PureX
Veteran Member
Well, that's just your own silly bias.
There is no way for any human to determine what "supernatural" even means apart from some imposed subjective semantic regime.
The "work" on the other hand ...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Your Disbelief?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
There is no way for any human to determine what "supernatural" even means apart from some imposed subjective semantic regime.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
I don't propose that it can't. I'm an agnostic atheist, not a hard atheist. It very well could be that there is a godlike physical entity out there, but if there is one then we, as a species, are ignorant to it's actual existence imo
Every god story out there carries with it the same compelling evidence for it's existence as ghosts, vampires, or any other apparitional being that never leaves the realm of anecdotal attestation. Lacks substance, but makes for good campfire stories. Ultimately, this is what we are talking about - myths and legends that people weave to solve a paradox that they have created for themselves
nature is what it is. Everything we can see about it is self sustaining and perpetuating in a way that we can measure and observe, and what we don't know becomes illuminated in time. Adding an outside being that is secretly pulling the strings behind the scenes seems superfluous
Yes it can and i responded in the way it works. Or can you tell me any reason why love is not electro chemical stimuli?
I told you in my original response to you in this thread. Love isn't an emotion.
Dark Matter cannot be directly detected. It is only known of indirectly.
And In a broader use of the word ‘physical’ I think the paranormal can be explained physically but involves matter and dimensional planes not currently detectable by our three-dimensional senses and instruments. Things like astral/soul bodies are physical in the broader use of the word.
The difference between us is that you only accept that which can be detected by our senses and instruments. I argue the paranormal is indirect evidence that there is more than the physical plane through which life expresses itself. We can’t see spirits (except perhaps in cases of semi-materialization) but we can see their effects (paranormal activity).
The brain is far from irrelevant, heart beat, breathing, walking, sleeping etc, etc, everything is controlled by the brain
The biochemical response is the experience.
IDK if it would matter as I would also explain that the experience itself doesn't change. If you feel emotions you feel emotions regardless of the source. If you feel happy, you feel happy. Does the mechanics really matter?
We respond the same, the experience is the same. Just because we understand the mechanics doesn't change the experience itself.
I understand it is a disconnect for most. It is like when you understand the physical process of a magic trick, the magic is lost and we feel robbed of the sense of wonderment. Like finding out Santa Claus in not real. However you can still enjoy Christmas even knowing Santa isn't real.
Ok, ill believe the neurosciencist, you believe whatever you want
Informational models might be physical, but the thing being modeled might not perfectly physically exist except as a concept. (See Plato's World of Forms.)
Artwork is likewise a model of the Artist's conception, but might not physically exist except in fantasy. I see a perfect circle as such a fantasy.
Neuroscience won't tell you anything about love. But you'll just ignore what I post, anyway, as you already have.
Actually mine already know but if they didn't they would consider themselves a little more educated
But I've got odd kids, they are realists
If you can detect the effects of something even indirectly then it fits within my definition of physical.
It there is evidence that can be seen, then its cause, whatever it is, falls under this definition of physical.
We may not know what it is or even disagree about what it is but it would fit the definition of physical.
And still, everything you do and feel originated in your brain.
Not ignored, read and found to be irrelevant.
That's fine, I'm just saying the idea, the fantasy is stored as information physically.
Right back at you. My apologies for trying to have an actual discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.
Experience will teach you about love but won't tell you anything about how it occurs.
Neither will an MRI scan.
I agree because it has no physical elements.
Work is a understood physical process in which energy is changed in form. So still nothing here that is not physical.
Yet there is a detail explanation for it. The physical process. You think there is something missing from this. I don't understand what you think is missing. Except perhaps the wonderment which comes from not knowing the physical process perhaps?
I posted my view on it here:
What is Your Disbelief?
It is a coincidence that you should post this question. Something that I read earlier here got me thinking about why I parted from Christianity. Some years ago I looked back on that and reviewed it. Christianity as I recall has aspects which would make a good contemplative and communal faith...
www.religiousforums.com