined perhaps, but natural none the less.

 

So you are declaring based on your own faith that the supernatural does not exist because anything supernatural would be natural. That is stupefyingly circular.

 

 

What kind of idiot are you? Seriously.

 

Normally I'd be a little nicer in a first reply, but it's obvious that you intentionally misrepresented my statement to sound smug and pat yourself on the back.

 

I said it's a bad description of unexplained phenomenon. 'Supernatural' is just a poor description and an oxymoron. If something like God/magic/psychic powers exists then it is by definition a natural but unexplained phenomenon, not something that exists 'outside' of the natural world.

 

There really is no such thing as something that exists outside of the natural world. The definition of unnatural is something that was made by or processed by humans. Something that would not occur in nature if it wasn't created by us. If God is 'un' or 'super' natural, then he is something that was created by men and would not exist in nature without us. Nature is not limited to this planet by the way. You could argue that there is no life outside of it, but that still doesn't change the fact that the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets, as well as things like velocity, mass, energy, matter, and gravity are still natural phenomenon.

 

Even 'unnatural' things have some basis in the natural world. They are just things that would not normally occur without our intervention, despite being made up of components that all exist in nature. A car is made of metal, wires, rubber, plastic, and assorted other things that are all made up of things that are found in nature. They just don't come together as a car without us to put them together in the proper configuration. [Resist the urge to try and turn this into a [failed] argument for Intelligent Design, because it's not even remotely evidence for it. It's an unrelated concept and a horse that's been beaten to death on this forum already.]

 

If there is a God/Devil/Magic/Psychic powers that were not created or imagined by men into existence, then the are not 'supernatural' at all. They are in fact natural.

 

That's not 'circular reasoning' its just pointing out that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron and a misnomer. It's a poor description of such phenomenon that doesn't fit what they would actually be if they did exist.

 

That was incredibly obvious in my original post, and I see no possible way outside of you being extremely stupid to the point that you wouldn't be able to use your keyboard to post your inane rebuttal to begin with if you really mistook what I posted as 'circular reasoning'.

 

You were just being a smug jerk, and you deserve every insult in this post for it.

 

Note my bold. Your words are plain to see. My point stands.

[Astreja]

The supernatural is observable but not repeatable. {emphasis Mine}

Not repeatable, hmm?  Then what makes you think that your "supernatural" god has the capability to consistently fulfill its own word and keep the various promises it has allegedly made to humanity... Y'know, like "salvation"?  "Eternal life"?

 

 

Defend myself? It is amazing how little you understand of Christianity.

 

Well, your imaginary friend is also free to attempt to stop Me... If it can.

 

I predict that you, sir, will be unable to tell My work from random misfortune and inexplicable silliness breaking out in your general vicinity.

[ContraBardus]

Note my bold. Your words are plain to see. My point stands.

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It's not like I'm splitting hairs or being cryptic here. It's incredibly clear what I'm saying and I think you're aware of it.

 

What I posted is not a faith based statement. I'm not saying 'supernatural' things don't exist, I'm saying that the word 'supernatural' is a poor description of such unexplained phenomenon if they do exist. If such things do exist, and they were not built/created/imagined by humans, then they are natural phenomenon, even if they are unexplained, undefined, unknown to us, outside our understanding, or otherwise beyond us. If it exists, and weren't made by us, then they are Natural. That's literally what the word 'Natural' means, something that occurs without the influence of humanity to create it.

 

Do you know what the term 'misnomer' even means? It's not a philosophical argument about the existence of anything, it just means that the name of a term doesn't fit it's description or definition. It's a badly named term that contradicts itself. Oxymoron is similar, it does not refer to whether or not something actually exists, just that it's name is contradictory. Something that is supernatural would exist outside of nature, there is no such thing as 'outside of nature' really.

 

Even 'unnatural' things are actually within nature, they just don't occur without our influence. We are a part of nature as well. Even the thing that created nature would still be a part of it, it's still within the natural order even if it controls all aspects of it. It would exists with or without human input and therefor is not unnatural, or supernatural. Even if said thing or things exist outside of this plane in another dimension or whatever, it's still natural. The other dimension would still be a part of our nature system as it has an influence on our own dimension/Universe, and even if it didn't it still occurs or exists without us and at the very least would still be natural even if it wasn't connected or influencing our plane of existence. Unnatural and supernatural mean almost the exact same thing and the ideas they represent are really quite literally nonsensical.

 

My post is a grammatical argument, not an argument of faith or lack of it. I'm saying that the -words- supernatural and unnatural do not fit what they are meant to describe very well, and I'm right about that. They are contradictory terms and poorly defined on various levels. That's not a statement of faith, it's just an observation of an odd pair of idioms in language. The two words are simply nonsensical terms that do not accurately portray any actual phenomenon.

