Supernatural?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

Quote:

To begin, the definition of God is far from equivalent to the definition of a Leprechaun.

and your definition is...

Quote:

classical definition of God is an omnipotent Being that is infinite, independent and uncreated....whose very reason for existence is in Himself

so in defining something unknown and undefinable, you used other unknowns and other undefinables. Just like the definitions of Leprechauns change from person and culture, so do definitions of god from person and culture. there is no real definition for something that doesnt exist. and well, you've proven that to me as well as everyone else already that your god is clearly as unknowable and undefinable from your own definition.

Quote:

Although, the issue of God is particularly debated throughout the entire world, I have yet to find even one serious debate over the existence of Leprechauns.

come on now. the reason why people are having to dialogue about gods is because no one is killing themselves for the sake of little green men... some might be. but humanists like me are motivated by these dialogues becuase the theory of god(s) have become more and more worked into government issues taht it just makes me wish i could afford to fly to britain and find a living over there somehow. the emotional hold that theists have on imaginary things threatens our very way of life.

Quote:

However, the notion of any entity’s existence is primarily dependent upon the knowledge founded within an individual’s existential mindset

..... of course?

Quote:

However, as a theistic-girded individual I do believe that belief in Leprechauns is ludicrous because the existence of such a creature falls in sharp contrast with my religious worldview. An atheist worldview would also espouse the existence of Leprechauns as untenable since on a naturalistic scale, only that which falls in accord with empirically verifiable datum can be accepted as realistically sound. The idea of Leprechauns in itself is not comical….it only becomes so when first examined against one’s worldview.

*sigh*
so you value a religious worldview over evidence and reason? because i dont think you want to say that the existence of leprechauns are only valid according to a worldview.
i dont need to have absolute knowledge of anything to know that something doesnt exist. i hope that's not what you're saying.

and i dont think you understood what was said...

Quote:

But the problem is that these events are held out as evidence for God. Then turning around and saying that God did it, is both an argument from ignorance and a circular argument.

your proposed premises didnt even really show what he said here.
i think if you try to define god, you'll understand why. cuz all you did so far was define an unknowable with other unknowables. those become non answers, thus circular and well, argument from ignorance.
you're comparing god, right away, with miracles. somehow. or that the existence of something unexplained is somehow related to god. define god with knowable attributes. this is where the subject needs to go since we're in discussion about supernatural.. somethings.

and sorry, but your premises for..

Quote:

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

dont really address what's being said. you're relating miracles and god. the relationship between these 2 are still unfounded in our position. we need to know what god IS.

God did it, means you have looked into all possible natural explanations and is in my opinion boring and lazy. i'm not about to say i have all possible knowledge about all possible natural causes. what we called supernatural 1,000 years ago.. or even 100 years ago, we now understand as natural. so god did it, is a non answer. always has been.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

baddogma wrote:

Ok, even if your god did do it, what a pathetic piece of fucking SHIT your god is. Yes I just typed god is a fucking piece of shit. I just said it out loud too.......nothing. If your god has time to fling fucking medicine cabinets across a room to make a point yet lets children starve to death he is a PIECE OF SHIT unworthy of worship. The only thing that fucking loser is worthy of is our contempt and hatred. Fuck your god, fuck the concept of your god and fuck the idiots that blindly follow that piece of shit out of fear of death and delusions of heaven.

That is my Thanksgiving prayer.

AMEN!

and i dont see the exact reason for this sort of hostility. some people see this as proper because of whats happening in the middle east, but it gets us nowhere in this setting.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

i think this link from the old forums will help lead the discussion deeper as well.
http://www.thedebatehour.com/archives/modules.php?name=Boards&file=viewtopic&t=18507

and i cannot seem to find my 40 page supernatural thread on the old IG forums...
=(

***EDIT
and we cant ferget the superest one of them all
http://www.thedebatehour.com/archives/modules.php?name=Boards&file=viewforum&f=28
"logical arguments against god forum"

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:53 am

I just wanna add that don't get me wrong, i wasn't trying to prove that God exists. I just wanted to have logical explanations to these phenomenons, so that i wouldn't have to think about these religion things anymore. But i don't understand you atheists either. Don't you have something better to do? If somebody decides to believe in God, SO WHAT?! It's not your bisness. And why do you have to talk about God at all if he doesn't exist? You have all these forums where you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Who cares?! I don't care if millions believe in it. Now when i too think there's no God, i just leave it all behind. I have better things to do and discuss in life than non-existing God. Get a hobby or something. And now i suppose that you ask me why i needed some stupid religion. But past is past. I got over it, and you should get over with your overanxious atheism. After all, i'm just a kid and many of you are probably adults. I'm not talking about atheists in general, i'm talking about fundamentalists. Especially you baddogma. You sound pretty mad in your every message. Why don't you just laught about the whole thing and leave it be. There's no reason to get mad if somebody's superstitious. Just live your lifes and forget that no-one ever even said that there might be a God. You're just trying to prove that you don't believe in God because you want everybody to know how smart and realistic you are. Maybe you are smart, but really, NOBODY CARES! If you really are smart, you think of something better to talk about. Besides, where i live, most of the hillbillys don't believe in God either.

p.s. no offense (and thanks for the answers)

The Learned Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 110

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

But i don't understand you atheists either. Don't you have something better to do? If somebody decides to believe in God, SO WHAT?! It's not your bisness. And why do you have to talk about God at all if he doesn't exist? You have all these forums where you're trying to prove that God doesn't exist. Who cares?! I don't care if millions believe in it. Now when i too think there's no God, i just leave it all behind. I have better things to do and discuss in life than non-existing God. Get a hobby or something. And now i suppose that you ask me why i needed some stupid religion. But past is past. I got over it, and you should get over with your overanxious atheism. After all, i'm just a kid and many of you are probably adults. I'm not talking about atheists in general, i'm talking about fundamentalists. You sound pretty mad in your every message. Why don't you just laught about the whole thing and leave it be. There's no reason to get mad if somebody's superstitious. Just live your lifes and forget that no-one ever even said that there might be a God.

