Good grief. The fact that some people invoke erroneous usage is their problem, not mine.
If someone is going to claim that “Nature is defined as everything which exists,” then THEY had better be adapting to the commonly accepted definition. It does no good for them to adopt their own usage, and then insist that everyone else must conform to it. If that were the case, then I could just as easily define nature as “Everything smaller than a breadbasket,” and invoke this usage to prove that the supernatural does exist!
No, I wasn’t. I was referring to what E-Sabbathactually said, and made no claims regarding what he might have meant. I prefer to address what people say, rather than indulge in such speculations.
Not true. I explicitly referred you to your exact words, in my posting dated 07-17-2003, 02:07 AM. In fact, I started that post off by saying “blowero, let us examine the posting in question.”
Because it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. The missing phrase (which I omitted for brevity) clearly implied that it was the loss of a day which was an urban legend, not the NASA account. This is a point which I had already addressed, in my posting dated (Again, I remind you that E-Sabbath had not even mentioned NASA at that point.)
And that is the relevant point, which you keep missing. E-Sabbath’s text brought up the subject of God stopping the sun, but not NASA’s alleged discovery of a missing day. Your twin statements (“Yeah, but that didn’t happen” and “It’s an urban legend.”) were made long before NASA was even mentioned in this thread, so a plain reading indicates that it’s the God-stopping-the-sun story which supposedly “didn’t happen” and is “an urban legend.”
You keep trying to shoehorn the NASA story into that posting, when it had not even been mentioned yet. Thus, the most straightforward reading is that it’s E-Sabbath’s story which didn’t happen, rather than the not-yet-mentioned-NASA-legend.
Calm down, Thunder. Haven’t I already conceded that you were right on this point?
You’re addressing the relevant issue of equivocation. If you define NATURE as EVERYTHING SMALLER THAN A BREADBASKET, it does indeed follow that the supernatural exists (since there exists something larger than a breadbasket)! But, if you use that definition to prove the EXISTENCE of something BEYOND EXISTENCE (which is nonsensical), we have equivocation. To those who are not familiar with logical fallacies, this is when you suddenly swap the meaning of a term.
Ok, since this is becoming a semantic battle, lets go to Webster’s online dictionary (www.webster.com). I extracted only the interesting definitions of usage:
Taking definition 2a, 2b and 6 in combination, it becomes clear how NATURE can come to mean EVERYTHING. If it can mean God, the inner force of an individual ( the spirit? ) and the external world in its entirety, what is left? Pure thoughts perhaps. So if supernatural is everything beyond nature, then supernatural is pure thoughts, hence totally imaginary! Non sequitur, wouldn’t you say?
So let’s move on to supernatural:
Wait a minute! Nature can mean a creative, controlling force and Supernatural can mean God. I’m confused…Ah! there it is! the coveted prepositional difference:
-A creative force in the Universe
-Relating to an order of existence beyond the observable universe
Why do they have that adjective “observable” before universe? I think we better go back to the definition of UNIVERSE:
Ouch! Now I see why they put “observable” in front of universe. If we take 1b, then universe can implicitly come to mean just about EVERYTHING. And with 2 and 4, hey we’re back at the “set of all sets”. What to do? What is the problem here? I’m mixing usages!!! And I’m using one single fairly authoritative dictionary. It’s not like I’m using www.dictionary.com or anything…
Your coveted standards are fairly shaky, JThunder. I think most here in this thread seem to intuitively associate SUPERNATURAL with meaning 2:
If we use this term, is it fair to agree that nothing IN THE UNIVERSE can transcend the laws of nature and that if it does, it only APPEARS to do so? The crunch is that your description of such laws are not the laws in and of themselves. Such laws can only be know to you indirectly, through your epistemic system. If those laws are broken, it simply means your epistemic system is built around incorrect assumptions. With other words, the laws of nature are unbreakable whereas you and your descriptions of such laws are fallible.
Regarding the Universe, clearly there are several schools here. It can mean the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, THE SET OF ALL SETS, THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE, etc. etc. If we use the term to mean the SET OF ALL SETS (or the Ultimate Universe), God cannot be beyond it. Remember Bertrand’s paradox: the set of all sets that do not include themselves. And there is nothing wrong with this definition! You will come across it not just in this thread or forum, but in countless philosophical sources.
Now then, if I say “God can turn water into wine”, is that a law of Nature? That is, is not God’s dicretion to do what pleases God part of the Law of the Ultimate Universe, and hence all the sets contained within it, Nature being one of them? If a dictatorship states that such and such has the authority to do whatever they wish, does that person break the law when he does something not permitted by the general population? I should think not…
Um, it’s NOT speculation anymore. He admitted he was talking about the urban legend. How exactly did you get confused on that? Let’s recap:
I thought he was talking about the UL, and responded as such.
You thought he wasn’t talking about the UL.
I turned out to be right.
You turned out to be wrong.
End of story.
Actually, you first brought it up on 7/15
So actually, I misspoke. It’s not that you didn’t cite me, it’s that you ADDED an incorrect strawman characterization of what I said, and you have been arguing the strawman for a couple pages now.
