Maybe angels use anti-gravity devices; then their small wings (as seen in most paintings) would be for maneuvering and not lift! My assumption is that God is able to make anti-gravity devices that he then distributes to the angels.
Are angels natural or supernatural?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Are you aware of the laws of nature in its entirety?
I don't how anything flies, let alone angels.
How is mechanism important (in the context of the thread) again?
jan.
Yes, but many of us do. Airplanes fly via straightforward applications of physics (i.e. natural laws.) Angels fly with the power of God, which is a supernatural force (by definition.)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm not familiar with the "grey" distinction so, if they exist, they would just be aliens.
You agree that angels are supernatural so what is the point of this thread?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Well, to our knowledge, the first winged being was an insect, millions of years before Zeus turned himself into a swan and copulated with a human.. Strange days indeed.
On second thought, that would be the first recorded immaculate conception!
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I suspect that daily handling of hemp might have something to do with that.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If we can apply the word natural to anything we fancy, whether it exists or not, whether we can conceive of it or not, then the word has no meaning.
Why stop with angels? We can simply declare that magic - and even God itself - are part of the natural world.
And if that's so, then the word natural simply means everything we can conceive of and everything we can't conceive of - everything that exists and everything that does not exist.
And supernatural then has no meaning at all. There is nothing that exists or does not exist that falls outside the category of natural.
This is not what natural and supernatural convey in our language. They do have meaning. Thus the idea that anything can be called natural has been shown to be a paradox - proof by contradiction that natural and supernatural are both meaningful.
The quote above is a silly semantic argument where, if someone plays around with the words enough, they can retcon what they said into something that doesn't seem to them to be utter nonsense. No one else is fooled.
Last edited:
From my perspective nothing at all, including the laws of nature, occurs without the power of God. So for me supernatural is merely a perspective.
jan.
That is how I regard angels.
I didn't start this thread, and I have no idea why James gave it this title.
jan.
Jan Ardena:
Recall that your initial claim was that angels are not supernatural beings, and specifically that they are "subject to natural laws".
I, and others, pointed out that the descriptions of angels have them doing things that are seemingly impossible according to natural laws. Moreover, the description of angels as "heavenly beings" or "messengers of God", along with various other characteristics, puts them squarely in the category of supernatural beings.
Are you saying angels can't fly, now?
I have pointed out that an angel, as commonly depicted as a being that looks like a human, with or without wings, would have no "natural" means of flying.
If you can think of how such an angel could fly by natural means (other than in a plane or otherwise mechanically assisted, obviously), please tell us all.
So we can agree now that angels, as supernatural beings, are not subject to natural laws, contrary to what you originally claimed?
Recall that your initial claim was that angels are not supernatural beings, and specifically that they are "subject to natural laws".
I, and others, pointed out that the descriptions of angels have them doing things that are seemingly impossible according to natural laws. Moreover, the description of angels as "heavenly beings" or "messengers of God", along with various other characteristics, puts them squarely in the category of supernatural beings.
Well, I thought you did.
Are you saying angels can't fly, now?
I see. So, let's concentrate on the ones who can, if we're going to talk about flying angels. Makes sense, doesn't it?
That's a fairly obvious statement, isn't it? We have birds and planes, for instance, which I think we can both agree are natural.
I have pointed out that an angel, as commonly depicted as a being that looks like a human, with or without wings, would have no "natural" means of flying.
If you can think of how such an angel could fly by natural means (other than in a plane or otherwise mechanically assisted, obviously), please tell us all.
Flying without some physical means of keep you up in the air is a supernatural act.
Oh, I thought that was precisely the claim you were making.
So we can agree now that angels, as supernatural beings, are not subject to natural laws, contrary to what you originally claimed?
Maybe they don't even exist, so it's not a problem and you don't have to worry about it.
Indeed, you seem to hold simultaneous contradictory views about them.
Even though they are supernatural? Why so?
Where do angels live when we can't see them?
I must have missed your ideas. Could you please list them again, briefly?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Maybe we could use some clarity about the progress of this thread.
The opening post quotes you as questioning why they must be supernatural.
Why question a thing of which you are already convinced?
If we all agree they're supernatural, what is the basis of contention in this thread?
The opening post quotes you as questioning why they must be supernatural.
Why question a thing of which you are already convinced?
If we all agree they're supernatural, what is the basis of contention in this thread?
This needn't be an existence issue. But if you can't get passed that then this topic isn't for you.
I agree. Anything that occurs in the natural world has to at least be able to occur through the medium of nature, for it to happen.
Where in nature do we find beauty, love, trust, ideas, happiness, laughter, and so on?
To me, 'natural' has a meaning, but 'supernatural is a perspective.
If you claim that nature is limited, then it stands to reason you know the limitations. Why wouldn't it?
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It is if the laws of nature constrain mass and wing surface to exclude human-sized operators.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a non-answer.
When you asked if we knew the full extent of the laws of nature, your next line of logic would surely be that angels can fly by some as-yet unknown law.
Which means you can say natural includes anything we can think of.
That is not what natural means.
They are emergent properies of a complex neural system, which is made of atoms.
'to me' is not a debate issue; it's a personal thing, objectively indefensible.
You are welcome to modify your own definitions of things in your own thoughts, but to assert them as a point of debate requires they be defensible.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Only that the term "supernatural" is a contradiction.
The proper mathematical term is 'metaphysical" and that perspective is scientifically defensible.