Does any supernatural god exist?

[Kenny]

The key to deciphering any biblical text is to view it in context. Isaiah 53 is the fourth of the four “Servant Songs.” (The others are found in Isaiah chapters 42, 49 and 50.) Although the “servant” in Isaiah 53 is not openly identified – these verses merely refer to “My servant” (52:13, 53:11) – the “servant” in each of the previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the Jewish nation. Beginning with chapter 41, the equating of God’s Servant with the nation of Israel is made nine times by the prophet Isaiah, and no one other than Israel is identified as the “servant”:
“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8), “You are My servant, Israel” (49:3), see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

The Bible is filled with other references to the Jewish people as God’s “servant”; see Jeremiah 30:10, 46:27-28; Psalms 136:22. There is no reason that the “servant” in Isaiah 53 would suddenly switch and refer to someone other than the Jewish people.
I don't want to argue about it -as said before everyone is entitled to their own beliefs- but I have to state the facts.

Ajax, I have no problem and do understand that there are differing viewpoints to these references.

I just accept the Jewish viewpoints as outlined in the New Testament.

Of course, we won’t intersect in our understanding.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you feel superior to your ancestors, whose shoulders you are standing on?

Do you feel superior to your father? How about your mother?

You haven’t seen my family tree or you would understand.

 

[lewismilton]

We infer what nature is by observation and evidence: if we observe a thing, it's natural.

You say that we can infer God's existence from observation and evidence. If this were true, it would make God part of nature.

This would still be the case even if God behaves differently from other natural things or if God created parts of nature.




Not sure how that's relevant. Download Car Parking Multiplayer APK for iOS

Do you believe in ANY sort of Supernatural Being?
Whether it's God, Nature, or even yourself?

You don't even have to be religious in any way. Do you just believe in something?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe in ANY sort of Supernatural Being?
Whether it's God, Nature, or even yourself?

You don't even have to be religious in any way. Do you just believe in something?

I think that supernatural things can't exist by definition.

That being said, this is separate from the question of whether any purportedly supernatural thing exists. I look at that question on its merits; if I were to decide that it did exist, I would also consider the "supernatural" label to be misapplied.

And that being said, IMO, the label "supernatural" tends to be reserved for things that aren't reasonably supported by evidence, so I can't think of anything normally called "supernatural" that I believe exists.

(Edit: and before you ask: I believe in nature and myself, but I don't consider either one "supernatural")

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think that supernatural things can't exist by definition.

That being said, this is separate from the question of whether any purportedly supernatural thing exists. I look at that question on its merits; if I were to decide that it did exist, I would also consider the "supernatural" label to be misapplied.

And that being said, IMO, the label "supernatural" tends to be reserved for things that aren't reasonably supported by evidence, so I can't think of anything normally called "supernatural" that I believe exists.

(Edit: and before you ask: I believe in nature and myself, but I don't consider either one "supernatural")

Do you believe there exists more to nature that you and contemporary science are presently aware of?
Given one of the meanings of the word "supernatural" is simply "things that cannot be explained by science", is it not reasonable that some people, both religious and non-religious, believe in supernatural ideas and possibilities?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you believe there exists more to nature that you and contemporary science are presently aware of?

Of course.

Given one of the meanings of the word "supernatural" is simply "things that cannot be explained by science",

That's a ridiculous definition that I don't adhere to.

Do you know another term for "things that cannot be explained by science"? The unknown.

is it not reasonable that some people, both religious and non-religious, believe in supernatural ideas and possibilities?

No, I don't think it is.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Of course.




That's a ridiculous definition that I don't adhere to.

Do you know another term for "things that cannot be explained by science"? The unknown.



No, I don't think it is.

So you think that Cambridge Dictionary scholars provide a ridiculous explanation for the
meaning of supernatural ?
That would seem to make them look ridiculous if you are correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you think that Cambridge Dictionary scholars provide a ridiculous explanation for the
meaning of supernatural ?
That would seem to make them look ridiculous if you are correct?

The dictionary reflects usage. The word "supernatural" is often used the way you describe, so the dictionary folks are correct to include it.

... but the dictionary folks don't concern themselves with whether a usage is rational. Irrational usage is still usage.

The definition you gave alludes to a very common - and disingenuous - approach to the supernatural: lots of people want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to "supernatural" things they believe in.

They need to place "supernatural" things beyond rational scrutiny, since if they were scrutinized, they would fail to meet any reasonable standard. However, placing these things beyond rational scrutiny also places them beyond rational justification... but they tend not to worry about this problem.

 

[McBell]

So you think that Cambridge Dictionary scholars provide a ridiculous explanation for the
meaning of supernatural ?
That would seem to make them look ridiculous if you are correct?

I don't.
I think that the Cambridge Dictionary did its job and has provided the common usage definition of the word.

Which I completely agree with @9-10ths_Penguin is a ridiculous definition of the word.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The dictionary reflects usage. The word "supernatural" is often used the way you describe, so the dictionary folks are correct to include it.

... but the dictionary folks don't concern themselves with whether a usage is rational. Irrational usage is still usage.

The definition you gave alludes to a very common - and disingenuous - approach to the supernatural: lots of people want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to "supernatural" things they believe in.

They need to place "supernatural" things beyond rational scrutiny, since if they were scrutinized, they would fail to meet any reasonable standard. However, placing these things beyond rational scrutiny also places them beyond rational justification... but they tend not to worry about this problem.

I understand what you are saying and agree that there are some pretty ridiculous supernatural claims, but nevertheless the dictionary has it right to include the definition it does as there may be some supernatural ideas that will turn out to be true.

 

[Tinker Grey]

the dictionary has it right to include the definition it does as there may be some supernatural ideas that will turn out to be true.