You seem to want to believe that I claimed I could prove that the event never happened. But I never used the word “proof” at all. I just said “it didn’t happen”.
Do you understand the difference between:
“That didn’t happen; it’s an urban legend”
and
“I can prove that no such event ever occurred”?
The former is a more informal observation that that particular urban legend has been debunked. The latter would be a claim that I could prove a negative with regard to such an event even being possible. I did not make the latter claim.
You obviously know there’s a difference, because you deemed it important enough to add the word “proving” to your characterization of what I said. Unfortunately for you, I never used the word “proving” in that regard.
Look, you misinterpreted what I said, and I explained to you why you are mistaken, so why aren’t you letting it drop?
Straightforward, indeed. Since you seem to be the only one who had trouble understanding my meaning, I would suggest that your “straightforward” reading is in error. I’m not aware of any other urban legends about missing days other than the NASA one, so I’m not sure which UL you are confusing it with, and why you would continue to confuse them even after I pointed out which one I was referring to (as if the link to the Snopes article wasn’t there plain as day anyway). And we’ve already established that E-Sabbath WAS talking about the NASA story.
You’re fighting a losing battle to prove some phantom point that doesn’t exist.
The definition you cited says nothing about God. It says that “nature” is sometimes used to mean a creative and controlling force (as in “Nature brought us such wondeful creatures”). It does not say that this force must be God. Ditto for definition 2b, which is used in such statements as “It is not in my nature to torment infants.”)
Moreover, the definitions which you cited are not additive. That is, “nature” is not declared to be the sum of definitions 1 to 6. Rather, the dictionary provides multiple definitions, not all of which are applicable in any given circumstance.
And that is where your argument breaks down. It requires assuming that definitions 2a and 2b mean God (when in fact, they do not), AND assuming that 2a, 2b and 6 must be taken together. That’s not how the dictionary works.
Ditto for the definitions you cited for “universe,” ethic. Not a single one of them says that it refers to everything in existence. In fact, let us consider this statement which you made:
Not true. Definition 1b says “the world of human experience,” which is not the same as “everything in existence” (and it is most certainly not the scientific meaning of the term).
Similarly, definitions 2 and 4 do not constitute “the set of all sets.” Definition 2 (“a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization”) merely describes a particular set, as does definition 4 (“a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem”). Note that both description use the article “a,” which denotes non-universality.
In other words, your arguments are extrapolating far beyond what your dictionary actually says.
It would work better if you would read my posts. I said the material quoted in Readers Digest came from the Lancet, which is a medical journal. I will post the source below, but you will still have to read the Digest for the whole article.
Go to: http://www.thelancet.com/
and register, then search for “near death”.
You will find a controlled scientific study of near death experiences.
“Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands by Doctors Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich.”
In the above study you will find a near death experience that surprised the doctor (P. van Lommel) very much, it was the one about false teeth. It confirmed the “information while dead,” part of NDEs.
Dr. P. van Lommel went on to say: “Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest.”
(In other words: NDEs are NOT biological.)
If not any of these then what?
The Doctor also talked about the Pam Reynolds surgery. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
She was “dead” for approximately two hours, the blood drained from her head, and when she was brought back to life, she described the details of her surgery.
Since this study, funding and permission has been made available for a much larger study, and it is now in progress. It is due in about two years.
Science will only be able to eliminate the physical factor. Then if NDES are not caused by anything physical (the body) they must be considered spiritual. That’s the way I see it.
The only way we can deal with life is through personal experience. We can tell others about our experiences, but we can’t prove them. We can’t even prove we had toast for breakfast. Thousands of individuals have recorded their NDEs, while they are all unique in some aspects, other aspects are the same.
In order to understand NDEs, I believe it is necessary to read several hundred of them. After that, you will see the thread of logic and truth all contain. http://www.ndeweb.com/board00.htm
NDEers welcome scientific research into the experiences, I have never known a researcher to come away not believing in the reality of the experience.
Remember that some followers of science and/or religion have vested interests, and depend on their beliefs to earn their living. Many will never accept NDEs, but that is ok, the information I write is for those still seeking and learning.
Well done Leroy, a good solid citation from the Lancet:
Now, note that this is still only a single anecdote and that all kinds of Chinese whispers might have messed it around, but nevertheless if this story is true then at least a radical new theory regarding what a comatose brain can take in would be warranted. This is the calibre of sources which will stop you being ridiculed here so often.
Unfortunately, you go off the rails by completely misunderstaning what the doctor says:
All he was saying was that no sole factor could be isolated - there appears a complex interplay between the three. He is not saying there is anything “supernatural” going on. Indeed he goes on to say
He goes on to say that NDE’s appear to be far more “panoramic” and life-changing, but that surely does not suggest a different source, agreed?
(Incidentally, a logically fallacious response on your part will preclude further discussion).
Words don’t mean what the dictionary says they do, logic never applies, there are no rules, reason’s fleeting, common sense is all bllcks, and you can’t play the piano without a pixie, leprechaun or other spook in the room.
Happy?
Good.
But if there really was a “supernatural”, we’d be using it in a reliable, measurable fashion.