The problem isn't that people hold their religious beliefs. The problem is the dominionism of the religious people. They want to rule the world by their superstition. They want to govern based on their faith, their belief in something they have no evidence for. They say gays can't get married because of God. They say we can't have stem cell research because of God. They say cancer patients can't smoke pot to alleviate their pain. They outlaw euthanasia because of God. AND GOD ISN"T REAL!!!

We have a guy in the White House who believes he will be raptured! He has the authority to use a lot of nuclear weapons without anyone checking him! An out atheist can't even get political office in the U.S., but we've got fundies everywhere making laws that block freedom based on their superstition.

So it is our business, because the religious people force us to be concerned about it. It's not for fun, but because we are actually oppressed by christianity in America. We can't just live our lives, because the religious zealots won't allow it. We aren't mad about the superstition; we're mad because the superstitious are fucking with us.

Does this make sense to you?

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

gmankbadi wrote:

Hmm....now I must apologize but I can only respond to one poster or rebuttal at a time. If a whole host of responses are bombarded in a relatively short time, I will need time to read and earnestly respond to each. As such I 'll begin with Lszek's response.

Quote:

Except that the one saying "God did it", is implicitly claiming there is a God. Something that needs to be proven. For example if they said a Leprechaun did it, you wouldn't take them seriously. They have to come up with evidence a leprechaun exists first.

I agree wholeheartedly that the statement "God did it" entails the positing of God's existence. You then proceed to state that such a statement is "something that needs to be proven" juxtaposing it with a statement such as "Leprechauns exists". However, claiming that both statements are theoretically identical is logically facetious. To begin, the definition of God is far from equivalent to the definition of a Leprechaun. The classical definition of God is an omnipotent Being that is infinite, independent and uncreated....whose very reason for existence is in Himself. On the other hand Leprechauns are creatures particularly embroiled with dependent, finite and created attributes. How can I tell? Since, the very notion of Leprechaun originates from mythological accounts that have never historically deemed such creature as deities; or for that matter as existentially real.

Ok fine, instead of Leprechaun, substitute Loki.

What you have done is missed the point entirely. I chose leprechauns BECAUSE we both no they are not real. The point is that you have to show God exists before you can use him to explain anything, ESPECIALLY things that are going to be used to argue he exists.

The definition of God is a naked assertion. I can define anything I want into existence. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because he is omnipotent Being that is infinite, independent and uncreated....whose very reason for existence is in Himself.

"very notion of Leprechaun originates from mythological accounts" <- So have Gods.

Quote:

Now you might retort "Well, by the same token, the very definition of God has been deemed by some as entirely mythical ". However, such a claim would be the discourse of centuries of discussion and the underlying theme behind this very forum. Although, the issue of God is particularly debated throughout the entire world, I have yet to find even one serious debate over the existence of Leprechauns.

Once again you missed the mile wide target. The fact that leprechauns are assumed to not exist by either of us is WHY I chose them. IT DOES NOT CHANGE MY POINT ONE BIT. Before you can claim that "Foos" did it, you have to show that Foos exist.

Quote:

While I don't believe it's even necessary to further discuss your analogy and it's prevalence in today's society…I will entertain your premises for the sake of frivolity. You argument suggests that since it is ridiculous to claim Leprechauns do not exist without definitive proof, one might as well claim God’s own existence falls under the same line of scrutiny since both cannot be empirically validated with absolute proof.

Uhhh, that is a typo I think. (I hope.) My claim is not that Leprechauns do not exits without definitive proof. I don't even know where to comment on such a stupid claim.

My claim is thus. As is standard the positive claim has the burden of proof. The claim that God exists, Leprechauns exist, and so on have the burden of proof. Without that one is very justified in dismissing such claims as fictional. The answer God did it, is to answer a problem with something that isn't known to exist. Furthermore, to put forth the event to be explained as something that needs to be explained, or else God did it is a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. It is also a circular argument, how do we know god exists, because the Cabinet flew, how did the cabinet fly, because God exists.

Whether God can be shown with absolute proof is not an issue. Gravity can't be proven with absolute proof either. But before we can use gravity to explain things, we should have evidence it exists.

Now sometimes we do use an argument based on that is the only explanation we have. But that only works with assumptions, and those assumptions are off the moment you go supernatural.

Quote:

However, the notion of any entity’s existence is primarily dependent upon the knowledge founded within an individual’s existential mindset. Granted, that one cannot definitively prove Leprechauns do not exist….in itself, it becomes fallacious to claim that such creatures can not exist. For all that man may know, there may indeed be Leprechauns that do exist (in another world, planet, dimension etc.)

Very good. My position exactly.

Quote:

Unless man has absolute knowledge of the universe such an assertion is logically unwarranted.

Wrong.

1)Depending on how specific the claim is, it is possible to disprove a negative sometimes. Just not very often.

2)If a claim contains logical contradictions, you can rule it out with 100% surety.

The argument about absolute knowledge of the universe is just wrong. Square Circles don't exist. I don't have 100% knowledge of anything. Even Circles and squares.

Quote:

However, as a theistic-girded individual I do believe that belief in Leprechauns is ludicrous because the existence of such a creature falls in sharp contrast with my religious worldview. An atheist worldview would also espouse the existence of Leprechauns as untenable since on a naturalistic scale, only that which falls in accord with empirically verifiable datum can be accepted as realistically sound. The idea of Leprechauns in itself is not comical….it only becomes so when first examined against one’s worldview.

