DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
[ dupe ]
Are angels natural or supernatural?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The ones you made up, you mean.
Jan, this is not how communication works. You are not arguing in good faith.
A mechanism that operates outside the laws of nature.
If it can not operate according to the laws of nature it is supernatural.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Jan, is English not your native language? Or do you have some recognised cognitive problem? He did not edit your post. He cannot edit your post unless he hacks into the system software. As he points out in the previous post, he compared your statement with a structurally and logically equivalent statement you had made.
Any accepted definition of the words natural and supernatural clearly identify them as being in separate sets: in a Venn diagram their circles would not overlap. Your assertion to the contrary flies in the face of logic, semantics, etymology and common sense. It is, not to put to fine a point on it, incorrect, wrong, flawed, nonsense, foolish, silly, unscientific, false, tomfoolery, balderdash, humbug and crap. Any further attempt to defend the position identifies you as a troll, a fool, a provocateur, or possibly all three.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This was wehat I thought at first too. No, it hs nothing to do with the black/white comment in quotes.
What Jan has is having trouble comnunicating is that his actual words were quoted but truncated, altering the context.
This is what Billvon wrote, quoting jan:
This is what Jan actually wrote:
Billvon's edit (occurring, as it does, in the middle of the sentence) does alter the meaning of Jan's words.
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Very well spotted. Nevertheless subsequent posts by billvon and myself seem clear in showing what had been understood.
However, that said, my apologies to Jan for missing his intent on this occasion.
You purposely edited my quote to give the appearance that I said one thing can simultaneously be another thing.
jan
Can you give an example of a mechanism ''that operates outside the laws of nature''?
jan.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I cannot, for I am unaware of the supernatural existing. Thus I do not accept as plausible, claims of the existence of angels. (Excluding the metphorical variety and they are not supernatural.)
Can you?
Do you accept as plausible that planet earth is the only planet that has life forms?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You're telling me there's a dictionary definition somewhere that says
supernatural - a matter of perspective.
Because, for the umpeenth time, you are making up your own definitions (see above), and then arguing that your assertions are correct based on your re-definition, rather than the agreed-upon term.
I have decided that "angel" to me, means "car". I will now spend 786 posts arguing that angels are everywhere we look.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This commits the fallacy of foregone conclusion. Like this:
I'm not saying leprechauns are imaginary or real.
I'm stating that if they are imaginary, then by definition they will be real, once they are observed, because imaginary doesn't define their nature.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What you have just asserted, above, is that angels have not yet been observed.
They are supernatural until observed, then they stop being supernatural.
Essentially, you've just defined "supernatural" as equivalent to "imaginary".
That's awesome.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I don't accept it. I have been arguing for some years that it is entirely plausible. (Acceptance implies I've bowed to someone else's opinion. I also think it is unlikely. However, more strongly than either of these views, I think that any attempt to estimate is of no practical value until we have more data.
What I am not clear of is what possible relevance my answer can have to a discussion of angels.
What you have just asserted, above, is that angels have not yet been observed.
They are supernatural until observed, then they stop being supernatural.
Essentially, you've just defined "supernatural" as equivalent to "imaginary".
That's awesome.
I'm not bothered that you think angels are imaginary.
I was actually using the definition of supernatural, which generally refer being above or beyond nature, and not observable by science, or ordinary senses.
Jan.
Last edited:
Because if you think it plausible that life could exist elsewhere, then the existence of angels could be plausible.
Jan.