OK, so what you are really against is that which cannot be possible to be explained, is that correct?Originally Posted by Subteigh
Yes
No
I'm not sure.
It doesn't matter
OK, so what you are really against is that which cannot be possible to be explained, is that correct?
Oh, I'm sorry. The claim comes from those who wish to claim that "god", the "supernatural" etc. are vague, woolly concepts, and somehow can be made to exist by having properties that are clearly contradictory. I do not consider it feasible to consider the supernatural as being capable of being observed inside this multiverse, and also being outside it. It very much seems like having cake and eating it.
The laws of physics in the true meaning of the phrase are not defined by man. They literally represent the properties of nature. In addition, no individual can make something defined as contrary to nature (in the scientific sense) be a phenomenon...an observable part of nature. Either god is an observable part of nature, or it does not exist. No one can provide any evidence of the supernatural, because it would be contrary to the definition of the supernatural.
If a potter puts some of his blood into his pot, nothing has changed. The potter, pot, and blood are still phenomena of the same environment, none is greater than the other in terms of existence.
potter + blood + clay ⇌ potter + blood and clay
...not "Infinity" > Infinity + Existence
A hypothesis (an explanation) must be a possible explanation of observed phenomena. God does not work as a hypothesis, as there has been no observed phenomena, and the supernatural is not a possible explanation of observed phenomena.
So you just don't like the idea that things can't be observed because if they could be observed then the would have quantifiable qualities?
I'm of the subjective opinion that there is actually no metric to measure the world accurately.. no one in nature is objective to nature because they are apart of nature. So while you can say the laws of physics are principles of nature, I find them to be just as mystic as the idea of God.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's an awfully literal interpretation of what I was trying to get across.. You sure you're an iNtuitive?
The thing is, supernatural is not necessarily synonymous with unexplainable..
I don't think a hypothesis is the be all end all to give meaning to things.
S As in Sensory realist
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Not understanding. Are you saying I am an S(ensor) and because I am I get As (good marks, grades) in sensory realism?
My opinion on things that cannot be observable is irrelevant, as are such things. They have no meaning.
Apart from nature, or a part of nature?
The laws of nature are not mystical, they are by definition observable properties of existence.
I'm fairly sure, but I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion.
I never said it was. The supernatural absolutely does not equate with "unexplainable": only things that are possible or are are capable of being attributed as (currently) unexplainable (I'm not sure we can definitively say something will forever be unexplainable). The supernatural cannot be unexplainable because it it isn't a possible explanation.
I believe in love. I think if God exists it's Love and we humans warp that in so any ways
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ok, but you are saying that its not possible because its not possible right now, doesn't mean it couldn't be possible later. But you already know that..
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
You claim not to believe in hell, so you do not believe in the Abrahamic god. The Abrahamic god said you should fear it: it would be very odd to fear love.
The laws of existence do not suddenly decide to change on a Thursday. The supernatural will never be shown to have any meaningful effect on reality, as it is straightforwardly contrary to what we mean by concepts such as "supernatural", "natural" etc.
Turning a blind eye to what could be observed later is not the best strategy, would you agree?
I meant a part of nature, meaning within, synonymous.
Observation is only as true as the senses of the observer, which are far from infallible for humans.
NVMI'm fairly sure, but I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
For all we know, everything is supernatural.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
No, all observable phenomena are natural (by the scientific definition).
Not the donut that I had this morning
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I am not interested in dichotomy, I know you would win that one. I am interested in concepts.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
I do not turn a blind eye to anything. I use the scientific definition of observable ("Any physical property that can be observed and measured directly and not derived from other properties".
you and Maritsa seem to be implying or saying that I am not "intuitive" because I narrowmindedly limit existence to what is possible, to what is observable. But I would say again that people such as yourselves limit the power of nature. I consider dreams, imagination, and the realm of fiction to be a part of nature, for example.
ok.
I'm guessing it was surreal.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Jesus endorses socionics, enneagram, etc...
He also suggests listening to yourself above others.(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Many NTs are physicalists and place a very strong emphasis on the scientific method, and hence, what is observable.
I understand what you are saying but if you guys can't agree on the basic definitions, and how they could apply in either situation, you are probably not going to reach common ground other than agree to disagree. What is and isn't supernatural is a matter of opinion.I do not turn a blind eye to anything. I use the scientific definition of observable ("Any physical property that can be observed and measured directly and not derived from other properties".
