Too bad for you I had already quoted that definition and discussed it. You seem to have avoided that. Some things like lightning where supernatural at one time since they were beyond the understanding of science.
how are you not getting this?
Let us just flat out assume that the consciousness is understood by science. Therefore it is "natural".
This was the "given" for my argument.
Can you agree that the conscious is either natural or supernatural? regardless of when someone discovers which it is?
You seem to be completely confused between what the supernatural is and what the unknown is...they are not interchangeable.
Whether humans are free to choose is still a heated subject of debate in philosophy, and will be for the foreseeable future. I still don't see anything in what you say that indicates you know anything the rest of us don't. We may very well not be free to choose based on what happens to us, and may just have the illusion of it because we have a complex brain and astronomical environmental factors that make it possible to answer at this point.
i appreciate you weighing in with a elaborate and uninformed rambling to state that "free will? eh, who knows?"
I am just saying that I define natural as what is possible, so anything God does would just fall into what is natural. Supernatural to me would just be what we don't understand. Many religious have this view including many LDS. If you understand how I am viewing it there really is no contradiction.
well, if we are just going to make up our definitions for words then obviously when you say "possible" i define that as "observable", and when anything "can be" i define that as "dreamy".
Based on how you want to view it yes, so I guess God would then be subject to supernatural laws.
ok, now i realize that you are incapable. Supernatural laws? really? Is that like saying thieves surely must obey the "burglar laws"?
No one has an objective reference, and it really doesn't affect whetehr someone is moral orm not
of course you just made an objective statement...the irony is like a little vomit in the back of the throat.....at least you are predictable.
here is the defiention of amoral
Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.
actually that is just A definition...you are a texas sharpshooter
Since atheists are concerned with the rightness or wrongness of something they are then moral.
so tell me then....what is your definition of "rightness"....and what is your meaning for "wrongness"....and why would an atheist be concerned with either?
By that logic everyone is amoral. No one has an objective reference, and religious morals are very much about personal benefit.
dumbest statement on this thread, imho.
Are your parents aware that you are on their computer?