701ecilana:

Look at this one. So inviting you to a discussion is an insult where you come from?

Biko, it's not only cussing you'll be doing on Niaraland. Engage in a discussion.

Oh so when you said slotting with men and women what was that supposed to mean? You want to play dumb?

LightandDarkness:


So those weren't insults? Your conversations in RL must be so pleasant if those weren't insults to you

Izit a lie?

BlueAngel444:


How can life be dead?

You believe that a dead Jewish man that lived 2000 years ago is still alive abi?

1Sharon:


Oh so when you said slotting with men and women what was that supposed to mean? You want to play dumb?

Okay, sorry about that. Now contribute.

701ecilana:

Okay, sorry about that. Now contribute.

FOH

dalaman:


You believe that a dead Jewish[b] man that lives 2000 years[/b] ago is still alive abi?

Well you seem to believe more than I, He lives

butterflylion:


Same question rephrased, why would it not be a supernatural phenomenon?

Is there evidence out there that suggests it has to be a natural occurrence when natural explanations are never ever sufficient?

I cannot answer this until you explain what you mean by Natural vs supernatural.

Personally I feel that ghosts are superdingdongs.

PastorAIO:


I cannot answer this until you explain what you mean by Natural vs supernatural.

Personally I feel that ghosts are superdingdongs.

Read the OP again my definitions are there.

butterflylion:


Read the OP again my definitions are there.

I think that you might you might have missed my first post on this thread. esp. where I said this:

@OP, I think that your definition of natural might be circular. In fact I haven't heard of a rigorous definition of naturalism in all the long decades of my life.

Even those things you term as 'ghosts' etc are not necessarily supernatural or unnatural however you define it. Why? Because the brain, a 'natural' organ, 'naturally' works to create hallucinations all the time.

If you define natural as anything that can be explained with the knowledge we have then the fact that something seems supernatural may yet turn out to be quite natural once you've found a way to explain it.

https://www.nairaland.com/3994487/atheists-believe-supernatural-please-come#59567037

butterflylion:


Same question rephrased, why would it not be a supernatural phenomenon?

How about subnatural? I actually think it is more likely to be a subnatural that henimenjb.

PastorAIO:


How about subnatural? I actually think it is more likely to be a subnatural that henimenjb.

Define subnatural and offer me your own definition of natural which isn't circular

BlueAngel444:


Well you seem to believe more than I, He lives

It was just a typo. Jesus lived 2000 years ago and died but you believe he is still alive. If I ask you to tell me where he is and demonstrate clearly how he is alive you'll start blabbing.

butterflylion:


Define subnatural and offer me your own definition of natural which isn't circular

butterflylion:


Super in supernatural creates a gulf of separation from what natural is. Super is a higher form of natural

Subnatural is a gulf away from natural whereby the sub is a lower form of natural.

I think you missed my post where I said in all the long years of my life I have never heard a succinct definition of Nature vis a vis Supernature.
I am of the opinion that such terminology is just fuddyduddy thinking.
I don't know if it was you earlier who said that Natural was phenomenon that we can explain and Supernatural was phenomenon we couldn't explain. This is analogous to a 'God of the gaps' definition of god.

PastorAIO:





Subnatural is a gulf away from natural whereby the sub is a lower form of natural.

I think you missed my post where I said in all the long years of my life I have never heard a succinct definition of Nature vis a vis Supernature.
I am of the opinion that such terminology is just fuddyduddy thinking.
I don't know if it was you earlier who said that Natural was phenomenon that we can explain and Supernatural was phenomenon we couldn't explain. This is analogous to a 'God of the gaps' definition of god.

Please stick to the discussion. God of the gaps or anything close isn't my aim. A nice intelligent discussion is all I aim for.

If you do not know if such is even meaningful and you call it fuddyduddy and then push forward what you think which is also fuddyduddy as it stands today then where is the sense you are making?

butterflylion:


Please stick to the discussion. God of the gaps or anything close isn't my aim. A nice intelligent discussion is all I aim for.

If you do not know if such is even meaningful and you call it fuddyduddy and then push forward what you think which is also fuddyduddy as it stands today then where is the sense you are making?

Well, defining Nature as anything you can explain and Supernatural as what you cannot explain sounds like 'god of the gaps' to me. That therefore means that as knowledge increases then what is considered Natural will expand while what is supernatural will get less and less.

dalaman:

It was just a typo. Jesus lived 2000 years ago and died but you believe he is still alive. If I ask you to tell me where he is and demonstrate clearly how he is alive you'll start blabbing.

Bla bla bla

BlueAngel444:
ì


Bla bla bla

Just as I said.

