Thoughts On The Supernatural Realm

[Cheerful Charlie]

Theologians tell us that transcendent to this material world in a supernatural realm. Where God resides, and lives. Presuppositionalists and TAG apolologists tell us there is nothing outside or beyond God. Then I must ask, where does this supernatural realm come from? God cannot create the supernatural realm he resides in. or is it the case that this realm preceded God and is outside of God after all? Or is God and the supernatural realm of all existence one and the same? None of this makes sense. and no theologian can tell us how to demonstrate such a supernatural realm really exists with hard evidence. Or its nature and qualities. Or how to investigate the issue with the aim of finding hard evidence to demonstrate that this supernatural realm exists. Or that there is a God that resides there.

It seems to be Russell's teapots all the way down.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- Christopher Hitchens

 

[skepticalbip]

You just need to buy yourself an ouija board and you can ask god himself.

 

[Treedbear]

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor expressed by writer Christopher Hitchens. It says that the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it.

Hitchens has phrased the razor in writing as "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Origin -
The concept, named after journalist, author, and avowed atheist Christopher Hitchens, echoes Occam's razor. The dictum appears in Hitchens's 2007 book titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. It takes a stronger stance than the Sagan standard ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"), instead applying to even non-extraordinary claims.

It has been compared to the Latin proverb quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur ("What is asserted gratuitously may be denied gratuitously"), which was commonly used in the 19th century.

I truly miss Hitchens' debates. But I'd never heard of Hitchens' Razor before. During debates on this forum I've opposed the idea the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence ." It's simply superfluous when all that is required is for the dismissal of what was asserted. Not for the assertion of some other conclusion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Theologians tell us that transcendent to this material world in a supernatural realm. Where God resides, and lives. Presuppositionalists and TAG apolologists tell us there is nothing outside or beyond God. Then I must ask, where does this supernatural realm come from?

Apparently there was just the creature without a realm. Then the creature created a realm so that it would have a place to exist. The creature is mysterious.

 

[Rhea]

But! Angels!

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Mormons solved this by having God as a man who became exalted and can sire yet more gods, using a corporal body and standard reproduction protocol.
If Hubble can't spot heaven, then how far did Mary have to ascend (bodily, that is) to reach it? And after her, Mohammad rode a horse up there, without stopping for water and oats. Astronomers are missing out on a great Nobel opportunity. Find heaven! And Trump could get his Nobel by fracking into hell. Just calls for good ol' Yankee ingenuity.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Mormons solved this by having God as a man who became exalted and can sire yet more gods...

That's dopey, but very religious.

 

[James Brown]

One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.

--Robert Heinlein

 

[ideologyhunter]

Could God create a fart so massive that He Himself could not suppress it?
The church that can answer that conundrum will get my membership and tithes. Plus I'll volunteer for usher work and help trim the hedges.

 

[Politesse]

I don't see how the supernatural and natural realm differ in this respect? Both must have their being in the Creator in order to exist, and if as you say It cannot makes Its own bed before lying in it, that would apply to both realms, or to wherever else God was.

That said, I don't recall ever hearing of a Creationist theology which claims that God always had a "realm", only that there is a supernatural in relation to the natural, like a soul exists in relation to a body.

I don't know why I am bothering to participate in this one when in your last sentence you vow not to provide evidence for your claim at any point in the proceedings...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't see how the supernatural and natural realm differ in this respect? Both must have their being in the Creator in order to exist, and if as you say It cannot makes Its own bed before lying in it, that would apply to both realms, or to wherever else God was.

That said, I don't recall ever hearing of a Creationist theology which claims that God always had a "realm", only that there is a supernatural in relation to the natural, like a soul exists in relation to a body.

I don't know why I am bothering to participate in this one when in your last sentence you vow not to provide evidence for your claim at any point in the proceedings...

This would seem to lead to the obvious conclusion that there are an infinite number of realms and creators. I mean, can't we have a subnatural realm to complement the supernatural realm? And can't we have a supersupernatural realm as well? Wouldn't inhabitants of the supernatural realm wonder where they came from? Wouldn't they "supernaturally" suppose themselves quite natural and therefore opine that there is a higher realm from which they were created, this being the supersupernatural realm? Makes sense to me.

Why stop at two realms?

 

[Politesse]

I don't see how the supernatural and natural realm differ in this respect? Both must have their being in the Creator in order to exist, and if as you say It cannot makes Its own bed before lying in it, that would apply to both realms, or to wherever else God was.

