Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophane
By definition, ghosts are supernatural (beyond science). You'd have to acknowledge the existence of the superenatural before accepting the existence of ghosts or spirits. But an atheist would cease to be an atheist in the strictest sense of he/she acknowledged the existence of the supernatural.
|
hmmm...Can I put it this way. You believe god is in all things right? There is no separation...I feel god when I'm involve in scientific theory and application. I feel what almost is an outta my body sensation when a wild thought pops up in my head seemingly unrelated to what was at hand (like some equation).
I've cease being an atheist because I want to study an event you call supernatural but I call it an event that represent a frontier of exploration ready to ignite our imaginations with theories (my god's body or thoughts are theories), to discover what this means
in the natural world.
The partnership with my god (Science) along with others take us into experiences where we're no longer conscious of time and space but only deep into the beauty of our god's language (calculations). We feel the wonder as our hand bring manifestation of symbols on a surface that is witness by others who also feel the same way.
This wonder transfer us into the sensation of feeling the dynamic of curving space...the expansion of our minds, as symbols, bring alive pictures in our imagination of expanding novas...or places where we can see inner events moving in what look like direct contradition to what was true when we explore for example level two but level three works a different "truth" or evolution...maybe much like the bible had old testament and its meaning of law that transition to a meaning that was to inspire and govern love, a experience of event meant to be felt deeper and more fulfilling to those believers...
Now say you're measuring biblical truth as a physical event...was the time of law in essence different than the time of love being issued by Jesus? or are they both part of the same substance (law and love)...part of the same "species" just an evolution within that truth, or species...but still made up of the same components that it was when it lives in its lesser state of "law"...
or a seed...is all contained, in the seed at its stage of being seed...yes. All it can ever be is contained in its seed state and development of it doesn't add or take away anything that wasn't always there.
What I'm saying is...an event that is observable must be subject to laws of physicality to be seen or witness that isn't jumped from one stage (natural) to another (supernatural) just because it seems to be unexplainable. It still is compose of materiality that your eyes can see without aid of a tool so there must be a commonality between eye and the event that isn't unnatural for the physical world, otherwise your eyes would not be able to see it.
I'm saying that there is no reason for a "ghost" to be thought of as pertaining to a set of different properties outside of those governing or affected by the physical world that your senses can interact directly with. Just because in 2011 the prevailing social agreement is that this is unnatural to the physical world doesn't make it unnatural especially if your senses can interact with it if you're lucky or unlucky if it would be that for you, to experience it.
My point is that anything your physical senses can interact it, especially without a tool that is an extension of those senses, cannot be supernatural since some have had the experience of it. It is true I am no longer an atheist because I insist on the freedom to explore the event without emotional baggage, but in no way could it ever be supernatural unless you want to say that your physical senses are now supernatural.
So to be beyond science isn't true because it isn't beyond your physical senses to see a "ghost" and anything that falls under sight perception can be considered part of the natural world, or the world of your sight. The behavior aspects of the event is a mystery, but it isn't beyond science to eventual give an explanation if only because science, (my god), speaks the language of the natural world (thru math and physics).
Atheist can say as they wish about the event but I'm just saying from a scientific perspective one do not have to cease being what they want or consider themselves to be, to acknowledge or not acknowledge an event that has been seen with physical eyes...from my point of view it isn't supernatural...only an aspect of the natural world that has yet to be more fully explored with measurable data and a theory discovered, explaining its occurance
in the physical world.
I don't have to get into all that religious stuff to explain it or even be antagonistic to you to explain my reasons why, see, and I'm a young teen. Where thought stands now, you think it falls under one category and I as a visionary I hope, see its potentially as another. If a person gotta cease being what they call themselves then that is their choice but not for the reasons you gave. I hope the reason why I'm saying this is understandable.
Only if they accept your premise as their own would that be true, but not because it IS truth without question. I tried to make this explainable but probably did a bad job, so I hope you could follow it somewhat. Being clear in my mind and explaining it, so it can give us a standard of understanding, is hard.
whoa my Mom is gonna killed me! I'm at my Grandma house and didn't notice the time..bye!
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an atheist it took away your freedom to investigate because now you gotta be so busy DENYING it! 
forgot where I was and the mentality of people I'm talking to. Get rid of foundations? Okay cya.