If its affect on the world is so slight that its very existance cannot be measured, then it also is so slight cannot be noticed or percieved.
So, if you personally cannot percieve it, why in the name of Bazooka Joe do you think it’s real?
JThunder, you must be a very sloppy reader. I understand there are alot of posts here and it gets tedious to read evrything through and through, but a little care is in order. Now I have to start quoting myself!
So your tirade about how I’m all wrong is correct. I wanted to demonstrate that dictionaries don’t necessarily help us resolve the issue at hand. I was being excessively liberal in my interpretations. I was picking and choosing, combining as I wished. My point is that this whole dictionary business is moot. There are too many potential interpretations. You know that “a creative and controlling force in the universe” does not quite jell with God, because you are surrounded by it’s usage on a daily basis. Dictionaries have a hard time avoiding self-referentiality and often resort to usage to demonstrate a words intentionality (as in your “Nature brought us wonderful creatures”). What you keep ignoring (and try to settle by reference to a dictionary) is the following:
-What is Nature?
-What is God?
-What is the Universe?
If they could be settled by opening a dictionary, I guess Aristotle, Heidegger, Spinoza and friends wasted a heck of a lot of time. Why didn’t they just go to www.dictionary.com?!?
You have applied your weltanschauung to define the usage of these terms. When you read the dictionary, your interpretation is flavored by your desire to prove something. The truth is that there are epistemic systems that treat Nature, God and the Universe as interchangeable by denying the possibility of God’s interaction with something God isn’t part of. There are those that treat God and the Universe as distinctly separate, falling more into the dualist camp.
Read with a certain philosophical backdrop, the world of human experience certainly means everything. Science is more of a methodology (oh, no not that discussion again!). Yes, those who apply it have a tendency to use another framework, seeming to reference something beyond the perceivable: “He experienced hallucinations. Nothing he saw exists in our Universe”. But it still begs the question what EXISTENCE means and what HALLUCINATIONS are, issues that could not and can not be settled by Mr. Webster. Materialist will have a different answer than Spiritualists. How about: “The spiritual universe is far richer than illusions of physical manifestations”. So can we agree that universe simple means the set of all sets, regardless of whether that includes all conceivable sets? That’s why universe can mean “the physically manifest universe”, “the universe of cats and dogs”, “god and his dominions”, “the world of human experience”. So let’s leave it up to those who use it to define what the scope of their UNIVERSE is.
We should focus on syntactical issues within the “universe” of what is being said rather than what constitutes appropriate usage of a signifier. As long as there’s no equivocation, I don’t care if you call God that BLUE AND PURPLE DOG and universe UXTRAGENESIS. Again, it’s equivocation that has to be avoided…
I give up.Apparently JThunder is completely unaquainted with the word “context”(look THAT one up JT!) and is enthralled by his own bait-and-switch arguements about “meaning” and “definition”.
His responses are on par with those of Biblical literalists who say “We know the Bible is 100% accurate because it says in some chapter and verse of the Bible:‘Something’!”.
Skeptics always ignore the ones they can’t answer. How about Pam Reynolds? She had a NDE while all the blood was removed from her body, and no life signs whatever. In the Readers Digest story this is brought out beautifully. When the doctor said “there must be a biological cause” he was stating his opinions not what the research findings were. There are thousands of examples of proof of life after death in the NDE literature. It is truth.
I wrote a negthy, point-by-point refutation of the Pim/netherlands fiasco at belief.net some months back.The article I read was not from the Lancet though and it appears that the nurse involved is now claiming the man with the dentures specifically told her he had an nde/obe wherein he saw her remove his dentures.Since this is little more than a suspicious anecdote which I have no way of verifying or falsifying, I cannot offer any further comment.
As for the Pam Reynolds affair, are you saying that she had ALL blood removed from her body, had an nde(wouldn’t that be a DDE? A “Definately Dead Experience”?) and was somehow brought back to life, her blood resored and was able to report this alleged affair?
Again, I will need something I can scrutinise myself(and no I am not going to be registering at any more sites including The Lancet unless you post some relatively intriguing portion from an article that warrants me going through such BS).
So you are claiming that Pam Reynolds had no blood in her body, as in “whiter than Howard Stern’s ass” pale, and she was somehow medically revived adn her blood restored…and all of this is on videotape for my perusal?!?
Please, even though it puts any credibility you may re-establish in the future at risk, provide me a link to THAT!
BTW, enough with the “Skeptics are just ignoring what they cannot answer (sob)!” malarchy.The only person here buying it is YOU and that is taking ‘preaching to the converted’ to extremes!I have encountered enough creationists to be well aquainted with the tactic of tossing out a 300 bits of totally unqualified BS, noting that the skeptic has refuted 298 bits of BS but, rather than answer the refutations you dwell on the 2 bits of equally unsubstantiated crap and say "Aha!See how the skeptic could not answer this!?.
If you have anything, ANYTHING AT ALL, which can be scrutinised by someone(FYI, anecdotes and the like do not qualify) such as myself, then please present it.Otherwise take it to the Sci-Fi channel message boards.