PastorAIO:


Well, defining Nature as anything you can explain and Supernatural as what you cannot explain sounds like 'god of the gaps' to me. That therefore means that as knowledge increases then what is considered Natural will expand while what is supernatural will get less and less.

So knowledge can be pure even when knowledge often does not compare itself for approval?

Without even looking at ghosts or the supernatural in such a big way and we choose to look at it from a small angle when we refer to human consciousness, there are scientific studies today which show the consciousness is not brain based and exists outside the brain.

Is it not safe to say that we can get to the place of knowledge where it is absolutely true that consciousness is not dependant on the brain which would then give credence to spirituality and what we term as ghost ?

butterflylion:


So knowledge can be pure even when knowledge often does not compare itself for approval?

Without even looking at ghosts or the supernatural in such a big way and we choose to look at it from a small angle when we refer to human consciousness, there are scientific studies today which show the consciousness is not brain based and exists outside the brain.

Is it not safe to say that we can get to the place of knowledge where it is absolutely true that consciousness is not dependant on the brain which would then give credence to spirituality and what we term as ghost ?

I don 't disagree that consciousness is not brain based. But that has no bearing on anything else, whether it be ghosts or spirituality.

I am afraid that I might begin to sound haughty or too bigfor my boots on thismatter. I don't mean to. The problem is that I've thrashed this issue out over and over again on nairaland a long time ago.

It has taken a while but I have found a thread in which I discussed much on this Nature/Supernatural matter. I'll re-post some of the posts and the links for you to read. I also offered some definitions of Natural vs supernatural in the posts.

PastorAIO:


I don 't disagree that consciousness is not brain based. But that has no bearing on anything else, whether it be ghosts or spirituality.

I am afraid that I might begin to sound haughty or too bigfor my boots on thismatter. I don't mean to. The problem is that I've thrashed this issue out over and over again on nairaland a long time ago.

It has taken a while but I have found a thread in which I discussed much on this Nature/Supernatural matter. I'll re-post some of the posts and the links for you to read. I also offered some definitions of Natural vs supernatural in the posts.

Be sure you include that they are purely your thoughts

PastorAIO:


I don 't disagree that consciousness is not brain based. But that has no bearing on anything else, whether it be ghosts or spirituality.

If consiouness is not brain based then can it exist without the brain? Has any body that has been certified brain dead demonstrated any clear consious ability?

butterflylion:


Be sure you include that they are purely your thoughts

No wahala! I did exactly that, way back in 2009. What I found shocking with the fact that my fellow discussant was comfortable with using the term without a tight definition.

This is a very excellent line of enquiry. What is the Supernatural? intimately bound to this is obviously the question what is the natural. Without a clear definition of what natural is how can we say what is super-natural, super meaning 'over' or above. To know what is above the natural it is necessary to first know what the natural is.

Note, even if we do not know every natural phenomenon that exists we can still say what features it will have to have in order to be considered a natural event.

To answer you questions for the moment I would say

1) As we know natural events (whatever those are) via our faculties of perception tuned to the natural, if there is a supernatural world then we must have faculties capable of perceiving it.

2) That depends entirely on what you consider to be natural and what you would consider to be supernatural.

3) Again would depend on what definitions you were using for these terms.

4) When you have a proper definition of the natural and you witness an event that is not yet understood yet exhibits the features associated with natural phenomena then you can say that it is a natural event. If it has features associated with supernatural events then it is supernatural.

One definition of Naturalism says that every event has a cause that is based on the material world. All causal agents are material. But that has difficulties. What is Matter? etc.

Perhaps if you gave us a definition of Nature and Natural cause then implicit in that definition will be the definition of Supernaturalism.

https://www.nairaland.com/280962/what-supernatural#3990511

dalaman:


Of consiouness is not brain based then can it exist without the brain? Has any body that has been certified brain dead demonstrated any clear consious ability?

Simply put, consciousness is something the brain accesses but does not generate! consciousness is something applied to the brain, not generated by it.

I hope that's simple enough.

butterflylion:


Simply put, consciousness is something the brain accesses but does not generate! consciousness is something applied to the brain, not generated by it.

I hope that's simple enough.

What generates consciousness and how can it be clearly demonstrated?

OK, let me give you an idea.  Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1)  An apple

2)  A rump of steak

3)  A ghost

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) Angels

7) Jinn

8.)  Fairies

9)  UFO

10)  Light

11)  Stigmata

12)  ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14)  Thunder and lightening

15)  Mami water

You see Huxley, it seems that you are quite confused.  Pretty much everything that you've mentioned above it stuff.  When you talk about naturalism or supernaturalism are you talking about stuff or are you talking about PROCESSES.