By definition some things of the imagination fall under the definition of "supernatural". You do not believe these things exist due to no observable phenomena. Other people may say these things exist and have observed them but unless you have direct experience you see no reason to believe them and everything in your world can be explained by the current laws of nature/science therefore not supernatural.
supernatural
[soo-per-nach-er-uh l, -nach-ruh l]
Spell Syllables
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective1.of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural;unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.of a superlative degree; preternatural:a missile of supernatural speed.
4.of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
noun5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6.behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7.direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8.the supernatural.
- supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
- supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence:a deep fear of the supernatural.
Origin of supernatural
Medieval Latin
You guys are kind of arguing against each other's subjective understandings of terms, laws, etc.. and it is not going to end in changing minds. People who view believing in, or accepting, the supernatural is attributed to an intuitive understanding of the world will probably not see you as an intuitive. STs, Sfs, and NTs, can believe in god or other supernatural claims and they are supposed to have the weaker intuition (not NTs). I think feeling is the most dominant function for some people who believe or don't believe. They either feel it or they don't. Believing in anything is usually accompanied by great feeling that it is true or not.
I have no problem with you dismissing supernatural claims since you have shown understanding and consideration when I have stated my subjective understanding of what I have experienced as supernatural. Even if you are skeptical or find it silly. I see no reason why that would point away from you being EII as it is explicitly stated in the EII description that EII are more likely to outright dismiss such claims as silly, unless they pertain to a specific religion the EII follows. Intuition is not "all knowing" in anyone, except me.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-21-2016 at 09:08 PM. Reason: correction
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I think in my case, I have a wider scope of what I consider part of the physical/observable world than the vast majority of people, which would thus seem unusual, although by rights, it should be "usual". Concepts for me like "the Supernatural", "Spirituality" etc. are utterly devoid of meaning, although this does not mean that my moods, emotions etc. do not often have a great sense of "meaningfulness" (even if I do not know what the meaning is, or why I value it) and vagueness (at times).
You make a good point, but I did highlight that I was talking of nature\"natural" in the scientific usage, and in contrast with "supernatural".
Adjective
natural (comparative more natural, superlative most natural)
2. Of or relating to nature.Aristotle's definition of Nature, (the earliest significant definition on the subject):Noun
nature (countable and uncountable, plural natures)
1. (uncountable) The natural world; consisting of all things unaffected by or predating human technology, production and design. e.g. the ecosystem, the natural environment, virgin ground, unmodified species, laws of nature.
2. The innate characteristics of a thing. What something will tend by its own constitution, to be or do. Distinct from what might be expected or intended.
3.The summary of everything that has to do with biological, chemical and physical states and events in the physical universe
More here, and also the thoughts of Francis Bacon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature...an_metaphysics"Nature" means:
(a) in one sense, the genesis of growing things — as would be suggested by pronouncing the υ of φύσις long—and
(b) in another, that immanent thing from which a growing thing first begins to grow.
(c) The source from which the primary motion in every natural object is induced in that object as such. All things are said to grow which gain increase through something else by contact and organic unity (or adhesion, as in the case of embryos). Organic unity differs from contact; for in the latter case there need be nothing except contact, but in both the things which form an organic unity there is some one and the same thing which produces, instead of mere contact, a unity which is organic, continuous and quantitative (but not qualitative). Again, "nature" means
(d) the primary stuff, shapeless and unchangeable from its own potency, of which any natural object consists or from which it is produced; e.g., bronze is called the "nature" of a statue and of bronze articles, and wood that of wooden ones, and similarly in all other cases. For each article consists of these "natures," the primary material persisting. It is in this sense that men call the elements of natural objects the "nature," some calling it fire, others earth or air or water, others something else similar, others some of these, and others all of them. Again in another sense "nature" means
(e) the substance of natural objects; as in the case of those who say that the "nature" is the primary composition of a thing, or as Empedocles says: Of nothing that exists is there nature, but only mixture and separation of what has been mixed; nature is but a name given to these by men. Hence as regards those things which exist or are produced by nature, although that from which they naturally are produced or exist is already present, we say that they have not their nature yet unless they have their form and shape. That which comprises both of these exists by nature; e.g. animals and their parts. And nature is both the primary matter (and this in two senses: either primary in relation to the thing, or primary in general; e.g., in bronze articles the primary matter in relation to those articles is bronze, but in general it is perhaps water—that is if all things which can be melted are water) and the form or essence, i.e. the end of the process, of generation. Indeed from this sense of "nature," by an extension of meaning, every essence in general is called "nature," because the nature of anything is a kind of essence. From what has been said, then, the primary and proper sense of "nature" is the essence of those things which contain in themselves as such a source of motion; for the matter is called "nature" because it is capable of receiving the nature, and the processes of generation and growth are called "nature" because they are motions derived from it. And nature in this sense is the source of motion in natural objects, which is somehow inherent in them, either potentially or actually.
