Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 8:18 PM
23 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,925 Year: 4,962/19,786 Month: 1,084/873 Week: 440/376 Day: 71/46 Hour: 0/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5

Message 226 of 230 (546348)
02-10-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:03 PM

Re: Requirements for existence.
No. I was saying that you or anyone else for that matter, don't understand anything at all when it comes to the deep questions.

That's solipsism. You are saying that we can't believe anything we see, can't understand it, and therefore all answers are equal. Sorry, but that's not a very good way to go about things.

You have zero knowledge, which is very evident by the complete and total lack of evidence to support your assertion that existence is natural and does not require a God.

Burden of Proof fallacy. It is not up to us to falsify your claims. It is up to you to support your claims. If you want to include "God" then you need to provide evidence of "God".

Atheists and creationist share the same non-sensical dogma that you somehow understand the Universe.

That is not what is happening here. You are arguing that we CAN'T understand the Universe and therefore shouldn't try. Science argues that we CAN understand the Universe, and it tries to do so. Those are the positions being argued here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5

Message 227 of 230 (546350)
02-10-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 8:20 PM

Re: Requirements for existence.
You are arguing that existence is natural and there is no God.

We observe the natural. One point for the natural.

You are arguing that there is something outside of the natural and within this "outside the natural" there is a being called "God". Where is the evidence for any of this? Where are the observations?

It would seem to me that the argument with the least assumptions would be devoid of things for which there is no evidence.

Existence is incomprehensible . . .

That's a solipsism.

You are an experienced debater and you know the answers to the big questions so that you can state with certainty that everything is natural and god does not exist.

The problem here is that your "big questions" have no footing in reality. You might as well assert that science is worthless because it can not answer the big question of how reindeer fly.

You are inventing these questions from thin air. Actually, not even thin air but from nothing. You are inventing realms and entities for which there is no evidence, and then throwing out methodologies because they fail to explain these inventions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:20 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 516 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010

Message 228 of 230 (546384)
02-10-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:15 PM

A larger point?
Hey MatterWave.

However, asking a question like "What is Supernatural?" on a forum debating the deep questions of existence, reveals a certainty(everything is natural) that lives only in the mind of an atheist.

But don't you see? If you truly refuse to make some types of assumptions when discussing "What is Supernatural?" and the larger topic of existence, the discussion cannot even take place. This is evidenced by your inability to make a valid point, besides where you say "everyone makes assumptions". But is that really it? Is that all your argument consists of? We would just like to have a discussion that isn't somehow invalidated by your inability to understand this. "No one can know anything, so let's just not talk about it, ok?" Do you have anything more than this (a larger point?) that would constructively add to the discussion?

I think most people here would (and have) admit to the fact that science cannot disprove anything supernatural, and also to the fact that they may, in fact, be wrong about what they believe. Hence the difference, again, between beliefs and knowledge. Anyone, athiest or religious, who would make the claim that they have enough knowledge of anything to conclude that it's an absolute proof would be electronically crucified. Show me an explicit example of someone on this thread claiming this--you may find some have strong beliefs either way, but what you don't seem to understand is that most of us get it. It's sort of a tacitly understood thing. We leave the philosophical crap in the back seat so we can have meaningful discussions. Not doing this, well, you're a good example of "not doing this". We can't prove or disprove a philosophical concept, nor should it be used as an argument to disprove another philosophical concept.

Anyone(including you - Catholic Scientist) asking the question - "What is SUpernatural?" means that the respective individual holds a strong belief in the non-existence of God. Asking such a question is being categorical on open issues.

False! How can you possibly come to this conclusion? Asking a question means nothing, except...asking a question. There is, in the English language, something called a "loaded question", but you'd need to take a gargantuan leap to conclude that's the case here. Now, this may be how your personal religious bias sees it, but as a rational human (you seem rational), do you really believe the question "What is Supernatural?" means anything other than what the words say? Some may choose to assign other meaning to it when discussing what "supernatural" actually is, but I don't think your opinion of the nature of the question itself would be held by many. It's just a damn question, for pete's sake. You're being obtuse and using inane arguments to cover it up.

I have no problem, as opposed to the atheist dogma, to admit that my speculation could be wrong.

Emphasis mine.

Where do you come up with this stuff? There is nothing in the concept of atheism which assumes this, but shows more personal religious bias on your part. According to you, no atheist would admit that they could be wrong about what they believe? (There's that slippery word 'believe' again) Is that what you're saying? Or is it that you're letting your broad-brushed bias construct some imaginary idea of what an atheist "should" be or believe? If so, you're shallower than I originally gave you credit for. Redeem yourself, please.