Except that everything in my worldview is (Which is naturalistic, not atheistic, Atheism isn't a worldview. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity.) verifiable, and nothing in your world view is verifiable, I would think that I stand on a stronger foundation.

Your world view is one big naked assertion. A naked assertion that is not that much different from the same ones those that believe if Zeus, or Mitheras make. It is speculation or wishful thinking or both. At the very least it is completely indistinguishable from them.

Quote:

But the problem is that these events are held out as evidence for God. Then turning around and saying that God did it, is both an argument from ignorance and a circular argument.

Your critique is developed for the following argument:

Premise1: If miracles exist, then God also exists
Premise 2: Miracles do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Which has also be explicated into the forthcoming inversion:

Premise1: If God exists, miracles exist
Premise2: God exists
Conclusion: Miracles exist.

That argument is in error because it assumes that God is the only possible cause of Miracles. Why not Gods or Leprechauns? That is why it is an argument from ignorance. We don't know what caused event X, therefore my theory that God did it must be taken seriously. Oh I forgot to mention my theory of God is that he is a flying plate of spaghetti.

Quote:

Now your claim to a philosophical circular fallacy would hold true if both arguments and the conclusions they lend credit to were completely sound. I believe this is far from being the actual case. For the sake of this discussion, the only argument that can be correctly fitted as a metaphysical glove should be the former of the two arguments. Let us carefully review the premises of and the forthcoming conclusion that follows from the intial argument. So long as the definition of the “miraculous” falls in line with the belief in a divine deity, then miracles can be asserted to, in fact, be demonstrable of God’s existence.

Miracles are events that cannot be explained.

However even if we assume that can only be caused by a God. There is no way to know which God. Or even how many Gods there are. All of that extra baggage is just assumed by you based on the naked assertion you were indoctrinated into when you were little. Otherwise, you might have realized that you are talking in the singular about God when no such fact is in evidence.

Never mind that miracles are also arguments from ignorance. We don't know what cased event X, therefore my cat did it.

Quote:

Nevertheless, as the premise stands now; resuming to having the ambivalence of “miracles within;—a term that is essentially unclothed—the initial premise merely does not logically stand. For unless a miracle is the breaking of natural law by a supernatural force it does not logically follow that if miracles exist, then God also exists. Yet, if such definition was placed down as the implicit vehicle, then an a priori belief in God would be presupposed as a backdrop for the definition. As such, the definition of the miraculous would need to be clearly defined. Now, within the naturalistic worldview a miracle may occur and seemingly defy natural law only to be labeled as an inexplicable occurrence that will later be explained by future law. In the naturalistic worldview the miraculous is a priori ruled out….for man does not have infinite knowledge of the universe.

You are right they are ruled out, ehhh, almost.

If for example God suddenly appeared in the sky all over the world and every Human saw him and understood him in his own language. That would be a miracle, even in the naturalistic world view. It is true that we cannot know for sure that it is a God and not rule out say tricky very advanced aliens, but we don't know gravity is as we think for 100% sure either. It is just that the odds of that not being God and the Odds of that gravity is wrong are so high that it is silly to dispute them. (Not that they equate equally to each other either.)

The things ppl usually hold out as miracles are not that big though. A cabinet flies. (How do we know that it wasn't a ghost?) A hurricane hits Houston. A plane crashes and one guy survives.

IF every false book of religion was to spontaneously combust and every "endorsed" holy book was to become impervious. That would be a miracle.

If instead of that hurricane hitting Houston the way it did, one formed directly over it and sin city and San Fransisco and went to cat 5 in ten minutes, and then blew itself out in 5 minutes leaving only Churches and Church goers and holy books. That would be a miracle. Even by naturalistic standards.

The possibilities are endless.

Instead we have a fricken anecdote about some lame cabinet that may or may not actually exist flying across a room that we have to explain.

Quote:

On the other hand, the second argument does remain soundly saddled with the philosophical framework of reality. For if God does exist then the definition of miraculous necessarily falls in line with the breaking of natural law. The breaking of natural law would then only be a reasonable claim if an all-powerful deity had initially set the natural law in place and was powerful enough to pervade its order. What’s even more so, within a Theistic (particularly Christian) worldview one may claim that certain miraculous events fall in correlative sequence with natural law while certain exceptional miracles pervade natural law. It therefore behooves an individual to discuss the philosophical worldview girding this discussion; namely whether or not God exists prior to discussing the existence of a miraculous event; for one consecutively follows from the other. Now so long as the definition of miraculous within the second argument is not definitively correlated with theistic beliefs, no circular fallacy takes place—only the second of the two arguments logically flows.

Premise1: If God exists, miracles exist
Premise2: God exists
Conclusion: Miracles exist.

This argument works. The problem is that premise two hasn't been demonstrated.

The reverse didn't work because miracles haven't been demonstrated, and also there is the problem that just because we have a miracle, doesn't mean that your particular God (or even a God at all) did it. Ghosts, leprechauns, Invisible pink unicorns.

Quote:

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

Let’s consider the premises of this inverted argument.

Premise1: If miracles do not exist, then God does not exist
Premise2: Miracles do not exist
Conclusion: God does not exist

Which has also been recapitulated as the following:

Premise1: If God does not exist, then miracles do not exist
Premise2: God does not exist
Conclusion: Therefore, miracles do not exist

You switch these arguments around with hasty abandon. You make me nervous as you do this.

Neither argument is correct, but for different reasons. 1) If God exists and he is a Deist God, then we would not expect miracles anyways. Just because they do not exits, doesn't mean a God of some description or another doesn't exists.

