Are angels natural or supernatural?

[Jan Ardena]

Recall that your initial claim was that angels are not supernatural beings, and specifically that they are "subject to natural laws".

Can you quote me on that?

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.

I accept that they are supernatural to the perception of most people. But would like you to tell me what about their actions are supernatural, and why?

Are you saying angels can't fly, now?

I don't know if they can fly, but if they can, what is supernatural about that?

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.

The first thing to get out the way is that they aren't human.

Flying without some physical means of keep you up in the air is a supernatural act.

If they can fly, then they have a physical means. Comparing them to humans does nothing to advance the discussion.

Oh, I thought that was precisely the claim you were making.

Quote where I made that claim.

So we can agree now that angels, as supernatural beings, are not subject to natural laws, contrary to what you originally claimed?

What is it about the term supernatural that makes not subject to natural law?

attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

of,relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD)[1][2] includes all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other supernatural beings, or to things beyond nature.

The adjective form of supernatural describes anything that pertains to or is caused by something that can't be explained by the laws of nature.

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. Every one ôf these definitions are in relation either to the reaches of science or human limitation.

Why would you think those limitations account for the whole of material nature?

Even though they are supernatural? Why so?

Because they are made/created.

Where do angels live when we can't see them?

I don't know.

I must have missed your ideas. Could you please list them again, briefly?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-angels-natural-or-supernatural.158581/#post-3427553

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is if the laws of nature constrain mass and wing surface to exclude human-sized operators.

They're not humans, so it's pointless comparing them.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is a non-answer.

It's not an answer. It is a suggestion.

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.

The next line should be: No. We don't know the full extent of the laws of nature.

They are emergent properies of a complex neural system, which is made of atoms.

You believe they are.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Only that the term "supernatural" is a contradiction.
The proper mathematical term is 'metaphysical" and that perspective is scientifically defensible.

Why didn't just say that?

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think folk are forgetting something.
Angels are not real they are mere fantasy and as objects of fantasy can have any attribute you give them.
Make up an angel it can be whatever you want just remember it is fictional there is no need to treat it as real.
Anyone is free to make up what they wish but it will always be fiction.
Alex

 

[gmilam]

I think folk are forgetting something.
Angels are not real they are mere fantasy and as objects of fantasy can have any attribute you give them.
Make up an angel it can be whatever you want just remember it is fictional there is no need to treat it as real.
Anyone is free to make up what they wish but it will always be fiction.
Alex

Next thing you know, they will start discussing how many can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Next thing you know, they will start discussing how many can dance on the head of a pin.

Now that is a great question.
I raises yet another aspect of the story.
Can your angel change size?
Well of course they must be able to change size to get any on a pin.
But what is worrying is the fact that they are dancing..personally I can not see my angel engaging in such frivolous persuits.
I submit if anyone saw angels dancing on a pin head they probably were witnessing fairies who are much more likely to be dancing because they are known to be playful.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

Angels are not real they are mere fantasy and as objects of fantasy can have any attribute you give them.

I know you are a pragmatic one but, part of the unspoken proviso of this thread is that we play Devil's Advocate. For the sake of argument we assume angels are not imaginary, then what are they, to those who would defend them?

The response "They're not real. Why is this even a thing?" is not in the spirit of the thread. (see what I did there?)

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I know you are a pragmatic one but, part of the unspoken proviso of this thread is that we play Devil's Advocate. For the sake of argument we assume angels are not imaginary, then what are they, to those who would defend them?

The response "They're not real. Why is this even a thing?" is not in the spirit of the thread. (see what I did there?)

Yes I know and thanks for reminding me.

I am just a nuts and bolts sortta guy with probably an emphasis on "nuts".

I turned 70 the other day so put it down to getting old and cranky.

So we play with our food rather than eat it ...no problem

Alex

 

[Kristoffer]

Next thing you know, they will start discussing how many can dance on the head of a pin.

27 iirc.

 

[James R]

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.

Weasel words.

What you say would include any supernatural being (ghosts, God, spirits, demons, angels, poltergeists etc.) that (supposedly) produces physical effects in the world, since physical effects are always based in the "medium of nature".

What you are asserting, therefore, is that angels, being supernatural beings, are at the same time "natural" because they interact with the natural world.

Where we started with this was your claim that angels are bound by natural laws. However, if we accept that angels are supernatural beings (which we can define as beings who have any supernatural nature or powers), then clearly they are not bound by natural laws.

Where in nature do we find beauty, love, trust, ideas, happiness, laughter, and so on?

Beauty, love, trust and happiness are all intangibles - ideas and opinions that natural beings (such as humans) have. Laughter is an activity that natural beings such as humans sometimes engage in.

What any of this has to do with supernatural angels is a mystery.

To me, 'natural' has a meaning, but supernatural is a perspective.

Weasel words.

You're trying to redefine the supernatural as natural.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's not an answer. It is a suggestion.

Precisely. In leiu of an actual answer.

The next line should be: No. We don't know the full extent of the laws of nature.

And the response would be "so what"?

Saying something magical or supernatural (or other) is "natural", rationalizing that we don't know what natural is, is non-sensical. It still leads to the same absurd conclusion: anything and everything could then be classified as natural, whether it exists or not, whether we imagine it or not. Tat is clearly an attempt to redefine the terms, or better yet, obfuscate clarity.

You believe they are.

Another non-answer. I have evidence.
If you believe they are not, you'll have to support that with evidence.