By contrast:
I would argue that if the supernatural is "above" nature (as I understand "nature"), and/or if it is neither visible or measurable, then quite simply, it does not exist.Adjective
supernatural (comparative more supernatural, superlative most supernatural)
1.Above nature; that which is beyond or added to nature, often so considered because it is given by a deity or some force beyond that which humans are born with. In Roman Catholic theology, sanctifying grace is considered to be a supernatural addition to human nature.
2.Not of the usual; not natural; altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.
3.Neither visible nor measurable.
I believe that the imagination is observable, by the mere fact that we ourselves are able to observe it. It doesn't matter if everybody else is not able to observe it.By definition some things of the imagination fall under the definition of "supernatural". You do not believe these things exist due to no observable phenomena. Other people may say these things exist and have observed them but unless you have direct experience you see no reason to believe them and everything in your world can be explained by the current laws of nature/science therefore not supernatural.
You guys are kind of arguing against each other's subjective understandings of terms, laws, etc.. and it is not going to end in changing minds. People who view believing in, or accepting, the supernatural is attributed to an intuitive understanding of the world will probably not see you as an intuitive. STs, Sfs, and NTs, can believe in god or other supernatural claims and they are supposed to have the weaker intuition (not NTs). I think feeling is the most dominant function for some people who believe or don't believe. They either feel it or they don't. Believing in anything is usually accompanied by great feeling that it is true or not.
I have no problem with you dismissing supernatural claims since you have shown understanding and consideration when I have stated my subjective understanding of what I have experienced as supernatural. Even if you are skeptical or find it silly. I see no reason why that would point away from you being EII as it is explicitly stated in the EII description that EII are more likely to outright dismiss such claims as silly, unless they pertain to a specific religion the EII follows. Intuition is not "all knowing" in anyone, except me.
Last edited by Enters Laughing; 04-22-2016 at 07:19 PM.
I do but it doesn't matter as much as I used to think. Reason I believe? Gut instinct. It's that simple. Also, spirituality is a major component of my life. It may be a placebo to get myself back up whenever I fall into a rut, but shit, it works. And if it works, I consider it practical. I am a practical person, after all.
I don't feel like I "choose" to believe or not believe. It seems absurd to me that someone could believe or disbelieve contrary to their natural inclination. You do not simply "choose" to believe that the Moon exists.
I also find it deeply offensive when people say my "chosen" disbelief will cause me to suffer in hell for eternity.
I do not believe that the belief in the supernatural can be respected, as it is contrary to all evidence, and must necessarily be so. The idea of an intelligent, and benevolent creator is even more credulous. At least when people support football teams, they can usually find some plausible reasons for doing so.
I was always told by my father that "You do not "prove" a person, you know a person." (I don't know why he thought this a clever argument, because you often "proof" people, whether via DNA, passports, dental records, background checks...speaking to them face-to-face). I seriously cannot believe the amount of time wasted on the matter of whether god exists. It is simply contrary to all reason, especially considering how it would compare to proving the existence of a person. I also cannot see why such a belief is portrayed as a virtue.
“But the love of wilderness is more than a hunger for what is always beyond reach; it is also an expression of loyalty to the earth which bore us and sustains us, the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise we ever need—if only we had the eyes to see” ~ Edward Abbey
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
O May I join the choir invisible
Of those immortal dead who live again
In minds made better by their presence: live
In pulses stirr’d to generosity,
In deeds of daring rectitude, in scorn
For miserable aims that end with self,
In thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars,
And with their mild persistence urge man’s search
To vaster issues.
So to live is heaven:
To make undying music in the world,
Breathing as beauteous order that controls
With growing sway the growing life of man.
So we inherit that sweet purity
For which we struggled, fail’d, and agoniz’d
With widening retrospect that bred despair.
Rebellious flesh that would not be subdued,
A vicious parent shaming still its child,
Poor anxious penitence, is quick dissolv’d;
Its discords, quench’d by meeting harmonies,
Die in the large and charitable air.
And all our rarer, better, truer self,
That sobb’d religiously in yearning song,
That watch’d to ease the burthen of the world,
Laboriously tracing what must be,
And what may yet be better,—saw within
A worthier image for the sanctuary,
And shap’d it forth before the multitude,
Divinely human, raising worship so
To higher reverence more mix’d with love,—
That better self shall live till human Time
Shall fold its eyelids, and the human sky
Be gather’d like a scroll within the tomb Unread forever.
