Oh I do. immaterial is what the judge would rule your evidence to be at your imaginary trial. im·ma·te·ri·al –adjective 1. of no essential consequence; unimportant. 2. not pertinent; irrelevant. 3. not material; incorporeal; spiritual. i·mag·i·nar·y –adjective Having existence only in the imagination; unreal, fanciful.
Nor does it mean supernatural. "Material" means composed of matter. A song is not material, but it is perfectly natural, evidence exists and it is explainable without resort to faith.
again, there are literally infinite thing we could believe in if we are willing to believe without evidence. so how am i to know when a person is talking nonsense and when it is a "real" paranormal encounter? how have you folks that have "faith" decided what is faith-worthy and what isnt? put all the loony theories in a bag and pull one out? just go with whatever your parents or the current trends in superstition?
I would base it on historical evidence and testimony that is corroborated by others. There are also ways to analze literature to increase the likelihood that you can determine what is accurate and what is hyperbole. Under historical evidence I would list things like the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. This was not localized "revolution". Under testimony I would include the thousands of people who have witnessed miracles, just as an example. Under the literary analysis the Gospels include aspects that lend credence to the events based on the typical literary devices used at the time. Again, if you are looking for mathematical solutions you will be disappointed. But courtrooms aren't full of mathematicians either. Judges, lawyers, legislatures and juries have created a body of knowledge and made decisions on all manner of lifes most important subjects without referance to the scientific method. And Law is based on a valid understanding of reality. Law is not imaginary. It exists and we all operate under its protection or abuse on a daily basis.
Well, just because it is immaterial doesn't mean it is necessarily supernatural, no. But the supernatural would necessarily exist in another "arena" than the natural world, as we experience it. Otherwise, you might as well believe God is old man with a flowing beard sitting on a throne somewhere.
martin: Well, you've only got to blame yourself for that. I am forced to start at the beginning and establish that science and the material world does not encompass all of the various, real aspects of human life. If you guys weren't so asinine in your definitions regarding science and the supernatural then it wouldn't have been necessary. We could have continued the discussion on evolution which is much more interesting on some levels and dovetails nicely with the premise that scientists (with all due respect to Red) are full of chit and just as flawed and capable of corruption as the rest of us. (Example: "Global Warming" or wait....it's not really warming so we'll call it "Climate Change" instead...yeah, dat's it....that's the ticket...):dis:
I can't be, just like I can't be sure my life would have been the same or different had I been born in Mississippi as opposed to New Orleans La. Or how different my life may have been had I not been injured in HS and had continued with my dreams of playing baseball. Or if I hadn't taken the path that I have in life how different it might be, and how I may have never met my wife and have the wonderful children I have. Who knows, would it be the same or would it all be different?