The second argument isn't is bad a premise one. Other agents could cause what we would describe as miracles. Whether they are "true" miracles based on your definition is irrelevant as we would have no way to tell the difference.

You cannot just switch logical arguments around like you do. Even if the first argument had no flaws, for example if all definitions of God would cause miracles, your second argument is still complete bull crap.

Unfortunately I have to stop here for a while. I have run out of time. I didn't have time to prof what I wrote, I hope it is clear enough. When I get back I will finish commentary on what is below.

Quote:

Once again, the second of the two arguments is truly the only one that remains logically concrete. (Now I am presuming the first argument is what you really meant to have follow through from your retort. For according to your rebuttal, the former argument would really need premise 1 substituted with “If miracle A does not exist, then God does not exist”….which holds major philosophical discrepancies.) Now it does not follow that if miracles do not exist, then God does not exist. This depends primarily on what sort of a God you are espousing. While the God of Christianity is a God of Miracles, a Deistic or Pantheistic god may cheerfully exist without the pre-required sack of the miraculous beladen upon his shoulders. Furthermore, it is essentially presumptuous to claim that miracles do not exist. For until one has experienced the total scope of all perspectives enveloping all possible extants within the known universe, he can not for sure rule out the possibility of the miraculous. This would require definite proof for the non-existence of God as well as the ability to surmount the restriction time and decay hold on mankind. You are therefore right in stating that the “God did not do it” holds no circular fallacy; yet neither does the enterprising claim that “God did do it”….for in either case there may only be one viable argument to espouse; excluding its inversion.

Quote:

Furthermore, it rules out far less. The statement "God did it" rules out Natural phenomenon (the only kind we know exists), as well as a whole slew of supernatural phenomenon such as leprechauns, ghosts, telekinesis, and invisible pink unicorns. "God did not do it" is by far the more rational option, even with the caveat that it could be wrong, then the alternative which jumps to a conclusion.

This point I have already answered within the structure of my response. Such a statement only proves to be veritable so long as the Theistic god you're espousing is a personalized, omnipotent Being that seeks to reveal his creative work to mankind.

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

In my previous post, where I mentioned a Hurricane hitting Houston, I was thinking about New Orleans. I had been spending some time at the NASA website earlier, I must have had Houston on my brain.

Anyway, I need to re quote this for context purposes.

Quote:

Let’s consider the premises of this inverted argument.

Premise1: If miracles do not exist, then God does not exist
Premise2: Miracles do not exist
Conclusion: God does not exist

Which has also been recapitulated as the following:

Premise1: If God does not exist, then miracles do not exist
Premise2: God does not exist
Conclusion: Therefore, miracles do not exist

<Snip>No need to repeat my own comments on the above.<Snip>

Quote:

Once again, the second of the two arguments is truly the only one that remains logically concrete. (Now I am presuming the first argument is what you really meant to have follow through from your retort. For according to your rebuttal, the former argument would really need premise 1 substituted with “If miracle A does not exist, then God does not exist”

As I noted the second argument isn't logically concrete. Other supernatural agents can cause miracles.

You presume wrong. The first argument is in error as well. My position is that we don't have any evidence for God and we are justified in not believing him. I have rejected the evidence of a miracle presented (Cabinet Flies) on the grounds that it is Anecdotal. (And vacuous as well but I declined to follow that line as it is redundant.)

Changing line #1 to "If miracle A does not exist, then God does not exist”, would not be my position. That argument is logically invalid. Whether a specific miracle exits or not would not change anything, if there was other evidence for God, such as other miracles, I can not dismiss them just because one specific example is shown not to be valid.

In fact I am making no positive arguments against God at all here. Some "evidence" of sorts has been proposed regarding God, and I am making rebuttal. Nothing more.

Quote:

….which holds major philosophical discrepancies.) Now it does not follow that if miracles do not exist, then God does not exist. This depends primarily on what sort of a God you are espousing. While the God of Christianity is a God of Miracles, a Deistic or Pantheistic god may cheerfully exist without the pre-required sack of the miraculous beladen upon his shoulders.

Agreed.

What has happened is that you misunderstood my position and figured the above would be news to me. But as you see it isn't.

Quote:

Furthermore, it is essentially presumptuous to claim that miracles do not exist. For until one has experienced the total scope of all perspectives enveloping all possible extants within the known universe, he can not for sure rule out the possibility of the miraculous.

Technically it is correct that we cannot say with certainty that miracles do not exist. However the burden of proof is on those making the claim miracles exist. It is not up to us to disprove it. In this case the burden of proof has not been met.

Once again we do not need full knowledge to disprove something. I have already explained why. Internal logical contradictions will do just fine. I don't know if God or miracles have logical contradictions. (I think God does but it doesn't matter.) My point is only that the continued claim of full knowledge to disprove something isn't universally valid. It is in some cases and not in others. The standard example of Gold in China would only need knowledge about gold in china and not about anything in the Andromeda galaxy. Proof of a negative is often impossible or unpractical but not always.

Quote:

This would require definite proof for the non-existence of God as well as the ability to surmount the restriction time and decay hold on mankind. You are therefore right in stating that the “God did not do it” holds no circular fallacy; yet neither does the enterprising claim that “God did do it”….for in either case there may only be one viable argument to espouse; excluding its inversion.

I don't require definite proof for the non-existence of anything. I start with the premise of non-existence and require evidence to the contrary. Evidence and not proof. God is a big claim, God needs lots of evidence. Anecdotes are not it.

I don't state miracles don't exist. I don't believe they exist, but I can be shown otherwise.

I don't state that lack of miracles prove the non existence of God. I don't require proof on non-existence.