This is life to come,
Which martyr’d men have made more glorious
For us who strive to follow. May I reach
That purest heaven, be to other souls
The cup of strength in some great agony,
Enkindle generous ardor, feed pure love,
Beget the smiles that have no cruelty,
Be the sweet presence of a good diffus’d,
And in diffusion ever more intense!
So shall I join the choir invisible
Whose music is the gladness of the world.
~ George Eliot
I understand what you are saying but if you guys can't agree on the basic definitions, and how they could apply in either situation, you are probably not going to reach common ground other than agree to disagree. What is and isn't supernatural is a matter of opinion.
By definition some things of the imagination fall under the definition of "supernatural". You do not believe these things exist due to no observable phenomena. Other people may say these things exist and have observed them but unless you have direct experience you see no reason to believe them and everything in your world can be explained by the current laws of nature/science therefore not supernatural.
You guys are kind of arguing against each other's subjective understandings of terms, laws, etc.. and it is not going to end in changing minds. People who view believing in, or accepting, the supernatural is attributed to an intuitive understanding of the world will probably not see you as an intuitive. STs, Sfs, and NTs, can believe in god or other supernatural claims and they are supposed to have the weaker intuition (not NTs). I think feeling is the most dominant function for some people who believe or don't believe. They either feel it or they don't. Believing in anything is usually accompanied by great feeling that it is true or not.
I have no problem with you dismissing supernatural claims since you have shown understanding and consideration when I have stated my subjective understanding of what I have experienced as supernatural. Even if you are skeptical or find it silly. I see no reason why that would point away from you being EII as it is explicitly stated in the EII description that EII are more likely to outright dismiss such claims as silly, unless they pertain to a specific religion the EII follows. Intuition is not "all knowing" in anyone, except me.Sociotypes: Profiles by Functional AssignmentsDemonstrative- Introverted Intuition, Ni
The individual is quite adept at following discussions on the developments of present trends into the future and at contributing to them on occasion if he feels so inclined, but he does not take that as seriously compared to investigating possibilities in the areas he is interested in at present. He usually dismisses supernatural claims as being silly, wishful thinking, unless they happen to be related to the very specific religion he feels inclined to believe in and which he may be inclined to make part of his leisure activities.
The individual is also not naive to future happenings. He will often warn others of negative consequences. In this way, he uses his Ni to help the PoLR of his dual. However, unlike an EIE, he will not often take his own advice nor expect others to. His Se PoLR makes it impossible for him to demand that others heed his advice, and his Ne-ego makes him place more value in the possibility that he is wrong - and that things will play out differently - than in avoiding foreseeable disasters.
INFj, ENFp, ISTp, ESTj
I think there's a danger though of picking and choosing from descriptions (as a whole, or singly) that be rather variable and perhaps seemingly contradictory at times.
Evidence?
No one needs to see to believe. There's a lot that we can't see.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It may be true that no one "needs" to see to believe, anymore than anyone needs to have a reason to support a football team.
However, in the case of the supernatural, it is flatly the case that there is no logic to claims of the existence of the supernatural, nevermind the fact there is no evidence (and never will be).
Also, you fail to understand the significance of the scientific definition of "observable", which I find rather incredible.
Last edited by Enters Laughing; 04-23-2016 at 12:05 AM.
Oh I understand "observable" in the scientific sense. Hum
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Can you give examples of things we have evidence for that we cannot observe?
Yeah I'll have my SEE friend give you an example. You'll like her explanation much more, seeing both of you areon the same boat
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
This sentence is SeYeah I'll have my SEE friend give you an example. You'll like her explanation much more, seeing both of you areon the same boat
You are relating an object to an object.
()
I am not hurting anybody intentionally. I am insulted that you could say that.This is the problem I see, EII don't go hurting people intentionally whether they are male or female. No way you are my dual. Quit bullying please, otherwise you make me want to quit the forum I don't like seeing belligerence.
You may think you are fighting a cause, but trampling on peoples beliefs is wrong and an Fi seeking person won't talk to you about their own thoughts to confide, also two wrongs don't make a right.
Do as you want but you're lowered in my eyes and you make me no longer want to be here with your belligerence in hurting and punishing people. Try Gamma or Beta quadra, again, no way EII.
PS I don't care about your supposed retyping of Maritsa, just stop bullying and harassing people while having EII attached to you, please, you confuse people
Certain phenomenon that doesn't make sense fits that bill. Like there might be a 4th dimension but we lack certain things to tell for sure.
I struggle with motivation, apathy and sticking to goals.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