Stuff is stuff.  It can undergo natural processes or it can undergo supernatural processes.  WAter is water.  If it runs down hill you might say that is natural.  If it runs uphill you might say that is un natural or supernatural. 

For example, Crop circles exist. That's a fact. The How they came to exist is what might rely on naturalistic or supernatural explanation.

That is why it is important to know what you are talking about when you talk about naturalism.  Are you referring to substances or processes? 

The terms are usually used to refer to processes and Causality.  So you have natural causes and you have supernatural causes. 

Is this what you mean when you talk about natural?  Is so then you will still have to define what makes a process natural as opposed to supernatural?  Perhaps by saying for example that Natural causes occur prior to an event in time.  That way we know that an event that occurs tomorrow cannot influence what happens today, if it did that would be supernatural.  That's just an hint.


https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/5#3998952

What qualities would 'non-stuff' have to distinguish it from stuff?  You're gonna have to do a lot better man.  you're just throwing words about without presenting a rigorous system.  

I'll help you out a bit again.  Would you say that stuff (natural stuff) would have to occupy space and time?  Ie would it have to be extended in Space and exist for a span of time?  Yes or no?  I just wanna help you define Nature.

https://www.nairaland.com/279631/why-not-atheist/5#3999117

701ecilana:

It's not gbam. Contribute intelligibly. Men are talking, if you are a man, talk along. Stop hiding with gbam.

Shey wan bí sórí mo ẹja ní??

Dem send you to me neh

adepeter2027:

Shey wan bí sórí mo ẹja ní??

Dem send you to me neh

Me? Someone can send me to you? To get what from you nah? I just noticed that you hardly engage anyone in a consistent and coherent discussion, so i decided to urge you to do so, so that we can learn something from you.

Sometimes we shd fight, but it shouldn't be all the time nah. Now, lets talk.

So, contribute.

701ecilana:

Me? Someone can send me to you?

Then get behind me you Satan

To get what from you nah?

Ọ̀pá Mósè naw

I just noticed that you hardly engage anyone in a consistent and coherent discussion,

Really A beg me no get time for long stories again.

@bold
Consistent and coherent discussion ain't worth it on this section jàre.
It doesn't pay.

so i decided to urge you to do so,

Monitoring spirit.

so that we can learn something from you.

Too many insincere fellow on this section. I have done that in the past already with my other moniker that got banned.

Sometimes we shd fight, but it shouldn't be all the time nah. Now, lets talk.

Wow, analice yaff changed óò.
That's good but miss, I'm lazy currently when it comes to composition

So, contribute.

Sorry dearie

Still waiting for what generates consciousness.

adepeter2027:

Then get behind me you Satan

Ọ̀pá Mósè naw

Really A beg me no get time for long stories again.

@bold
Consistent and coherent discussion ain't worth it on this section jàre.
It doesn't pay.

Monitoring spirit.

Too many insincere fellow on this section. I have done that in the past already with my other moniker that got banned.

Wow, analice yaff changed óò.
That's good but miss, I'm lazy currently when it comes to composition

Sorry dearie

Hahahahahahaha. Wait!!! So you think i fight all the time? Naaa. You guys turned me to abl Tiger, now i have decided to just shun you guys. This banter didn't originate with us and won't end with us.

Atheists from Nietzsche and Voltair have been demanding for God to show himself physically b4 they'd believe him.

But he had already done so once, they still didn't believe because it wasn't done according to their terms and conditions. God showed himself in the person of Christ, and that was according to His own terms not man's. No man can command God. You no well?

Satan himself didn't believe God could do it so he went for confirmation demanding that Christ did his biddings, by demanding that Christ turn stones to bread if he were the son of God, he failed yet again.

We'd either take it according to his terms or reject it and hope we are right at the end. But if we are wrong...

We are here bantering over whether God exists or not,
after we are gone, if Christ tarries, our offspring shall banter about it, till Christ Raptures his Church, it won't end. And God will keep being God.

So, i'd rather teach those who wld want to learn than banter obstinate ones who would rather scorn than listen. After all salvation is not for everyone.

Satan has his Seed right from the start, so no matter what anyone does, the fallen will never rise.


Shalom.

dalaman:


If consiouness is not brain based then can it exist without the brain? Has any body that has been certified brain dead demonstrated any clear consious ability?

Yes, I believe that consciousness can exist without the brain.

I don't believe that anybody has demonstrated consciousness with or without a certified dead brain. I do not believe that even you have demonstrated any 'conscious ability'.

although I suspect that you and I are talking about different things when we refer to Consciousness.