Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

It is a supernatural claim only if your concept of god requires there to be a supernatural realm. Many concepts of god don't require this, so saying "God created the universe" would not be a supernatural claim. It's dependent on the individual.- Oni

A human says god/s exist in a supernatural realm - that's not a supernatural claim. That's a blind assertion. For there to be a supernatural claim, first we need to establish that there is a supernatural realm.- Oni

But I've since changed that opinion, giving into the fact that within a certain framework, the term "god" has some meaning, although very ambiguous.See: I mean the concept itself, what a god is, is very ambiguous. But anyone seeing an alien perform some technologically advanced thing could say that this being, who they don't know the origin of, is not limited to natural law. That's the point. Human's give the god/s their characteristics.- Oni

How could anyone have made the claim in the first place? - If it's immune from material investigation then you cannot sense in any way. It makes being able to make the claim impossible.That is the fundamental problem with claims about things that are immune to material investigation.- Oni

First, thanks for answering Jon on the immaterial entity and non-detection. As always you explained it and defended the position a lot better than I do...with 'yo bad self. Moving on... The concepts themselves, sure, can be anything you want. It can be an invisible rabbit or a guy weilding a hammer that causes thunder. But that is specific to the concept, and separate from what a god is.To a diest a god is an ambiguous thing undefined and undetectable who's abilities include, but are not limited to, creating universe/s.To a Greek, god is a guy that pulls the Sun across the sky with his chariot or smashes his hammer to create thunder.In each case we have two very detailed concepts both representing the same ambiguous word. So are they both equally sufficent concepts to define the word god? Is there anything that would not make for a good concept of god? You're right, the term has meaning within the topic of religion and faith - and more specifically when discussing a particular religion and not just generalizing. But "god" him/herself has no meaning, or no one single meaning, or limit, it can be whatever you want it to be. God can be Apollo on a chariot, an invisible rabbit, a spaghetti monster or an ambiguous energy that creates universe/s and then goes back to being a recluse listening to emo music. At which point, when looking at the overall use of the term, it loses meaning. I'm not the Messiah! I mean that in the sense that anything can be clasified as a god, there isn't one specific thing that qualifies something as a god. Unlike superheros who have a specific requirement, god/s can be anything a group wants it to be, as I explain above.A god isn't just a creator of universe/s, it can be a guy on a chariot that brings the Sun up, a guy who makes thunder, the force behind volcanoes, an eclipse, movement of the planets, what moves the tides, what inspires love, etc, etc, etc.It can either be an invisible force that works in nature, an ambiguous energy that kick-starts universe/s, an actual dude with a hammer, or a woman that guilds fertility - any of that can be a god/dess.So, in the end, what does it actually mean, what is it actually describing?Within a specific religion or faith, sure, the term means something. But overall, as a whole, it remains, IMO, meaningless.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Probably too late in the thread to keep going but I'll respond to this and give you the last word. Perhaps, but the way I see it is, the individual god concepts do define what god is.At it's most basic, god is a supernatural entity that created the universe - and that extends to also overseeing the universe and playing an active role in it. <--- definition. They are examples of god/s that meet the requirements set forth by the original concept, yes. But they can also define what god is in the sense that, like the definition for god, they are meer concepts.What is the difference between:* God - a supernatural conscious being that is responsible for some aspect of reality.* God - a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force Related adj divine.* God - a supernatural entity that pulls the Sun across the sky with his chariot or smashes his hammer to create thunder.* God - an ambiguous, undefined and undetectable entity who's abilities include, but are not limited to, creating universes.These are all concepts, aren't they? One doesn't defines what god is any more than the others do. You can pick any of those as the definition for god.They are all examples of god concepts, and they can all serve as the definition for god.- Oni

Suave muchacho... No, but the reason I don't is because "life" is a word used to describe the functioning characteristics of a system, like the word "sight." So you can point to a physical something and say, "See what all that does? That's life." --- God is not that. God IS what created the system, it is an actual "thing," an entity. It is a thing regardless of whether there is a system or not. This requires the word god to have a meaning and definition independent of the system, unlike "life."BUT, you can't point to a physical something and say, "See what all that does? That is a god." Instead you are forced to create the concept first (a supernatural entity that created the universe) then say, "See that concept I created? That is god."So it seems clear to me that the concepts define what god is, was and will be. The word doesn't have a meaning or definition independent of the concepts...muchacho.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You didn't provide me with a definition, you gave me a concept.A supernatural entity that created the universe is your concept equal to any other concept.There is no definition independent of the concepts. I know, I haven't claimed the were. No. However, without the superhero concepts the word would lose it's meaning. Just like god. Exists in reality.- Oni

You will find yourself literally IN the movie Inception if you do.- Oni

Ah, no problem dude. Never a worry. That's better! Stop acting like a fag with all that apology crap. - Oni

But that sounds like the concept of god in deism. Add "that you worship" and now it sounds like a lot of the other concepts.I guess where I'm having trouble is, how do you distinguish between the proper definition and any other concept? If you were to remove the conceptual, created, human images and descriptions of these things, would these words have meaning? Would me saying "there is a ghost in the room" mean anything to you if man hadn't created stories and images of ghost?These words were created because the concepts were created, and we needed to call them something. And the concepts were created (as you well know) to fill in the blanks, they are gap fillers, they don't explain or describe anything - they're used as linguistic place fillers.The word life however, is different.Take what you said for example: Well, why? Because even though there isn't a concensus, there is a limit as to what any sane person would call life. And why? Because any sane person can physically look at an object and investigate what it is. The object physically exists.Can you say the same for god, ghosts and wizrds?It may vary and can be argued as to what "life" actually is, but it is objectively studied. And, one thing is for sure, a rock isn't life. So lets use that, for sake of argument. Anything that is not a rock, is life.Let the debate begin as to what a "rock" is. Are you telling me your son doesn't see Peter Parker (fuckin' Spiderman!) as a god in his 4 year old world?And don't you think Christians waiting for Jesus to return and smit the wicked see him as their own personal superhero?If you heard me say that, that your son thinks Spiderman is a god and Christians think Jesus is their own personal superhero, would you know what I meant? I meant it to be. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Words which have been invented as gap fillers, when the concept is removed, end up meaningless. I didn't say remove its conceptual "meaning," I said images and descriptions. They don't exist separate from them.Example: The moon remains there whether you call it "moon" or "The Eye of God." A ghost doesn't remain there, it ONLY exists as an imagined concept. As I've stated from the begining, in the world of fiction anything is possible. No, they are actors, characters and invented creatures. IF they existed as they are represented in fictional works, then they too could be examples of life. No, not at all. I have no say so in what attributes god/s possess. I didn't know there was a criteria.What's the criteria? Does John Frum fit the criteria? So what are the limits? Who establishes the criteria? How does a concept get left out?And...you didn't answer my question: So would you? Did you read the Bible? Was Jesus the Messiah? Or did people just think he was despite the fact he was no more godly than you or I? They meet the universal concept, which leads to the universally accepted definition. I don't have a problem with that, but that didn't address my question. I asked how you distinguish between a concept and the proper definition.My point was that the concepts provided the definition for the word, you said it didn't. But you haven't shown me how.The definition is, "A supernatural consciouisness." The concept of god in deism is, "A supernatural consciousness."So, does deism provide the definition, or was there an existing, universally accepted definition that has been established for all of history and deism just adopted it?Or does the definition get more and more ambiguous as time goes and changes to represent that?- Oni

Any word, invented to fill a gap, once the gap is filled, becomes meaningless. But, so long as questions remain, god as a gap filler remains. That is the only reason it still has meaning.Where am I going wrong? No, and I haven't stated that. I'm being specific as to why I think certain words are meaningless.It has nothing to do with fictional words, or referencing things that don't exist. This is only for words that are made up and concepts that are made up to fill a gap in knowledge. Sure, but you asked me if they were "life." They're not "life." Concepts, yes. We know what life is, a character made up in a book isn't life. It can represent life, given all the necessary qualities for it, but it remains just a character. Well, you asked if I could describe Spiderman as god and Jesus as a superhero. My only point was that I could and you would know what I meant. Because the words are so ambiguous (God more than superhero) that anything can be referenced as such.The difference though is that superheros are fictional characters that were not invented to fill gaps in knowledge. They'll exist so long as fictional work exists. Yes, they meet the definition. I guess the jist of what I'm asking is, what came first, the concepts or the definition?Take superhero. Concepts were created by people first, I think Superman was the first. He needed a name, so, superhero was given to him. Now, anything that follows the criteria set by Superman (or which ever the first one was) gets called superhero. The concept set the basis for there to be an acceptable definition.To me, that is the same as god - the (original) concept gave rise to an acceptable definition that is now universal.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Given AdminMod's post I'll end here. If you want to start a new thread then I'm game...if you think we can get somewhere. My definition of god is the same as yours, a supernatural consciousness. Within the context of the concepts it has meaning. Outside of that, there is really no meaning to "supernatural consciousness."Those are just two words connected to sound like something. A thought. A vision. An inspiration. I think stuff like that fit that criteria.I don't know where you're going with that so I'll give you this last word with it. Right, and while the world of comic books and fiction exist, the word superhero has meaning. But they don't exist in reality so there isn't anything to define.This is why I say within the context of religion or mythology, when the concepts are being discussed, it has meaning. But without the concept, gods don't exist in reality so there is nothing to define.I'll give you the last word unless you think a new thread is needed my friend.- Oni

Words used to fill a gap in knowledge, Strag. I made that clear in a few post. Fictional characters like unicorns and superheros do not fill a gap in knowledge. God, supernatural, ghost, telepathy, poltergeist, those words do.That is my ONLY criteria. Nothing to do with fiction, at all. Just gap fillers.- OniPS. I agree with Omni's assessment. {Stragler tried to also get in a second final message, but topic got closed too soon. His message can be found here. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Red text above.