Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:35 PM
22 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,107 Year: 9,143/19,786 Month: 1,565/2,119 Week: 325/576 Day: 128/98 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Supernatural?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 68 of 230 (545012)
01-30-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by MatterWave
01-30-2010 6:20 PM


What is not supernatural??

If everything is supernatural than that means there is no natural which means by definition there is no supernatural.

You affectively defeated your own proposition.


“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 66 by MatterWave, posted 01-30-2010 6:20 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 102 of 230 (545314)
02-03-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by MatterWave
02-03-2010 5:03 AM


Re: A pointless exercise
Existence can be both natural or supernatural, depending on whether a god exists or not.

How can you tell the difference?

We definitely all exist in some way,

Define existence.

This doesn't add anything to the question whether existence requires a God or not

Why would existence require a supernatural entity?

existence can be either natural or supernatural

Mere baseless assertion. How do you know? How can you know the difference between the two?

depending if a god is required for anything to exist

I assume you are talking whether the source of existence stems from a natural (not-God) or supernatural source (God).

Again the question is how can you tell the difference between the two beside pure blind faith?

So why the leap of faith?.

The leap of faith is when you assume there is a supernatural origin for everything. Not to say there isn't but how can we know for sure using science, itself defined as the study of the natural (the reality we can experience and study) world not the 'supernatural' (outside the reality we can experience and study) world?

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 101 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 5:03 AM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by MatterWave, posted 02-03-2010 1:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 185 of 230 (545680)
02-04-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:37 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Scientists first muse and make a hypothesis over unsolved questions, then they test the hypothesis. Is this news to you? Your statement that scientists aren't philosophical(thinking about the big questions) is completely false.

Not to speak for Taq, but I think his point was that scientists go beyond mere philosophical musings and actually test these 'musings', ideas, hypotheses or whatever you wish to label them and actually observe, test, experiment, verify and validate (through peer review) these ideas to match reality.

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 183 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:37 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 188 of 230 (545693)
02-04-2010 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:49 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Yes, they test different aspects of reality. They see an unexplained event, they muse over it, they make a hypothesis and they test it.

Agreed this is what I just said.

They are not retards who directly shoot for impossible targets like existence. Instead, they pick different aspects of existence and are slowly building a model that may one day prove successful in matching reality to a great degree of accuracy. Do you understand this point?

No, not at all. You are being ridiculously obtuse.

So are you saying that philosophers and scientists are retards? Because many of them do discuss both existence both as a whole as well as specific instances of existence. Or are you just being an obnoxious, childish troll who has nothing better to do than call people retards. BTW, many people would take offense to how you are using this pejorative term.

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 187 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:49 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 189 of 230 (545695)
02-04-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by MatterWave
02-04-2010 7:45 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Assuming you can understand everything is a logical fallacy. You are not a God-like, or are you? Do you understand that you are making the assumption that your mind can comprehend all aspects of existence, including existence itself?

So basically are you saying that because we can't understand all of reality we should automatically assume there is a supernatural being called 'God' that runs the universe?

Is this really your premise? If so then you are falling into a common logical fallacy called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' (argument from ignorance).


“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 186 by MatterWave, posted 02-04-2010 7:45 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:33 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 203 of 230 (545867)
02-05-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by MatterWave
02-05-2010 5:29 PM


Re: A pointless exercise
Do you need a dictionary definition of "NOT"? Do you have a point beside misunderstaning "yes" and "no"?

But philosophers and scientists DO contemplate and study 'impossible targets like existence' (also known as ontology). I guess Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Russell, Sartre, Spinoza, Einstein and many, many other scientists and philosophers are retards. Because they very much did and still do contemplate and study the nature of existence of both the universe itself and the things within our universe.

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 198 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:29 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 204 of 230 (545868)
02-05-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by MatterWave
02-05-2010 5:33 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
No, i am saying that you can make 187987989 0980 assumptions(this the 122nd time i am stating this!). There is really nothing wrong with that, AS LONG AS you are aware that you are making those assumptions.

What assumption are you accusing of me making?

Whether existence is natural or supernatural is somethig we cannot test.

What is your definitions of natural and supernatural?

That is actually what you are doing - insisting that your beliefs are more valid than others.

When did I do this? What beliefs are you accusing that I am inisting on being more valid?


“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 200 by MatterWave, posted 02-05-2010 5:33 PM MatterWave has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 205 of 230 (545869)
02-05-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by ICANT
02-05-2010 5:31 PM


Re: Existence
Iano,

You do understand that there can be no 'before T=0' because T=0 means when spacetime itself began. How can there be time before time? Cause and effect do not exist and have no meaning outside of time itself.


“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 199 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 5:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 220 of 230 (546296)
02-09-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by MatterWave
02-09-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Requirements for existence.
Look Dumbass, I was just asking a question.

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.

And let me guess, you have all the answers?

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.

Give it a fucking break MW. You have not even defined what the terms 'natural' or 'God' even mean much less evidence that your God exists.

Why should I be the one on the defense here? The burden of proof lies with the one who is proposing the existence of something i.e. 'God', not the other way around. Otherwise, why should we not believe in the 9 billion other gods invented throughout human history? i.e. Allah, Yaheweh, Zues, Thor, Wodin, Baha'is, Bramah, Krishna, Vishnu, Rama, Waheguru, Tao, Nirvanah, Ahura Mazda, Ra, Amaterasu, Agdistis, Angdistis, Ah Puch, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anansi, Anat
, Jahweh, Thor, Loki, Shango, Elegua, Bumba,Alchera, Rainbow-snake,Wandjina,Quetzacoatl, Chantico, Morrigan, Aonghus,Ares, Cronus,Akuma, Benten, Hathor, Bast Osiris, Apotamken, Raven , and so on and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum (estimates of the number of supernatural entities are in the 2000-3000 range).

Arguments from ignorance don't go well with 'existence' because ignorance is ALL there is with regards to these questions. You are simply not aware that you are very ignorant, because you've raised a model of the universe that you somehow believe is true.

That's really not different to believing in the Bible or the Toorah. Atheists and creationist share the same non-sensical dogma that you somehow understand the Universe. You don't! Claims to the contrary don't do justice to your position and are tremendously hilarious.

How do you know what the fuck I do or do not believe? You know nothing about me or my beliefs.

Why is it every fucking religious person I meet on this board is so pretentious to think they know what the other person does or does not believe without even asking? I have no clue what you believe nor do I pretend to. I only debate what you spew on this forum nothing more. I am getting a little sick and tired of your egotistical, pretentious, self-righteous religiousity. In other words, ASK the other person about what they are trying to say or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Stop pretending to know what you are talking about. You are backed into a corner and to hide your ignorance, all you can spout is fucking idiotic ramblings about nobody knowing what the they are talking about. Then you turn around and say the all the answers to the universe is some mythical unsubstantiated being you call 'God' which you have yet to give one iota of evidence for.

You are the posterboy for illogical and unsubstantiated, unintelligent garbage.

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 215 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 7:03 PM MatterWave has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by MatterWave, posted 02-09-2010 8:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1266 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019