================= Arch; Most of Bible[except Gospel of John] is written to Gods people; think you should understand all of my love letters to a loved one?????????????????????????? . I think you wouldnt, & shouldnt. Epimenides WHO????????????????; Titus was writtrn to by Paul ,Titus chapter1 Would that be fair to conclude you are not real because that sentence of yours is ''opaque and confusong''?????????????? And was there some reson you left off the rest; Cretians are always liars, slow bellies, evil beasts.
The bible is actully more confusing to believers than nonbelievers. Think about it. And by the way, when you manage to clear away the thicket of maddeningly complex doctrinal issues that every denomination and sect still struggle with to this day, let me know.
Supernatural beings' existence or inexistence can neither be proven nor disproven by science, for supernaturality, by definition, lies beyond the realm of science. Supernaturality can not be a "scientific object", if you will. The atheist and the believer can not rest on science to justify their faith. So you're losing your time...
Perhaps God doesn't heal amputees because the act of amputation is the exercise of man's free will to amputate. Had the victim perhaps used his free will to pray hard enough the limb would have been healed and amputation would have not been necessary.
It's nothing to do with being proven or science. There simply cannot be a supernatural anything which exists.
I don't think you are describing free will. The ability to make a decision which holds consequences you cannot be free to decide over, is not free will.
This statement can not be proven nor disproven, so if it is to backed up it will be with something else than science. Can it make sense to use in one sentence "supernatural" and "(not) to exist"? maybe we re just hitting the limits of language here...
Perhaps it is to do with language, more specifically meaning and definition. For there is nothing in existence which can be supernatural. Should something exist, then it is not supernatural. QED.
We agree on that. You're free to define "existence" and "supernatural" as contradictory terms. But you can't back it up. All you can do is share this usage with other people. Indeed, this holds true also of my definition of "existence" and "supernatural" as non contradictory terms. When I refered to "the limit of language", that's also what I meant, these "language games". note: My mother tongue is obviously not English - it's French. But to the best of my knowledge, "supernatural" and "existence" are used in the same wayS in English and French, so our disagreement isn't due to a...language issue!! For reference, 2 excerpts from the Merriam-Webster: 1. existence 2 entries found for existence. To select an entry, click on it. Main Entry: ex·is·tence Pronunciation: ig-'zis-t&n(t)s Function: noun 1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven -- John Keats> d : sentient or living being : LIFE 2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds> b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect 3 : actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war> 2. supernatural One entry found for supernatural. Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature 1 : 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 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
I do not say existence and supernatural are contrary terms or that they are not. I simply say when something exists it is not supernatural. I also state quite separately, there can actually be nothing supernatural. Therefore when being specific, a term is not contrary or non-contrary to supernatural, as I say there can be nothing supernatural to begin with. Two separate but clear statements and in my view, one proves the other. I do not agree it is a language problem, but more to do with language's definitions and meanings. You will indeed have to play word games in order to attach indefinable meanings and nuances to those two words. This is what I suspect is the case. Even though you reference dictionary definitions for them, to my mind the terminology used already appears to have attached assumptions, which cannot work within the very definitions themselves. Supernatural is at best a flowery aphorism only for things fanciful.