How can we actually define 'supernatural'?

Answer, I don't think you grasp just what side of the fence I'm on, here. Nor do I think you've understood anything discussed in this thread.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Answer, I don't think you grasp just what side of the fence I'm on, here. Nor do I think you've understood anything discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

no, you are an idiot who assumes a side must be chosen. you don't choose, idiot. onl;y god can choose.
 
No, not even God can choose. Deities are bound by their nature as thoroughly as we are. Not that this has anything to do with the nature of this thread, of course.
 
Two sock puppets chewing on each other with soft sock teeth.

Impudent fool! Now you face the power of my inane blather!
No old man, it is you who will fall to the might of my repetitive incoherence!


Fascinating! :D
 
apoger said:
Two sock puppets chewing on each other with soft sock teeth.

Impudent fool! Now you face the power of my inane blather!
No old man, it is you who will fall to the might of my repetitive incoherence!


Fascinating! :D
Click to expand...

yeah. welcome to the fold, brother. lol.
 
Y'know, apoger, your points would be a lot more impressive if you'd actually understood any of my previous points. Others seem to have managed it - I don't quite fathom why you haven't.

It's a simple point, really - the definition of 'supernatural' rules out the possibility that a supernatural event can take place. Therefore any event that JREF is willing to test will by definition not be elligible to win the prize.

Yahweh's point is a perfectly good way of getting around the problem. All you've done is dismiss the problem as "word games".
 
The troll baits the hook with the same exact nonsense that he used the last time.

He slides it out into the forum...

Apoger looks... sniffs... circles around.... IS HE GOING FOR IT?

No! He walks away, too wise to get caught in the same tar pit twice.
 
Well, I suppose it's possible that I've deluded myself, but the argument seems quite reasonable to me.

Frankly, I think it's more likely that you didn't understand it, but I'll have to think about it some more.
 
I guess it depends on the thing. I can't really say what supernatural is, but I can say something is supernatural when I see it or hear about it.
 
apoger said:
The troll baits the hook with the same exact nonsense that he used the last time.

He slides it out into the forum...

Apoger looks... sniffs... circles around.... IS HE GOING FOR IT?

No! He walks away, too wise to get caught in the same tar pit twice.
Click to expand...

yes you are. don't be an idiot. you are already the bait. your wisdom is equivalent to that if an extremely dense rock. materialists tend to be that way.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Answer, I don't think you grasp just what side of the fence I'm on, here. Nor do I think you've understood anything discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

nah. i've understood all. i think you might be talking to yourself, self-referential binary logic idiotic machine.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Y'know, apoger, your points would be a lot more impressive if you'd actually understood any of my previous points. Others seem to have managed it - I don't quite fathom why you haven't.
Click to expand...


idot. your comprehension prevents your ability to understand. supress Ego.

It's a simple point, really - the definition of 'supernatural' rules out the possibility that a supernatural event can take place. Therefore any event that JREF is willing to test will by definition not be elligible to win the prize.
Click to expand...

try defining supernatural. now define it without natural. explain the naturality of your conclusion when it is impossible to be reached.

Yahweh's point is a perfectly good way of getting around the problem. All you've done is dismiss the problem as "word games".
Click to expand...

the only way to defeat Ego is by proving to all people that you are idiots. therefore all messages will continuously be responded to until you realize the meaning the word.
 
Schizobunny said:
but I can say something is supernatural when I see it or hear
about it.
Click to expand...

Kind of like pornography.

Actually, wouldn't a good measure of what qualifies as 'supernatural' is whether it voilates basic laws that we know about?

Something like the discovery of a new particle would not be 'supernatural', since it doesn't really violate any of the laws of physics that we know about. However, other things do violate known laws:

- Homeopathy - violates laws of chemistry (number of molecules remaining, etc.)
- "Mental" spoon bending - violates the laws about requiring a 'reaction' for every action
- Psychics - Violates known laws of electromagnitism, or may violate the 'speed of light' or 'time'
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Yes, as Yahweh said. That is a reasonable position, as long as both the JREF and the challengers are willing to accept a particular phenomenon as beyond current understanding.[/B]
Click to expand...

Note from the Department of Technicalities: In your last sentence you seem to imply that the challengers need to recognise the extraordinariness of their powers in order to try for the million. Remember that it is the JREF who is offering the award and it is their determination of the applicants' alleged powers which decides the eligibility for testing. Whether the challengers think their powers are supernatural or not has no impact.
Of course, if the 'powers' are considered mundane by potential applicants, all the better - for who would ignore the offer of a million dollars for the demonstration of something perfectly ordinary?
 
Too true. I just find it strange that JREF would consider such abilities supernatural before the test (and hence worthy of the award), yet once the test was passed JREF would no longer think of the abilities as supernatural, which would seem to imply it's no longer eligible.

I realize that the organization is interested in demonstrations of things they considered supernatural before they were demonstrated, of course. But it's not really interested in showing that some things are supernatural, just that some things thought to be supernatural are real.
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Too true. I just find it strange that JREF would consider such abilities supernatural before the test (and hence worthy of the award), yet once the test was passed JREF would no longer think of the abilities as supernatural, which would seem to imply it's no longer eligible. <snip>
Click to expand...

'Definition of paranormal' - SWIFT commentary extracts.

I think it fair to say that, after a successful demonstration, a good number of the criteria the JREF uses to determine the powers as paranormal would no longer apply.

I assume that no ability will be eligible for the challenge after the million is awarded - for the million-dollar challenge will cease to be! (Unless another million is generously donated/pledged.)
 
Wrath of the Swarm said:
Too true. I just find it strange that JREF would consider such abilities supernatural before the test (and hence worthy of the award), yet once the test was passed JREF would no longer think of the abilities as supernatural, which would seem to imply it's no longer eligible.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I can help explain the situation with an analogy:

Claimant: I have a bucket full of water.
JREF: We can not conceive of any way that this bucket can contain water. We think this bucket is waterless.
Claimant: I can show evidence of the claim that you will accept.
JREF: Please do.
*The claimant proceeds to pour the bucket of water over the JREF's head*
JREF: You have demonstrated enough evidence to convince us that we were mistaken. Due to the new evidence presented we change our stance from declaring the bucket waterless, and we now conceed that the bucket was indeed full of water.

This is analagous with:

Claimant: I have a special power.
JREF: We can not conceive of any way that this power can exist in nature. We think this power is supernatural.
Claimant: I can show evidence of the claim that you will accept.
JREF: Please do.
*The claimant proceeds to demonstrate the claim to the satisfaction of the JREF*
JREF: You have demonstrated enough evidence to convince us that we were mistaken. Due to the new evidence presented we change our stance from declaring the power supernatural, and we now concede that the power is indeed part of nature.
[Oh yes, and we owe you a million dollars. Congratulations on taking the first step in possibly helping all of mankind redefine reality, and potentially usering in a new age of discovery.]



I hope this helps clarify why testing may indeed shift our definition from supernatural to natural.

Furthermore this change in definition in no way endangers the challenge, as the definition of supernatural is not the issue in dispute. Whatever the concerned parties agree on prior to the test, is what defines success in the challenge.


PS- Yes I'm feeding the troll. I couldn't help myself. The analogy above is an attempt at clarity for those lurkers that are browsing the topic in silence.


[edited becuase I need to learn to spell]
 
Dear Troll;

I certainly do browse (and even post in) the other forums.

What I don't do is make cowardly sock puppets that spam nonsense.
 
No need for that. You have a cowardly single account that spam nonsense.

Which poster, exactly, do you think I'm a sock puppet of? Past or present. I'd like to hear, really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom