| > I would just say something outside our current capacity for understanding. How does that quote go...something like "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" So your definition is merely that the supernatural is the natural we have not been able to measure yet? That's just the 'god of the gaps' by a different name. > isn't right because we clearly detect it in some way since we are discussing it now. We could be discussing invisible pink unicorns. so those must be real since we are able to discuss them, right? (obviously not: the same reasoning holds true for why the soul {probably} doesn't exist). > In this domain the idea of "proof" becomes less relevant. This is counter to your earlier stance that the supernatural is the natural we haven't yet been able to measure. either proof exists or you have to accept things on faith: you can't have it both ways. this is poor reasoning. > My guess is our brains act as a receiver for some "field" of consciousness Not impossible, and could in theory be testable and falsifiable. There is a lot of conflicting thinking here. Very muddy. |