 

You are wrong, your point does not stand.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

OdinaryClay, have you ever asked yourself why god, angels and demons are invisible, does that not set alam bells off for you.

Yes, I have asked myself this. I then quickly asked myself how visible should they be? What do people really mean when they say visible? What most are really asking is, Why doesn't God perform tricks for me.

 

After many years, I came to the conclusion that, one, God is not as hidden as people claim He is, and two, the natural world is part of a greater reality, and that saying God is hidden is akin to a fish saying trees are hidden.

Then ill ask this question, why does god, angels and demons remain invisible when they don't have to?

Why do you hide premises in your questions?

There has to be a reason for the heavenly hosts to remain hidden, silent and up to you to make a interpretation of them for us. Why do they need you or any other christian for that matter. Wouldnt it be much better for me and the rest of us if god spoke to us first hand instead of using a middle man like yourself who is bound to fuck understanding god up for the rest of us.

[Astreja]

There has to be a reason for the heavenly hosts to remain hidden, silent and up to you to make a interpretation of them for us. Why do they need you or any other christian for that matter. Wouldnt it be much better for me and us if god spoke to me first hand instead of using a middle man like yourself who is bound to fuck understanding god up.

 

That's why My rallying cry is "No more middlemen!"  Let the gods speak for themselves.  Bulldoze the mountains of conflicting scriptures out of the way, and hogtie the evangelists.  I don't think any of them ever get it right, so OC and his ilk are just different flavours of wrong.

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

There has to be a reason for the heavenly hosts to remain hidden, silent and up to you to make a interpretation of them for us. Why do they need you or any other christian for that matter. Wouldnt it be much better for me and us if god spoke to me first hand instead of using a middle man like yourself who is bound to fuck understanding god up.

That's why My rallying cry is "No more middlemen!" Let the gods speak for themselves. Bulldoze the mountains of conflicting scriptures out of the way, and hogtie the evangelists. I don't think any of them ever get it right, so OC and his ilk are just different flavours of wrong.

Yep

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

Bullshit!  You cannot, on demand, create an anecdote that equals evidence.  Anecdote is no different than opinion.  If you allow that as evidence, then my anecdote of "tarot is bullshit" is just as addmissable and nullifies anything you bring.  You will only accept anecdotes that support your position and dismiss the rest.  This is why they they aren't evidence, opinion is not fact.

 

Did I call it or what!

 

Nothing you said can be backed up scientifically so your own post is anecdotal. It is stunning how myopic and short sighted this form of science worship is. Science is powerful and a valuable tool, but it does not provide all the evidence we need to live by.

 

 

Cuts both ways, Clay!

 

The non-scientific evidence you think you need to live by is based upon what then... anecdote, maybe? 

 

So how do you filter out false testimony from true testimony? How do filter out personal bias?  How do you ensure that what you CHOOSE to believe is true is any more real than another person's choices?

 

Please tell us why your anecdote-based, subjective choices have lead you to what is true, when other people's have not?

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

Yes, draw your own conclusions. There is no other way through life. We all start and finish with nothing but our ability to make our own choices.

 

 

I see. 

So there's no objective standard to which Clay can be held. 

His subjective choices are right and true and nothing and nobody can gainsay him.

 

Well, there's not much point in dialog with him is there?

 

It looks to me that Clay's only reason for being here is to bludgeon us with his unchallengeable subjective choices.

 

There's not much room for debate or discussion with someone who isn't open to the possibility of changing their choices.  That is right, isn't it Clay?  You aren't ever going to change what you believe, are you?  So the flow is strictly one way.  You're not here to be challenged or to listen or to change one iota, right?

 

You're just here to tell us how it is.

 

Riiight!

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I guess one could deny the distinction between natural and supernatural.

One can deny anything. LOL

 

 

That cuts both ways too.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

 

It always comes around to what "we think" or how "we would do things". He is the Creator of the universe He is the Great I am. Human arrogance is limitless.

 

So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" (Joh 6:67)

 

 

 

Does your god want a whole bunch of people to go to Hell? If he didn't, he would give everyone the proof they needed to believe what he wanted them to, always the specific amount of proof that will convince every person. People that require first-hand experience as proof would have it. People that required empirical evidence would have it as well. If your god does not prove to every human at the same time in a way that every human can be 100% certain that your god exists, then clearly he doesn't want us to know he is real. Clearly, if the people who do not believe get to go to Hell, he very much wants a lot of people there. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this. There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue. He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen.

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them. The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

If you think about that verse its absurd. How can a invisible cause lead you to know its self by its visible effect. You would never know a cause of an effect if the cause was not detectable.

 

For goodness sake, a cause can be inferred through properties of the cause. If one can deduce properties of a causal agent then one can infer a plausible cause. We as humans use this type of inferential reasoning all the time.

