This is a brief excerpt of a conversation I had (edited for brevity) where I laid out the basics of a generalized anti-supernaturalism principle. I had to share this because of a comment at the end that I found absolutely beautiful. It tickles all the logic circuits just right that it still makes me smile. It’s fractally brilliant, IMHO.
(italics are not-me)
So you believe there is a universe where 2 + 2 = 4 or the law of noncontradiction does not obtain? Ok, you are free to believe that. But if you are wrong, I am sure that you can see that there is an order of existence beyond nature and that therefore the supernatural exists.
If there was a universe where two and two things was not the same as four things, or a universe where something could both be something and NOT that thing, then THAT would be proof of the supernatural. That is basically what the definition of supernatural IS.
If you believe there can’t be a universe where 2 and 2 isn’t the same as 4, and you claim to believe in the supernatural, you are contradicting yourself.
can you give any explanation for why the true definition of supernatural is belief in logical contradiction?
Because anything less is simply naturalism that we don’t understand yet. That sort of god is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced alien life. Knowing enough about how reality works to manipulate it in ways that allow you to fly in metal transports, or communicate with someone on the other side of the planet nearly instantly, is not supernaturalism, it’s just applied naturalism. Knowing enough about reality to materialize a unicorn in a church or alter the gravitational constant in a localized area is not supernaturalism, it is just applied naturalism. Any god who is logically consistent can, with enough study, be emulated by man. He does not, in principle, have access to any aspect of reality that is beyond the reach of sufficiently advanced natural creatures.
Thus the only form of supernaturalism that isn’t reducible to applied naturalism is that of literally impossible contradiction. Which is what is generally implied by magic claims. Otherwise they wouldn’t be “magic”, just “technology”.
Do you see the irony in complaining about the logical contradiction of people who claim not to believe in the possibility of logical contradiction but also believe in the supernatural (ie the possibility of logical contradiction)?
This is a brief excerpt of a conversation I had (edited for brevity) where I laid out the basics of a generalized anti-supernaturalism principle. I had to share this because of a comment at the end that I found absolutely beautiful. It tickles all the logic circuits just right that it still makes me smile. It’s fractally brilliant, IMHO.
(italics are not-me)
So you believe there is a universe where 2 + 2 = 4 or the law of noncontradiction does not obtain? Ok, you are free to believe that. But if you are wrong, I am sure that you can see that there is an order of existence beyond nature and that therefore the supernatural exists.
If there was a universe where two and two things was not the same as four things, or a universe where something could both be something and NOT that thing, then THAT would be proof of the supernatural. That is basically what the definition of supernatural IS.
If you believe there can’t be a universe where 2 and 2 isn’t the same as 4, and you claim to believe in the supernatural, you are contradicting yourself.
can you give any explanation for why the true definition of supernatural is belief in logical contradiction?
Because anything less is simply naturalism that we don’t understand yet. That sort of god is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced alien life. Knowing enough about how reality works to manipulate it in ways that allow you to fly in metal transports, or communicate with someone on the other side of the planet nearly instantly, is not supernaturalism, it’s just applied naturalism. Knowing enough about reality to materialize a unicorn in a church or alter the gravitational constant in a localized area is not supernaturalism, it is just applied naturalism. Any god who is logically consistent can, with enough study, be emulated by man. He does not, in principle, have access to any aspect of reality that is beyond the reach of sufficiently advanced natural creatures.
Thus the only form of supernaturalism that isn’t reducible to applied naturalism is that of literally impossible contradiction. Which is what is generally implied by magic claims. Otherwise they wouldn’t be “magic”, just “technology”.
Do you see the irony in complaining about the logical contradiction of people who claim not to believe in the possibility of logical contradiction but also believe in the supernatural (ie the possibility of logical contradiction)?