islander Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The physical parts...?"---Pondy
>
> This is probably one of many areas in which I
> differ from pb. I have little doubt that there is
> more to reality than what we can experience in the
> touch, see, feel, realm. I think there are aspects
> of reality that transcend what we can physically
> experience.
> Pb would probably call those aspects
> of transcendent reality the supernatural.
Probably.
> For him it seems, supernatural acts can violate the laws
> of the touch, see, feel, realm.
Yeah. "Can." I can think of no reason to suppose that a reality that exists separate from the natural reality would, of necessity be subject to the laws of that other reality.
> As I said, I, personally think there might be what pb calls the
> supernatural, but I wouldn’t call it that
> because even though it transcends the physical
> reality that we experience…it transcends it but
> is compatible with it.
Perhaps, isle, you'd be more accurate to say you BELIEVE that.
> It violates none of what we
> call natural law. Think of living in a two
> dimensional reality. In a flat, two-dimensional
> reality, we have the laws of geometry, a triangle
> has three sides etc. That’s all we’re capable
> of experiencing with our senses. We’d have no
> concept of volume in that world, however, if we
> add a third dimension, we now not only have flat
> triangles, but we can understand a pyramid and the
> concept of volume, which is not conceivable in a
> two-dimensional reality. Yet everything in the
> three dimensional reality is completely compatible
> with the two dimensional one. It violates none of
> its laws. My guess is, pb, in the two dimensional
> world, would consider volume something
> supernatural .
Yeah. It comes down to you just being better than the people who disagree with you, aint?
Lucky for you that you're just, well, better than I.