The statement "God did it" by itself isn't a circular argument. Agreed. But it isn't by itself is it. The challenge to explain the claim of a cabinet makes an implicit circular argument. It implies that if I can't explain the cabinet, God must exist. God exists because the cabinet flew. The cabinet flew because God exists. I could be wrong, but that does look like a circular argument to me. Am I mistaken about the terminology?

Quote:

Furthermore, it rules out far less. The statement "God did it" rules out Natural phenomenon (the only kind we know exists), as well as a whole slew of supernatural phenomenon such as leprechauns, ghosts, telekinesis, and invisible pink unicorns. "God did not do it" is by far the more rational option, even with the caveat that it could be wrong, then the alternative which jumps to a conclusion.

This point I have already answered within the structure of my response. Such a statement only proves to be veritable so long as the Theistic god you're espousing is a personalized, omnipotent Being that seeks to reveal his creative work to mankind.

Not true. I make few claims about God himself, non of them are personalized or omnipotent. I don't think Zeus for example is either.

But the statement rules out more then other kinds of Gods, it rules out multiple Gods, other supernatural agents that would not be called Gods, and even naturalistic explanations. That is my point.

Whatever you describe your God to be, personal or otherwise, the statement that "God did it" in response to unexplainable event X is an argument from ignorance. Case closed.

The only true statement we can make is we don't know what did it, assuming the event even took place as described. (Indeed or even at all.)

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

"I don't require definite proof for the non-existence of anything. "

and nobody SHOULD. no one would get anywhere on any subject if they expected absolute proof or knowledge about anything before making a decision...

and great posts. your posts sound like... someone very familiar and i cant put my finger on the name. what that always your name on the old IG forums?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:16 pm

sherlock_homeboy wrote:

I just wanna add that don't get me wrong, i wasn't trying to prove that God exists. I just wanted to have logical explanations to these phenomenons, so that i wouldn't have to think about these religion things anymore.

It is impossible to analyze what you claim to be physical, atypical events without being present to analyze them, so our explanations can only be hypothetical. The events you describe might be described as paranormal (not normal or typical), but they’re almost certainly of a natural origin.

The human mind is wonderfully creative when it comes to occurrences that confound it... thus "god". What we’ve learned about our reality so far strongly suggests that ghosts, demons and gods are only creative phantasms of our natural brain.

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

fattychunks wrote:

"I don't require definite proof for the non-existence of anything. "

and nobody SHOULD. no one would get anywhere on any subject if they expected absolute proof or knowledge about anything before making a decision...

and great posts. your posts sound like... someone very familiar and i cant put my finger on the name. what that always your name on the old IG forums?

Why thank you.

My name hasn't changed. I just don't post so much. But I still have the same Avatar and signature, and I am even in the chat room from time to time. I have even called into IG shows twice, and I identified myself once. Though to be sure the stress of calling a show like that made it difficult to sound to intelligent. Though I never went back and checked. Mostly because I was afraid of what it would sound like.

Newbie Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 11

Fattychunks (although I wonder what your real name might be),

Let me begin by stating that it is truly a pleasure to be able to philosophically go toe to toe with an individual who bases his arguments on reasons and not predominantly headstrong emotion. There are few religiously zealous men who can argue their way through a discussion using logically bounded response and restrictive emotional zeal. All the more so, for the sake of upholding reason and its claim to at least partial verity let us continue our rebuttal.

Quote:

so in defining something unknown and undefinable, you used other unknowns and other undefinables. Just like the definitions of Leprechauns change from person and culture, so do definitions of god from person and culture. there is no real definition for something that doesnt exist. and well, you've proven that to me as well as everyone else already that your god is clearly as unknowable and undefinable from your own definition.

Now although I intend to answer your retort in full, I think it necessary to first unveil the mistaken pre-suppositions of your present position that illogically stem from your worldview. You are cautioning theists to become cognizant of their lucid tendency to portray “God” as an objective reality although the term in itself becomes relatively constituted. The “changing of God’s definitions from person to culture” is an attempt of disclosing the inconsistent defining precepts behind the term “deity” or “god” within mankind’s historical experience. Nevertheless, you are asking the theist to conclusively define their terms on an objective standard to which, as an atheist, such a door is simply not open for you. Unsparingly, the notion of absolute or objective reality cannot exist unless God is necessarily placed within the framework of your worldview.

Now if consistent and objective definitions truly exist within the parameters of language, then absolute values must necessarily exist. Yet, if absolute values exist then aren’t you invoking the need for an absolute reference point from which to salvage such values. Yet, if such a reference point exists then does not the very reality of God and His objectivity necessarily exist….; yet isn’t that who you are attempting to disprove and not prove? Without God your request for absolute definitions is merely ungrounded.

Nevertheless, the claim against my using indefinable attributes does not relate itself very clearly to the point in charge. The claim of omnipotence or “omni” divine significance is by no means indefinable. These terms actually exist and hold particular explanatory scope when one refers to the classical definition of a monotheistic God….the primary definition established centuries ago. Your argument seems to fall in accord with a Pantheistic mentality. The claim that God and his defining attributes are unknowable; primarily since God is not fully knowable suggests that nothing can be coherently stated about God. Is this your position thus far? I’m not precisely certain why you think God’s attributes are “unknowable”. Perhaps, your are corroborating the relative perspective your worldview impedes upon absolute calims?

Quote:

come on now. the reason why people are having to dialogue about gods is because no one is killing themselves for the sake of little green men... some might be. but humanists like me are motivated by these dialogues becuase the theory of god(s) have become more and more worked into government issues taht it just makes me wish i could afford to fly to britain and find a living over there somehow. the emotional hold that theists have on imaginary things threatens our very way of life.