No. The dictionary has the job to include it because it is their job to reflect how people do use it. The rest is irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand what you are saying and agree that there are some pretty ridiculous supernatural claims, but nevertheless the dictionary has it right to include the definition it does as there may be some supernatural ideas that will turn out to be true.

Sure - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can't exclude the possibility that some ideas that people call "supernatural" might be true, but I can say that whenever a "supernatural" thing is established to be real, we stop calling it "supernatural."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. The dictionary has the job to include it because it is their job to reflect how people do use it. The rest is irrelevant.

I do not understand what you mean? Penguin said that he and science were not aware of everything, that there were things that he and science were not aware of, iow, there are things that cannot be explained by science. I pointed that some "things that cannot be explained by science" may fall under the definition of "supernatural".
Now we can agree that not all claims of things that cannot be explained be science fall correctly under the concept of supernatural, there is delusion, lying, deceiving, etc., but you can't possibly say/believe that all claims of supernatural are not genuine because science in this case is unaware of it.
Iow, if you and science do not know everything that exists, it follows logically that there must something that exists of which you and science are not aware of.
Do you understand what is being said?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can't exclude the possibility that some ideas that people call "supernatural" might be true, but I can say that whenever a "supernatural" thing is established to be real, we stop calling it "supernatural."

Yes, exactly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't.
I think that the Cambridge Dictionary did its job and has provided the common usage definition of the word.

Which I completely agree with @9-10ths_Penguin is a ridiculous definition of the word.

See my post #830 to Penguin, my post #833 to Tinker Grey, and Penguin's post #832 to me with which I agreed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do not understand what you mean? Penguin said that he and science were not aware of everything, that there were things that he and science were not aware of, iow, there are things that cannot be explained by science. I pointed that some "things that cannot be explained by science" may fall under the definition of "supernatural".

FYI: while I agree that uncountably many things cannot be explained by current science, I also think that these things can't be explained at all.

Science is just rigorous inference from evidence. If a claim about the real world can't be established through science, then "establishing" it any other way involves at best a lowering of standards and at worst just pulling stuff out of your butt.

So while science is ignorant of all sorts of things, there's basically no room for people to legitimately say "I have good reason to come to this conclusion that's 'beyond science'!"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

FYI: while I agree that uncountably many things cannot be explained by current science, I also think that these things can't be explained at all.

Science is just rigorous inference from evidence. If a claim about the real world can't be established through science, then "establishing" it any other way involves at best a lowering of standards and at worst just pulling stuff out of your butt.

So while science is ignorant of all sorts of things, there's basically no room for people to legitimately say "I have good reason to come to this conclusion that's 'beyond science'!"

I am not sure where you are coming from? You do understand that contemporary science is in its infancy, that its instruments can only detect less than 5% of the mass of the universe at this time. Science will have to evolve to learn more about 'all that exists', but it is not created to do religion, it was created to learn about the manifested world., not the unmanifested.

I love science, medicine, airplanes, computers, internet, etc., and I love religion, bliss,, esp unfoldment, spiritual evolution, etc..
One deals with the manifested 3D time space material world, and one with unmanifested/eternal non-material existence. They do not overlap in reality, only in the minds of mankind.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I do not understand what you mean? Penguin said that he and science were not aware of everything, that there were things that he and science were not aware of, iow, there are things that cannot be explained by science. I pointed that some "things that cannot be explained by science" may fall under the definition of "supernatural".
Now we can agree that not all claims of things that cannot be explained be science fall correctly under the concept of supernatural, there is delusion, lying, deceiving, etc., but you can't possibly say/believe that all claims of supernatural are not genuine because science in this case is unaware of it.
Iow, if you and science do not know everything that exists, it follows logically that there must something that exists of which you and science are not aware of.
Do you understand what is being said?

Sorry. I read your line as "has the right", not, as you actually wrote, "has it right."

Nevertheless, they don't have it right because it "may turn out to be true", they are right to include it because it's an accurate reflection of how some use the word.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure where you are coming from? You do understand that contemporary science is in its infancy, that its instruments can only detect less than 5% of the mass of the universe at this time.

Can you name any reliable process that can add to our understanding of reality but that isn't under the umbrella of "science"?

Science will have to evolve to learn more about 'all that exists', but it is not created to do religion, it was created to learn about the manifested world., not the unmanifested.

How would we go about telling the difference between "the unmanifested world" and "non-existent stuff someone made up"?

I love science, medicine, airplanes, computers, internet, etc., and I love religion, bliss,, esp unfoldment, spiritual evolution, etc..
One deals with the manifested 3D time space material world, and one with unmanifested/eternal non-material existence. They do not overlap in reality, only in the minds of mankind.

Sounds like one deals with measurable reality and the other one can't be supported by evidence. Do you agree?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you name any reliable process that can add to our understanding of reality but that isn't under the umbrella of "science"?



How would we go about telling the difference between "the unmanifested world" and "non-existent stuff someone made up"?


Sounds like one deals with measurable reality and the other one can't be supported by evidence. Do you agree?

Observation, contemplation, meditation, all help to understand what one is in the context of all that exists.

It does not need to be just a collective, it is the individual who has the responsibility to learn the difference between the manifest and the unmanifest, and then one is able to discern reality as it is, not having to rely on someone else's belief or claim.

Partially, I would express it thus, one deals with duality, involving the measurable 5% of reality, the other deals with non-manifested reality, involving a non-dualistic process such as meditation. Btw, if you have never learned to meditate, the process involves the suspension of thought, having a mind that is still, and it is plain silly to imagine that such non-dual states of mind could be subject to analysis by the dualistic mind approach that applies to daily life and science.