Mr_Anony:
Oh I see, I define a natural entity as anything that can be comprehensively defined within the bounds of space, time and materiality.

I won't define based on causal relationships because I hold that there exists causal connections between the supernatural and the natural.

For me the natural and the supernatural correspond directly to the physical and the spiritual.

By this definition, ideas fit as supernatural.

I think you are confusing natural occurrence with agency.

There is a difference between how something acts naturally and how an agent can make it to act

For instance steel does not naturally float on water but man can and has made steel ships that do.

A dead man cannot naturally rise again but God can and has raised men from the dead.

This is not a contradiction to nature, it's just that the one who knows all things can easily manipulate nature. After all, He created it.

I am sure you if tomorrow some scientist found a way of raising people from the dead, you most probably won't see it as a contradiction of nature so why the double standard?

Ok, it seems you don't think miracles are logically impossible, but is the above natural or supernatural?

Kay 17:

By this definition, ideas fit as supernatural.

We've gone down this road before. If you read through my comments, you would see that I made a distinction between the supernatural soul and what the soul does i.e. having thoughts and ideas.
A soul is related to a will and ideas in much the same way a physical object is related to a physical action. If you intend to press it much further, I can - for the sake of argument - concede that ideas - at the core of it - are a spiritual phenomena beyond the realm of the natural.

Ok, it seems you don't think miracles are logically impossible, but is the above natural or supernatural?

Raising of the dead is not logically impossible. A supernatural being caused a natural experience.

1. I would want to stress that an idea is an abstract concept of its own. And probably it operates on the platform of our consciousness or the soul.

2. If miracles don't do the logically impossible, what's so special about them?? Why are they confirmations of faith?

Kay 17: 1. I would want to stress that an idea is an abstract concept of its own. And probably it operates on the platform of our consciousness or the soul.

2. If miracles don't do the logically impossible, what's so special about them?? Why are they confirmations of faith?

1. Ok

2. I think we have a different understanding of what it means to be logically impossible. For me logically impossible = illogical e.g. 1+1=3, a square circle, a married bachelor e.t.c. Just to be sure, are we both (you and I) referring to the same meaning when we use the phrase "logically impossible"?

^^^ Basically, the mere fact that something is beyond the limit of the understanding of a particular person (or even of humanity) does not make it "logically" impossible.

Even talking of the universe from simply a vantage of "logic" rather than "religion"; it is more "logical" to say it was created than to say it just emerged from nothing --- notwithstanding the claimed "singularity".

@mranony

The logical impossible is sometimes a contradiction or an inconsistency but we both agree on this point. And consequentially agree miracles are not logically impossible. But what makes miracles special?

@enigma

Long time no see.

Two important questions: from what did God create everything?

AND why should we presume teleology?

@kay17

Happy new year.

Before we go into what God created from, consider these two:

1. The universe came from "nothing"; there is "nothing" behind that nothing. (i.e. nothing2 behind nothing1 = universe)

2. The universe came from "nothing"; however, there is God behind that "nothing" (i.e. God behind nothing1 = universe)

So, my question again: which of those two is more "logical"?

Note: I have not asked which is true. I have simply asked, which is more logical.

Happy New YEar too!

None is logical, and neither is more logical.

^^^ Therefore the universe does not exist --- or the universe is not "logical"!

Kay 17: @mranony

The logical impossible is sometimes a contradiction or an inconsistency but we both agree on this point. And consequentially agree miracles are not logically impossible. But what makes miracles special?

What makes a miracle special? Well, I don't know about you but I am usually impressed when someone does something that is way beyond my ability een if I don't know exactly how he did it.

Two important questions: from what did God create everything?

From Himself, similar to the way you produce thought from yourself

AND why should we presume teleology?

Because if an infinite regress is true then the concept of a present has no meaning

Enigma: ^^^ Therefore the universe does not exist --- or the universe is not "logical"!

How did you manage that?

@anony

1. So for me, I find Xavi's passes miraculous, cos his skill and talent in football is beyond mine.

2. That's logical, however you have to show that this world conforms exactly with God's nature and character.

3. That unfortunately didn't answer my Q.

Kay 17: How did you manage that?. . . .

It is the logical conclusion of your position in that our little exchange.

Enigma:

It is the logical conclusion of your position in that our little exchange.

The root problem was accepting something ex nihilo, with or without agency. So both options you offered are illogical and therefore can not explain the Universe's origin.

Kay 17:
1. So for me, I find Xavi's passes miraculous, cos his skill and talent in football is beyond mine.

In that case God raising a man from the dead is definitely by far a much much more impressive miracle wouldn't you agree? In fact I find His creation of the universe to be super super awesomely miraculous!!

2. That's logical, however you have to show that this world conforms exactly with God's nature and character.

Not necessarily.....especially if free-willed characters are part of his creation.

3. That unfortunately didn't answer my Q.

You'll have to explain the question then

2. It is necessary, cos they must derive their character from the same origin.

3. You said teleology must stand cos there would be no meaning in the present, which is using teleology to define teleology

Kay 17: 2. It is necessary, cos they must derive their character from the same origin.

free-will says their characters can differ from the source.

3. You said teleology must stand cos there would be no meaning in the present, which is using teleology to define teleology

What is teleology? Teleology is the view that there must be an end purpose or an end cause.

When you asked "why should we presume teleology?", you were more or less asking "why should we presume an end cause?"

For that my answer to you was apt.

1. An entity can not act beyond its nature, it neceSsarily conforms to it. Free will doesn't change that.

2. Meaning is the central theme of teleology, therefore isn't the reason for its presumption, otherwise its tautology

Kay 17: 1. An entity can not act beyond its nature, it neceSsarily conforms to it. Free will doesn't change that.

When you tell a story, is it necessary that the nature of your story must conform to your nature? If you think so, then please tell me how and why

2. Meaning is the central theme of teleology, therefore isn't the reason for its presumption, otherwise its tautology

But doesn't this then show a problem with your question because you are essentially asking "why should we presume meaning?"

....by asking why, you already presume that there must be a meaning. So why did you presume a meaning when you asked your question?