Understood.

Quote:

*sigh*
so you value a religious worldview over evidence and reason? because i dont think you want to say that the existence of leprechauns are only valid according to a worldview.
i dont need to have absolute knowledge of anything to know that something doesnt exist. i hope that's not what you're saying.

Within my worldview logic and or reasoning are inseparable in the tenants of the very theology I constrain my entire my belief system to. Ultimately, it becomes insignificant whether I am Christian or not. Leprechauns are not merely invalid due to logical inconsistency…..for by no logical means can you absolutely disprove the existence of Leprechauns. (Now, you may believe such a view is unviable and preposterous to hold existentially, yet is not philosophically unsound) You either espouse a worldview that negates such an existence (which Christianity and naturalism are) or you merely believe that Leprechauns can not exist because of your past experience and probabilistic arguments (yet, even the championing of probabilistic argumentation prescribes a worldview that holds such arguments in high estate.) Everyone holds one worldview or another…even if that worldview is to primarily jettison all worldviews—a logically contradictory view in itself. As such, the claim that reasoning is separable form primary belief does not always hold its ground depending on the prerequisites of one’s belief system. For Christianity, the primary beliefs are grounded upon reasonable faith; not reason plus faith.

Quote:

your proposed premises didnt even really show what he said here.
i think if you try to define god, you'll understand why. cuz all you did so far was define an unknowable with other unknowables. those become non answers, thus circular and well, argument from ignorance.
you're comparing god, right away, with miracles. somehow. or that the existence of
something unexplained is somehow related to god. define god with knowable attributes.

Once more, please clarify what you mean by defining an “unknowable” and “knowable” Are you indicating that term “God” and all of His attributes are terms that can not be known or understood? Please specify.

Quote:

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

….Unless of course, there is also a posited position on behalf of the Atheist. The presumption hat the Theist is positing the existence of God while the Atheist is merely negating that position is fallacious.

The term Atheist has been vigorously disputed. Nevertheless, my claim has always been the concept of atheism entails one is not merely espousing that God may not or can not exist, but that God necessarily does not exist. While, the claim of Theism is the positing of a Being whose very existence lends to the cause of our own, the atheistic claim posits the negation of such theistic entailments. Considerably then, the individual who claims to be absolutely certain that God does not exist is positing the absolute negation of a Being whose control is sovereign over all men.

Furthermore, as posters have pointed out, it becomes preposterous to claim that one need have "tangible" (or even philosophically infallible) evidence for the non-existence of an unheard of creature, such as a pink elephant or a leprechaun. You, yourself realize that you can never hold a truly absolute certainty for the non-existence of any positive, without contingently and implicitly claiming to first have absolute knowledge of the universe and its mysteries. Yet, doesn't this same argumentation then apply to the absolute negation of God? How can you be absolutely certain that God does not exist unless you claim to first hold absolute knowledge of the entire universe and its truths? (unless you believe Atheism does not posit the absolute negation of God….however, such is not the a definition would need to hold a debate on it’s own) You would in essence be making yourself a god, if not the singular consummate expression of God.

It is, however, unnecessary to have absolute knowledge of the universe prior to claiming the positive of any truth. For all you need is to view one instance of that truth, to claim it absolutely exists. For example, an individual may not logically claim that a white dice with one dot on it can absolutely not exist. For, unless he has traveled the vast corners of the universe, it may be possible that a white dice with one dot does indeed exist. That same individual does not need to travel the distant expanses of the universe to claim that a white dice with one dot does exist. He only needs to find a single instance of that dice actually existing. Readers seem to be dodging the presumption of Atheism in their assertions.

As another proponent of this argument further elucidates….. a Dr. William J. Wainright best explicates;

"For the atheist, as well as the theist, is implicitly making an existence claim. The theist finds the existence of a world consisting in a set of contingent beings that are grounded in the free activity of a necessary being intrinsically more probable than that of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings. He therefore believes that the burden of proof is on one who denies that the former is in fact more probable then the latter. Atheists like Flew believe that the existence of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings is intrinsically more probable then the existence of the theist's world, and that theists therefore bear the burden of showing that the probability of their world is in fact higher then that of the atheist's. On the face of it both theists and atheists are making positive existence claims..." (Does God Exist Chp 5).

It therefore seems amply pertinent, to me, that the atheist making the assertion not only establish grounds for doubting Christianity's truth claims but that he proposes his own claims in support of his positing an atheistic worldview.

Quote:

God did it, means you have looked into all possible natural explanations and is in my opinion boring and lazy. i'm not about to say i have all possible knowledge about all possible natural causes. what we called supernatural 1,000 years ago.. or even 100 years ago, we now understand as natural. so god did it, is a non answer. always has been.

This statement borders itself on the verge of a subjective claim more so, then on “postulated facts”. I might retort by saying that while all natural explanations have not been discovered or refined, I personally believe that naturalistic explanations are not distinct from the creative handiwork of a Theistic God. If I had believed that God purely revealed Himself as in the supernatural alone and contended against the natural forces (scientifically verifiable) forces of our universe, then your argument would hold warrant. However, the God of the Bible is a God who uses both the natural elements of the universe and occasionally pervades the natural (segwaying into the supernatural) to glorify His name throughout all facets of existence.

Newbie Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 11

Fattychunks (although I wonder what your real name might be),

Let me begin by stating that it is truly a pleasure to be able to philosophically go toe to toe with an individual who bases his arguments on reasons and not predominantly headstrong emotion. There are few religiously zealous men who can argue their way through a discussion using logically bounded response and restrictive emotional zeal. All the more so, for the sake of upholding reason and its claim to at least partial verity let us continue our rebuttal.