Your whole ploy here (and elsewhere) is to dance around words. To equivocate. You aim is not to prevail in the debate, or make a point; it is simply to insert as much uncertainty of ideas (by equivovating on established terminology) that you hope for a stalemate. This is transparent.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Can you quote me on that?

Here's a novel idea: you can just tell me what you believe.

Here, I'll make it easy for you and phrase it as a simple yes/no question:

Are angels supernatural or natural beings?

I accept that they are supernatural to the perception of most people. But would like you to tell me what about their actions are supernatural, and why?

I already gave you two examples: flying and appearing/vanishing at will. In the case of flying, I explained the problem to you.

I don't know if they can fly, but if they can, what is supernatural about that?

If angels can't fly, where do they exist, Jan? How do they travel around? Do they have cars, or aircraft? Do they walk from place to place? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do these "natural" creatures exist?

The first thing to get out the way is that they aren't human.

So, a different natural species, then? Is that what you're saying?

What did they evolve from?
What do they eat?
Where do they live?

If they can fly, then they have a physical means.

But you don't know whether they can fly or not.

Why are angels so often depicted with wings, Jan? Are their wings useless?

Comparing them to humans does nothing to advance the discussion.

I'm comparing them to natural things. That's what you were doing, too, was it not?

What is it about the term supernatural that makes not subject to natural law?

attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

of,relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD)[1][2] includes all that cannot be explained by science or the laws of nature, including things characteristic of or relating to ghosts, gods, or other supernatural beings, or to things beyond nature.

The adjective form of supernatural describes anything that pertains to or is caused by something that can't be explained by the laws of nature.

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. Every one ôf these definitions are in relation either to the reaches of science or human limitation.[

Why would you think those limitations account for the whole of material nature?

They needn't account for the whole of material nature. But, as I have already shown, certain claimed properties of angels are inconsistent with known natural laws.

Because they are made/created.

But in any case, it appears you now agree that angels are supernatural. Is that correct? You've posted a whole lot of definitions of "supernatural", and you're claiming that angels correspond to those definitions. So...?

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-angels-natural-or-supernatural.158581/#post-3427553

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/are-angels-natural-or-supernatural.158581/page-2#post-3427572

 

[DaveC426913]

If angels can't fly, where do they exist, Jan? How do they travel around? Do they have cars, or aircraft? Do they walk from place to place? Where do they live? What do they eat? How do these "natural" creatures exist?
So, a different natural species, then? Is that what you're saying?
What did they evolve from?
What do they eat?
Where do they live?

We know he will not answer. His intent is not to arrive at a meeting of minds, but to simply cloud the issues to a standstill. That's his personal victory condition.

If this were not true, he would have the courage of his convictions, and state his own logic, without equivocation, for challenge.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What you are asserting, therefore, is that angels, being supernatural beings, are at the same time "natural" because they interact with the natural world.

I just gave list of various definitions of supernatural. Where does it suggest outside of nature?

above; in extended space over and not touching.
at a higher level or layer.
in,at,or to a higher place.
in or to a higher position than something else:

beyond; at or to the further side of.
further away in the distance (than something):
past a place or outside an are.
further away than something else.

You're trying to redefine the supernatural as natural.

I'm defining the supernatural as a perspective.
How do you define it?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just gave list of various waffle words of supernatural.

Corrected.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm defining the supernatural as

You don't get to.

 

[James R]

Jan:

Why does every discussion with you have to turn into an attempt by you to redefine terms that everybody else understands?

supernatural (a.):
1. Not subject to explanation according to natural laws.
2. Not physical or material.
3. Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

supernatural (n.):
1. Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Here's a novel idea: you can just tell me what you believe.

Can you quote me where I claimed that ''angels are not supernatural beings, and specifically that they are "subject to natural laws"

I already gave you two examples: flying and appearing/vanishing at will. In the case of flying, I explained the problem to you.

And you are mistaken as angels aren't humans.
Try again.

So, a different natural species, then? Is that what you're saying?

What did they evolve from?
What do they eat?
Where do they live?

I don't know.

Why are angels so often depicted with wings, Jan? Are their wings useless?

How is this relevant to anything?

I'm comparing them to natural things. That's what you were doing, too, was it not?

No.

Do you think that Angels could possibly exist? Or do you regard their existence as an impossibility?

It's only supernatural until it is understood, then it is natural.

If something is an angel, then it is a angel. Do you agree?
If such a being is an impossibility, then an explanation should ensue.

This is pretty much what inspired you to start this thread, and worst of all, put in my name. Are you harassing me James? I certainly feel as though you are.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's only supernatural until it is understood, then it is natural.

Logical fallacy: false dilemma. The third option is that they are products of the imagination.

We have been treating their existence as granted in this discussion, but the moment you try to assert an either/or we must recall the proviso that it is only for the sake of argument.

If such a being is an impossibility, then an explanation should ensue

Why? Do we have to explan unicorns or leprechauns? Arglebargles?
There are an infinite number of things we can categorize as impossible according to nature. One does not need to explain them. The onus lies with he who tries to explain them as possible in nature.

This is pretty much what inspired you to start this thread, and worst of all, put in my name. Are you harassing me James? I certainly feel as though you are.

You evoke this attention when you continually say things like

I'm defining the supernatural as

So now we have to have a discussion about this sidebar, where you try to redefine things.

If you used the words the rest of us use (that's communicating), we wouldn't need to sidebar -and you wouldn't be basking in all this attention.