RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
Point 1 through 3 would be the points of contention for someone arguing for the supernatural.
By its definition, "nature" is the physical world, while "supernatural" is whatever beyond it. It is conceptually consistent, though it does not mean that such thing can exist physically, like invisible pink unicorns.
Nothing that exists IN nature can defy the laws of nature. If it's supernatural, it won't be bound by the laws of nature as long as it does not cross into the natural world.
If you consider truth to be existence in the natural world then you're right. But if the supernatural object only exists in the supernatural realm, then you can't apply the rules of the natural world to it.
So, a supernatural object can only exist in a supernatural world, but once it crosses into the natural world it has to play by the natural world's rules. However, the fact that it is possible to cross or affect the natural world would mean that the supernatural object's world is part of the natural world in the first place, because if a connection can be established, then the supernatural is not SUPER(above or beyond)natural anymore.
Therefore, the point is: The supernatural cannot exist or affect the natural world, or it would lose its very definition. The supernatural can exist only in the supernatural world or another worlds that's separate from the natural world, one of which is our imagination.
Permalink Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:01:49 UTC | #948976