 

 

 

Yes, indeed we humans use inferential reasoning all the time.  And to err is human.  So please show us the choices, the systems and the methods you use to avoid error.

 

If you can't or won't do this, then we're required to take your claims on faith.  Is that what you'd like us to do?  Just accept your inferrences and deductions without question?

 

Any other hoops you'd like us to jump thru?

 

BAA

[bdp]

 

or perhaps in the case of tarot they are allowing access to natural parts of us that we have yet to quantify.  

 

Or perhaps people will jump through absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural because deep down it scares the shit out of them.

 

Dear fuck, you're one big idiot.

[bdp]

Human arrogance is limitless.

 

 

You're the master of it.

[bdp]

 

I'd really like to know how one can assess an event to determine whether it's in fact an instance of revelation, or even just of the supernatural.  I too put this question to OC and just got a snarky dance around the subject.  

 

Bhim, did you ever see my question when I put the same to you a while back?  I'm sorry if you gave your view and I missed it.

I've told you how, but you choose not to believe. Believing in the supernatural would shatter many peoples brittle belief systems.

 

 

 

Fuck you with a rusty chainsaw, asshole. 

[florduh]

Or perhaps people will jump through absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural because deep down it scares the shit out of them.

 

 

 

Most likely, we haven't seen any evidence of the "supernatural" even after diligently looking for it. I would say that most people would actually welcome the existence of a magical realm and eternal life of a soul if only there was something besides conflicting assertions of what the "spirit realm" actually entails. Everybody's guessing but nobody's providing evidence to back up their wild assertions.

 

Really, it's that simple. We (for the most part) want to believe as much as you do, but we can't just decide to believe something without any indication that it might actually be true. We will not manufacture evidence nor will we accept feelings and emotions and anecdotes as useful indicators of truth.

[Ravenstar]

Springy... I will join you.

 

Nothing nasty - OC isn't worth the backlash, maybe just some reflection stuff (right back at ya!) - the genius loci here is very accommodating. It's worked well for me so far...(don't know how or why, don't care). Karma (cause and effect) is a bitch 

 

(And for those who have no belief in any kind of woo - and my experience has just been coincidence - oh well... no harm, no foul)

 

However.. Tarot.. and I'll stick to this, is NOT woo. It's a way to access your own inherent intuition.. or subconscious, if you will. Read some Jung for goodness sake.

[Astreja]

Springy... I will join you.

 

Nothing nasty - OC isn't worth the backlash, maybe just some reflection stuff (right back at ya!) - the genius loci here is very accommodating. It's worked well for me so far...(don't know how or why, don't care). Karma (cause and effect) is a bitch 

 

My thoughts exactly.  The reason I tend to succeed when I tinker with the Woo World is that I always, always, always include Myself in the incantation's area of influence (essentially declining a saving throw against My own magicks).

 

One of the more spectacular implementations of such is the Ring of Truth that I wear on a thong around My neck (along with a pewter Mjölnir)  from when I get up in the morning to when I get ready for bed.   I originally crafted that spell in 1999 to "out" some local political wrongdoing after receiving a hot tip about an attempt to fix an election.  It worked like, well, a charm.    The scandal conveniently broke in the paper exactly one day before we went to the polls, with IMO quite favourable results on election day.

 

Then the spell started to work on Me, forcing a reevaluation of a 26-year relationship.  Less than 10 months later I was free, with a divorce underway.  (The 13th anniversary of My escape is coming up in just over a week, BTW.)

 

In light of that, the subsequent emergence of WikiLeaks and Anonymous are just gravy.  

 

And then there's the time I crafted an amulet to ensure clear skies for the February 26, 1979 total eclipse of the sun.  As anyone who witnessed the eclipse can tell you, that one succeeded beyond My wildest dreams.  Try to imagine a young woman with India ink-stained hands, brain full of tattwa symbols and aching from transcribing angelic names nicked from Golden Dawn references and The Key of Solomon the King, giddily bouncing up and down on a sidewalk outside an Osborne Village laundromat at 9 pm on the night of February 25 because She just saw a star pierce the clouds that had been hovering over the city for the past 3 days.  At totality the next day, the skies were literally clear from horizon to horizon in all directions.

 

So let's just say that I'm reasonably confident of My ability to make OC's life unexpectedly entertaining... And get some entertainment in My own life as well.

[seeker001]

 

So if God made existance obvious to everyone, than why aren't babies made instinctively aware of it. There are some things that babies are aware of naturally that are critical to life, such as breathing, moving, and crying out for attention. Wouldn't implanting the child with an innate instinct to do good and follow the godly ways be better? Why continue to allow humanity to have the curse of Adam and Eve with an instinct to embrace sin? That poor child didn't have anything to do with Adam and Eve. 

At what age should they be aware in your estimation?