Look, MW, all I'm saying is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill in this thread. Yes, we can't know or understand existence. But where does that get us? Here's an experiment that sums up this point quite well: go to any science thread in any forum on this website. Then cut and paste all of your arguments from this thread into those threads and I guarantee, they'll carry as much or as little significance as they do in this one.

Can we be done now? Or would you like me to take another running whack at this dead, bloated horse?

Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:15 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1207 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008

Message 229 of 230 (546797)
02-13-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 8:20 PM

Re: The existence of existence
You are arguing that existence is natural and there is no God.

For existence to be natural you would have to define what not-natural aka supernatural is. You have yet to do this.

And no I am not arguing there is no God. I am just advocating that I personally have not seen any conclusive emperical evidence that your 'God' exists. There very well could be a 'God', I just am not convinced based on the lack of evidence that he exists.

Yes, it strongly implies you have answers to open questions that nobody has.

Actually all I am doing is asking questions about the existence of God and the definition of natural and supernatural. How is that suggesting I have answers to these questions?

"Natural means not created by a God"

Then in your venacular, "natural" does not exist since nothing can exist without God correct? Therefore everything is "supernatural" and it would be illogical to call something "natural" in your worldview. This line of reasoning, of course, begs the question, who/what is God and what is the evidence that he exists.

I can't define what God is and i stated this a few times.

You can't define God much less provide evidence that he exists yet you expect us to embrace something which
a. may/or may not exist;
b. we cannot even determine to exist or not; and
c. we cannot even define or describe.

Wow, that sounds pretty contrived and convenient.

I also can't define what reality and existence is. If you can, ok, but it's still hilarious.

Well, existence is pretty easy to define. Existence is a state of being; that is a state of what "is" or "is not". God either exists ("is") or does not exist ("is not"). How hard is that to comprehend.

I know I exist and what I see around me exists. If I can't trust my own emperical experiences than existence boils down to solipsism and all of this is a moot point.

Aha. You don't want to be on the defense, yet you have no problem making unwarranted claims.

What claim is that?

Well, I certainly do. I now know that you like to make assumptions and claim your assmption is more valid - i.e. existence is natural.

I never said "evidence is natural", whatever that means?!?. And what do YOU mean by "existence is natural"? You are throwing around useless terms and building strawman arguments that have no meaning and which I never have advocated.

If you mean existence is natural aka "not created by God", than you are wrong. I have never said existence is not or cannot be a God produced event. What I said is that I and many other have not seen any evidence that such "God" exists. Yet you want us to take it on faith that "God" does exist. If your God transends said 'existence' (a state of being) and therefore human logic itself, than there never will be a way possible to determine said 'existence'. How can we determine the existence of something that is illogical in the first place?

You are an experienced debater and you know the answers to the big questions so that you can state with certainty that everything is natural and god does not exist.

What big questions are you saying that I know with certainty? All I am doing is asking questions? It is you who is obfuscating and running around with your fingers in your ears saying, yelling that it is impossible to know what existence is and then saying that God exists without providing a lick of evidence.

This would be like me saying it is impossible to know what existence actually is but you should trust me when I saying there is flying pizza monster that orbits Saturn. We could replace your 'God' with innumerable number of contrived entities from Zeus to Shiva the god of death.

Where is your evidence that existence is natural?

I am not even sure what the phrase "existence is natural" means? Again if you mean existence is "not created by God", there is no way to possibly know this without knowing if God does or does not exist. And since according to you existence is itself defined by God this is meaningless and infinitely circular argument.

As i said, i'd be deeply concerned if someone of your intelligence agreed with me.

I'll take that as a complement

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous.” - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:20 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 2163 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007

Message 230 of 230 (559565)
05-10-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AustinG
01-25-2010 1:12 PM

Supernatural defined
Lets observe some past items considered supernatural.

The heavens. Magicians.

The heavens and the sun moon stars etc. Were considered supernatural in olden times. Why? No one understood them.

Magicians worked supernaturally with "magic". Because it was not understood.

Natural is understood mechanics. And supernatural is misunderstood mechanics.

So by these observations I define supernatural as a word ascribed to anything beyond the comprehension of man.

In this way, I find the supernatural attributes ascribed to God as simply a misunderstanding of man. That when enough is understood, It will be realized that God is natural. And nothing is supernatural. Since all things are natural when understood.

Note: I thought i had posted on this already. Silly me, I can't find it.

Edited by tesla, : Shift key impaired.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AustinG, posted 01-25-2010 1:12 PM AustinG has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019