Quote:

so in defining something unknown and undefinable, you used other unknowns and other undefinables. Just like the definitions of Leprechauns change from person and culture, so do definitions of god from person and culture. there is no real definition for something that doesnt exist. and well, you've proven that to me as well as everyone else already that your god is clearly as unknowable and undefinable from your own definition.

Now although I intend to answer your retort in full, I think it necessary to first unveil the mistaken pre-suppositions of your present position that illogically stem from your worldview. You are cautioning theists to become cognizant of their lucid tendency to portray “God” as an objective reality although the term in itself becomes relatively constituted. The “changing of God’s definitions from person to culture” is an attempt of disclosing the inconsistent defining precepts behind the term “deity” or “god” within mankind’s historical experience. Nevertheless, you are asking the theist to conclusively define their terms on an objective standard to which, as an atheist, such a door is simply not open for you. Unsparingly, the notion of absolute or objective reality cannot exist unless God is necessarily placed within the framework of your worldview.

Now if consistent and objective definitions truly exist within the parameters of language, then absolute values must necessarily exist. Yet, if absolute values exist then aren’t you invoking the need for an absolute reference point from which to salvage such values. Yet, if such a reference point exists then does not the very reality of God and His objectivity necessarily exist….; yet isn’t that who you are attempting to disprove and not prove? Without God your request for absolute definitions is merely ungrounded.

Nevertheless, the claim against my using indefinable attributes does not relate itself very clearly to the point in charge. The claim of omnipotence or “omni” divine significance is by no means indefinable. These terms actually exist and hold particular explanatory scope when one refers to the classical definition of a monotheistic God….the primary definition established centuries ago. Your argument seems to fall in accord with a Pantheistic mentality. The claim that God and his defining attributes are unknowable; primarily since God is not fully knowable suggests that nothing can be coherently stated about God. Is this your position thus far? I’m not precisely certain why you think God’s attributes are “unknowable”. Perhaps, your are corroborating the relative perspective your worldview impedes upon absolute calims?

Quote:

come on now. the reason why people are having to dialogue about gods is because no one is killing themselves for the sake of little green men... some might be. but humanists like me are motivated by these dialogues becuase the theory of god(s) have become more and more worked into government issues taht it just makes me wish i could afford to fly to britain and find a living over there somehow. the emotional hold that theists have on imaginary things threatens our very way of life.

Understood.

Quote:

*sigh*
so you value a religious worldview over evidence and reason? because i dont think you want to say that the existence of leprechauns are only valid according to a worldview.
i dont need to have absolute knowledge of anything to know that something doesnt exist. i hope that's not what you're saying.

Within my worldview logic and or reasoning are inseparable in the tenants of the very theology I constrain my entire my belief system to. Ultimately, it becomes insignificant whether I am Christian or not. Leprechauns are not merely invalid due to logical inconsistency…..for by no logical means can you absolutely disprove the existence of Leprechauns. (Now, you may believe such a view is unviable and preposterous to hold existentially, yet is not philosophically unsound) You either espouse a worldview that negates such an existence (which Christianity and naturalism are) or you merely believe that Leprechauns can not exist because of your past experience and probabilistic arguments (yet, even the championing of probabilistic argumentation prescribes a worldview that holds such arguments in high estate.) Everyone holds one worldview or another…even if that worldview is to primarily jettison all worldviews—a logically contradictory view in itself. As such, the claim that reasoning is separable form primary belief does not always hold its ground depending on the prerequisites of one’s belief system. For Christianity, the primary beliefs are grounded upon reasonable faith; not reason plus faith.

Quote:

your proposed premises didnt even really show what he said here.
i think if you try to define god, you'll understand why. cuz all you did so far was define an unknowable with other unknowables. those become non answers, thus circular and well, argument from ignorance.
you're comparing god, right away, with miracles. somehow. or that the existence of
something unexplained is somehow related to god. define god with knowable attributes.

Once more, please clarify what you mean by defining an “unknowable” and “knowable” Are you indicating that term “God” and all of His attributes are terms that can not be known or understood? Please specify.

Quote:

You could say that saying "God did not do it" claims there is no God and that makes it the same. Except that it is the falsifiable position, and it is not circular. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim of God.

….Unless of course, there is also a posited position on behalf of the Atheist. The presumption hat the Theist is positing the existence of God while the Atheist is merely negating that position is fallacious.

The term Atheist has been vigorously disputed. Nevertheless, my claim has always been the concept of atheism entails one is not merely espousing that God may not or can not exist, but that God necessarily does not exist. While, the claim of Theism is the positing of a Being whose very existence lends to the cause of our own, the atheistic claim posits the negation of such theistic entailments. Considerably then, the individual who claims to be absolutely certain that God does not exist is positing the absolute negation of a Being whose control is sovereign over all men.

Furthermore, as posters have pointed out, it becomes preposterous to claim that one need have "tangible" (or even philosophically infallible) evidence for the non-existence of an unheard of creature, such as a pink elephant or a leprechaun. You, yourself realize that you can never hold a truly absolute certainty for the non-existence of any positive, without contingently and implicitly claiming to first have absolute knowledge of the universe and its mysteries. Yet, doesn't this same argumentation then apply to the absolute negation of God? How can you be absolutely certain that God does not exist unless you claim to first hold absolute knowledge of the entire universe and its truths? (unless you believe Atheism does not posit the absolute negation of God….however, such is not the a definition would need to hold a debate on it’s own) You would in essence be making yourself a god, if not the singular consummate expression of God.