 

I'm not talking about being actively aware of it, but on an subconscious level. Sort of like how most people have primal fears to avoid danger such as heights, fire, and darkness. There are also actions and desires that are innate in us such as breathing, a need for some socialization, and a need for a sense of purpose. Why instead of allowing humans to be programmed for sin instead program humans for righteousness? 

 

As a student programmer, I know that when a program is failing that I need to go in and fix what is wrong. I do not blame my program for not doing as I wish; that is something I need to fix and correct. Yes, it may not do what I want on every system, but at least it'll work most of the time. I can't just send flawed code out and than damn it for not working the way it should. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

or perhaps in the case of tarot they are allowing access to natural parts of us that we have yet to quantify.  

 

Or perhaps people will jump through absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural because deep down it scares the shit out of them.

 

 

Ok then Clay, I won't drag anyone else into this and I'll offer up only myself as an example.

 

Let's say that you're right and that I'm shit scared, just as you say I am.  And that I'll jump thru absurd hoops to avoid believing in the supernatural.  Now, if I admit to this and own up to these things, do you have any further input to make on my behalf or is that it?  I'm scared shitless and you're finished with me or I'm scared shitless and there's something else?

 

Please note that I'm not ****ing around here, Clay.  I see that you're deadly serious and I'll match that seriousness.  But I'm also genuinely puzzled by your persistence and equally puzzled as to the reason for it.  Is it your job to scare me and leave me hanging in terror or does your job involve something else?

 

"Yes, my job involves something else." ...would be an accurate but unhelpful response from you.  So, seeing as I am serious I'm going to place myself in a vulnerable position and ask you to please be helpful towards me.  Please help me understand why you are here and what you are doing... because I currently understand neither.

 

I await your (hopefully) helpful response.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

The supernatural is observable but not repeatable. {emphasis Mine}

Not repeatable, hmm?  Then what makes you think that your "supernatural" god has the capability to consistently fulfill its own word and keep the various promises it has allegedly made to humanity... Y'know, like "salvation"?  "Eternal life"?

 

A free willed entity can choose to act at will.

 

As I've said multiple times on here, take the time to understand why double blind protocols exist. A free will entity can choose to act contrary to any experiment hence the supernatural is not subject to the empirical method.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Note my bold. Your words are plain to see. My point stands.

 

 

No, it doesn't.

 

It's not like I'm splitting hairs or being cryptic here. It's incredibly clear what I'm saying and I think you're aware of it.

 

What I posted is not a faith based statement. I'm not saying 'supernatural' things don't exist, I'm saying that the word 'supernatural' is a poor description of such unexplained phenomenon if they do exist. If such things do exist, and they were not built/created/imagined by humans, then they are natural phenomenon, even if they are unexplained, undefined, unknown to us, outside our understanding, or otherwise beyond us. If it exists, and weren't made by us, then they are Natural. That's literally what the word 'Natural' means, something that occurs without the influence of humanity to create it.

 

Do you know what the term 'misnomer' even means? It's not a philosophical argument about the existence of anything, it just means that the name of a term doesn't fit it's description or definition. It's a badly named term that contradicts itself. Oxymoron is similar, it does not refer to whether or not something actually exists, just that it's name is contradictory. Something that is supernatural would exist outside of nature, there is no such thing as 'outside of nature' really.

 

Even 'unnatural' things are actually within nature, they just don't occur without our influence. We are a part of nature as well. Even the thing that created nature would still be a part of it, it's still within the natural order even if it controls all aspects of it. It would exists with or without human input and therefor is not unnatural, or supernatural. Even if said thing or things exist outside of this plane in another dimension or whatever, it's still natural. The other dimension would still be a part of our nature system as it has an influence on our own dimension/Universe, and even if it didn't it still occurs or exists without us and at the very least would still be natural even if it wasn't connected or influencing our plane of existence. Unnatural and supernatural mean almost the exact same thing and the ideas they represent are really quite literally nonsensical.

 

My post is a grammatical argument, not an argument of faith or lack of it. I'm saying that the -words- supernatural and unnatural do not fit what they are meant to describe very well, and I'm right about that. They are contradictory terms and poorly defined on various levels. That's not a statement of faith, it's just an observation of an odd pair of idioms in language. The two words are simply nonsensical terms that do not accurately portray any actual phenomenon.

 

You are wrong, your point does not stand.

 

The word supernatural is not yours to redefine. It means beyond the natural, and outside the physical laws of nature. Undiscovered natural phenomenon are not supernatural. They are simply undiscovered. Lightening was not supernatural in 10,000 BC just because humans did not understand it and attributed it to deities.

 

Furthermore, you are simply defining away the supernatural by arbitrarily and with no basis whatsoever saying anything supernatural is actually a natural event we don't understand. That is based on pure faith.