That said, I don't recall ever hearing of a Creationist theology which claims that God always had a "realm", only that there is a supernatural in relation to the natural, like a soul exists in relation to a body.

I don't know why I am bothering to participate in this one when in your last sentence you vow not to provide evidence for your claim at any point in the proceedings...

This would seem to lead to the obvious conclusion that there are an infinite number of realms and creators. I mean, can't we have a subnatural realm to complement the supernatural realm? And can't we have a supersupernatural realm as well? Wouldn't inhabitants of the supernatural realm wonder where they came from? Wouldn't they "supernaturally" suppose themselves quite natural and therefore opine that there is a higher realm from which they were created, this being the supersupernatural realm? Makes sense to me.

Why stop at two realms?

There are many cosmological systems that posit more than two realms, if you start branching out a bit into history and world cultures. Even Christianity started out with a trinary system more akin to the Mediterranean norm, with the "Heavens" and the "Deeps" being considered and treated as distinctly and fundamentally different places.

And lets not get started on Buddhism!

As per your specific question though, I note that it assumes an equal amount of ignorance on the part of the denizens of heaven. If, as is often supposed, they are bathed constantly and without obscurity in the primaeval light of God, they would hardly wonder where they came from, as they are living there with the Source itself with no sin to confuse them or pollute the knowledge.

Keep in mind that the two "realms" in question are not separate places in the sense that France and Belgium are separate places. The supernatural is the transcendent quality or source from which the natural emanates; the two make no sense except in relation to one another. When the natural comes to its end, it will rejoin the supernatural to which it originally belonged in a Neo-Platonic sort of way, with only its darkness and imperfections slated to be destroyed by the encounter.

I hasten to clarify that none of the above two paragraphs are my personal opinion, I'm trying to comment as from the medieval Christian scholastic point of view vaguely implied by the OP.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't see how the supernatural and natural realm differ in this respect? Both must have their being in the Creator in order to exist, and if as you say It cannot makes Its own bed before lying in it, that would apply to both realms, or to wherever else God was.

That said, I don't recall ever hearing of a Creationist theology which claims that God always had a "realm", only that there is a supernatural in relation to the natural, like a soul exists in relation to a body.

I don't know why I am bothering to participate in this one when in your last sentence you vow not to provide evidence for your claim at any point in the proceedings...

This would seem to lead to the obvious conclusion that there are an infinite number of realms and creators. I mean, can't we have a subnatural realm to complement the supernatural realm? And can't we have a supersupernatural realm as well? Wouldn't inhabitants of the supernatural realm wonder where they came from? Wouldn't they "supernaturally" suppose themselves quite natural and therefore opine that there is a higher realm from which they were created, this being the supersupernatural realm? Makes sense to me.

Why stop at two realms?

There are many cosmological systems that posit more than two realms, if you start branching out a bit into history and world cultures. Even Christianity started out with a trinary system more akin to the Mediterranean norm, with the "Heavens" and the "Deeps" being considered and treated as distinctly and fundamentally different places.

But there is only ever the one distinction, natural and that spooky something else. Don't the inhabitants of the spooky something else wonder where they came from, a place that's even more spooky? Why shouldn't they?

 

[Politesse]

There are many cosmological systems that posit more than two realms, if you start branching out a bit into history and world cultures. Even Christianity started out with a trinary system more akin to the Mediterranean norm, with the "Heavens" and the "Deeps" being considered and treated as distinctly and fundamentally different places.

But there is only ever the one distinction, natural and that spooky something else. Don't the inhabitants of the spooky something else wonder where they came from, a place that's even more spooky? Why shouldn't they?

That is simply not true, though. There are plenty of religious systems that posit more than two realms, and plenty also that draw less of a distinction between the "normal" and the "spooky" than you seem to imply.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are many cosmological systems that posit more than two realms, if you start branching out a bit into history and world cultures. Even Christianity started out with a trinary system more akin to the Mediterranean norm, with the "Heavens" and the "Deeps" being considered and treated as distinctly and fundamentally different places.

But there is only ever the one distinction, natural and that spooky something else. Don't the inhabitants of the spooky something else wonder where they came from, a place that's even more spooky? Why shouldn't they?

That is simply not true, though. There are plenty of religious systems that posit more than two realms, and plenty also that draw less of a distinction between the "normal" and the "spooky" than you seem to imply.

