From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 2/2/26 12:22 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 3/02/2026 4:00 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >> On 1/31/26 10:27 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>> On 1/02/2026 12:49 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/31/26 3:15 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >>>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04:03 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 08:18:42 +1100   
   >>>>>> MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On 20/01/2026 9:29 am, Jim Jackson wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2025-12-17, MarkE  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It is difficult to quantify, but even a casual observer of   
   >>>>>>>>> chimps and   
   >>>>>>>>> humans recognises the scale of the difference. Civilisation and   
   >>>>>>>>> spaceflight, for example.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I would just make the observation that there were people only   
   >>>>>>>> about 150   
   >>>>>>>> years that said the similar things when comparing white people with   
   >>>>>>>> indigenous people.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's a reminder of how wrong a widely held viewpoint can be. God and   
   >>>>>>> materialism are both widely held, mutually exclusive viewpoints.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Martin Harran, if I understand him correctly, doesn't see it this   
   >>>>>> way.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Depends on how you (or MarkE) define, materialism. If you go with the   
   >>>>> standard definition that *everything* is due to natural causes and   
   >>>>> there is no such thing as the supernatural, then that excludes God by   
   >>>>> definition. As a convinced dualist, I certainly would not subscribe to   
   >>>>> that.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A literal definition of "supernatural" is "beyond (outside of)   
   >>>> nature", with nature, in that context meaning all that exists. So   
   >>>> the supernatural, by definition, does not exist. A more useful   
   >>>> definition is, "stuff that nobody understands or expects ever to   
   >>>> understand."   
   >>>   
   >>> You're saying that, by definition, God does not exist?   
   >>   
   >> I'm saying that if God exists, God is not supernatural according to   
   >> the most literal definition of "supernatural".   
   >>   
   >   
   > You say: "If you go with [materialism's] standard definition that   
   > *everything* is due to natural causes...A literal definition of   
   > 'supernatural' is 'beyond (outside of) nature', with nature, in that   
   > context meaning all that exists.'"   
   >   
   > Sure, if you take materialism's premise, God does not exist, by   
   > definition (at least not a supernatural one). But isn't that stating the   
   > obvious?   
      
   It is far from obvious, to me anyway, that a god must be supernatural.   
   For example, God could be an alien race whose technology is (as A.C.   
   Clarke has noted any sufficiently advanced technology must be)   
   indistinguishable from magic. And one conception of God is "all that   
   exists." Obviously, such a god exists and is not supernatural, and that   
   you would not consider that a god is not binding on the rest of humanity.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)