You can have a thousand different realms. Some religions preach that when people die they become gods in other realms. But those "other realms" don't differ materially, they are still the same kind of spooky. Or go ahead and show me how they differ.

 

[Politesse]

That is simply not true, though. There are plenty of religious systems that posit more than two realms, and plenty also that draw less of a distinction between the "normal" and the "spooky" than you seem to imply.

You can have a thousand different realms. Some religions preach that when people die they become gods in other realms. But those "other realms" don't differ materially, they are still the same kind of spooky. Or go ahead and show me how they differ.

"Spooky" is your own term, I don't think it really very adequately describes most people's perspective. You seem to mean that because you see the material realm as profoundly different from any alternative, that all other realms must be similar to one another in conception. This seems about as logical to me as saying that since there are only two types of vegetables - tomatoes and non-tomatoes - any vegetable that isn't a tomato must have only neglibible differences.

In the earlier, we distinguished between the earth, an upper realm, and a lower realm. This was a very common idea prevalent in the ancient Mesopotamian world, and these domains were certainly distinct from one another. The lower realm was lightless and insubstantial, its reality and substance uncertain. Nothing living could dwell there, it was the domain of dead or as-yet unborn things only. The upper realms were, by contrast, full of light and the natural domain of immortal beings, who alone were free to visit the other two realms and return without consequence. It was often spoken of as a place of aether and wind. The earth was a solid place, and a natural barrier and transit point between the other two realms. The realm of things that are alive, but mortal. The specifics of the system varied quite a bit in different cultures, places, and times, but that was the general notion.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is simply not true, though. There are plenty of religious systems that posit more than two realms, and plenty also that draw less of a distinction between the "normal" and the "spooky" than you seem to imply.

You can have a thousand different realms. Some religions preach that when people die they become gods in other realms. But those "other realms" don't differ materially, they are still the same kind of spooky. Or go ahead and show me how they differ.

"Spooky" is your own term, I don't think it really very adequately describes most people's perspective. You seem to mean that because you see the material realm as profoundly different from any alternative, that all other realms must be similar to one another in conception. This seems about as logical to me as saying that since there are only two types of vegetables - tomatoes and non-tomatoes - any vegetable that isn't a tomato must have only neglibible differences.

In the earlier, we distinguished between the earth, an upper realm, and a lower realm. This was a very common idea prevalent in the ancient Mesopotamian world, and these domains were certainly distinct from one another. The lower realm was lightless and insubstantial, its reality and substance uncertain. Nothing living could dwell there, it was the domain of dead or as-yet unborn things only. The upper realms were, by contrast, full of light and the natural domain of immortal beings, who alone were free to visit the other two realms and return without consequence. It was often spoken of as a place of aether and wind. The earth was a solid place, and a natural barrier and transit point between the other two realms. The realm of things that are alive, but mortal. The specifics of the system varied quite a bit in different cultures, places, and times, but that was the general notion.

Yup. Human imagination is an amazing thing. It gives us myths and Superman comics.

 

[Politesse]

A powerful thing indeed! Our ember of the divine spark. My job would be very boring without it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A powerful thing indeed! Our ember of the divine spark. My job would be very boring without it.

The divine spark and killer angels. I remember a Gettysburg monologue about that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Spooky" is your own term, I don't think it really very adequately describes most people's perspective. You seem to mean that because you see the material realm as profoundly different from any alternative, that all other realms must be similar to one another in conception. This seems about as logical to me as saying that since there are only two types of vegetables - tomatoes and non-tomatoes - any vegetable that isn't a tomato must have only neglibible differences.

In the earlier, we distinguished between the earth, an upper realm, and a lower realm. This was a very common idea prevalent in the ancient Mesopotamian world, and these domains were certainly distinct from one another. The lower realm was lightless and insubstantial, its reality and substance uncertain. Nothing living could dwell there, it was the domain of dead or as-yet unborn things only. The upper realms were, by contrast, full of light and the natural domain of immortal beings, who alone were free to visit the other two realms and return without consequence. It was often spoken of as a place of aether and wind. The earth was a solid place, and a natural barrier and transit point between the other two realms. The realm of things that are alive, but mortal. The specifics of the system varied quite a bit in different cultures, places, and times, but that was the general notion.

Yup. Human imagination is an amazing thing. It gives us myths and Superman comics.

The tomato metaphor fails for obvious reasons. Differences in realms is just a different cartoon channel.