It is, however, unnecessary to have absolute knowledge of the universe prior to claiming the positive of any truth. For all you need is to view one instance of that truth, to claim it absolutely exists. For example, an individual may not logically claim that a white dice with one dot on it can absolutely not exist. For, unless he has traveled the vast corners of the universe, it may be possible that a white dice with one dot does indeed exist. That same individual does not need to travel the distant expanses of the universe to claim that a white dice with one dot does exist. He only needs to find a single instance of that dice actually existing. Readers seem to be dodging the presumption of Atheism in their assertions.

As another proponent of this argument further elucidates….. a Dr. William J. Wainright best explicates;

"For the atheist, as well as the theist, is implicitly making an existence claim. The theist finds the existence of a world consisting in a set of contingent beings that are grounded in the free activity of a necessary being intrinsically more probable than that of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings. He therefore believes that the burden of proof is on one who denies that the former is in fact more probable then the latter. Atheists like Flew believe that the existence of a world consisting only in a set of contingent beings is intrinsically more probable then the existence of the theist's world, and that theists therefore bear the burden of showing that the probability of their world is in fact higher then that of the atheist's. On the face of it both theists and atheists are making positive existence claims..." (Does God Exist Chp 5).

It therefore seems amply pertinent, to me, that the atheist making the assertion not only establish grounds for doubting Christianity's truth claims but that he proposes his own claims in support of his positing an atheistic worldview.

Quote:

God did it, means you have looked into all possible natural explanations and is in my opinion boring and lazy. i'm not about to say i have all possible knowledge about all possible natural causes. what we called supernatural 1,000 years ago.. or even 100 years ago, we now understand as natural. so god did it, is a non answer. always has been.

This statement borders itself on the verge of a subjective claim more so, then on “postulated facts”. I might retort by saying that while all natural explanations have not been discovered or refined, I personally believe that naturalistic explanations are not distinct from the creative handiwork of a Theistic God. If I had believed that God purely revealed Himself as in the supernatural alone and contended against the natural forces (scientifically verifiable) forces of our universe, then your argument would hold warrant. However, the God of the Bible is a God who uses both the natural elements of the universe and occasionally pervades the natural (segwaying into the supernatural) to glorify His name throughout all facets of existence.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 827

Quote:

the notion of absolute or objective reality cannot exist unless God is necessarily placed within the framework of your worldview.

uh. why?
and again, this idea of 'absolute' knowledge is falacious and dangerous.

Quote:

Now if consistent and objective definitions truly exist within the parameters of language, then absolute values must necessarily exist. Yet, if absolute values exist then aren’t you invoking the need for an absolute reference point from which to salvage such values.

i'm not going to compare the absolute nature of language and the absolute nature of something beyond nature.

Quote:

et, if such a reference point exists then does not the very reality of God and His objectivity necessarily exist…

no?? where did that come from. didnt follow your logic there.

Quote:

Without God your request for absolute definitions is merely ungrounded.

i'm not calling for absolute anything.

you can argue that there are absolutes in language because it's an apparently finite thing. it's observable. placing these definitions on... a god? is pretty far fetched.

Quote:

These terms actually exist...

but what you're trying to attribute these terms too, and the picture you're painting is illogical.

Quote:

I’m not precisely certain why you think God’s attributes are “unknowable”.

cuz he/she has no nature or definable attributes.

Quote:

Once more, please clarify what you mean by defining an “unknowable” and “knowable” Are you indicating that term “God” and all of His attributes are terms that can not be known or understood? Please specify.

everything in the world that we know exists has attributes we can all agree on. the apple is red. you can verify it, i can verify it. we say as christians (when i was a christian) that god is omni-present. how can that be verified? it cant be. it's an unknowable, unverifiable attribute. it's not an attribute at all then. it's a description that.. becomes useless talk about a subject. so, what is god? what is a fattychunks?

the theist then says well, god is not knowable like man is knowable. you cannot use the same tests to test god as you would test man.

so then i say,we need some way to know god. but even before taht, we need to know what we're testing. and then this is where god becomes frustrating. chasing the wind, running in circles fantastic family fun time

Quote:

I personally believe that naturalistic explanations are not distinct from the creative handiwork of a Theistic God.

of course not. so, why credit anything to a god then?

**EDIT
oh and my real name is jason.
=)
but i like fatty too. whatever you wanna call me.

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:44 am

Reason and Logic are based upon Facts and Reality. Life, Death, nothing after death.

The Theist bases his Reason and Logic on the Supernatural. It's easier, more pleasant emotionally, safer, nicer.

You can debate it till you die, You either beleive it, or you don't. It's that simple IMO.

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:55 am

gmankbadi,

You have wasted a lot of time thinking things out the way you have and I can tell you why. It's very simple, so simple that you have overlooked it! You can't see the forest for the trees, as the old saying goes.

The problem is your idea of objectivity. It's hard for me to put my finger on your error, but for now it seems to me that you are confusing the external with the objective. You seem to think they are the same thing.

So that is my best guess about your main error, but I'm not sure because you are so pretentiously verbose that it's hard to figure out what the hell you're talking about. Philosophy, all of philosophy, especially theology (which I include as a part of philosophy for historical reasons only), is mostly very simple ideas. The problem comes in trying to find the words to express the idea to allow for the least possibility of misunderstanding. Brevity is the soul of wit, as another old saying goes. The fact that many people do not practice brevity and clarity is what confuses many people abotu philosophy. My advice is that you simplify your terms and the clarity in your ideas will follow...

All of this was to say that I think your idea of what objectivity is is completely wrong. Now I will tell you what objectivity is. Drumroll:

Objectivity is nothing more than self-consistency. Another name for it is logic, since the second law of logic is that inconsistency is not allowed. Logic does not require an external immutable standard to be deemed objective. It is designed to be objective from the get-go. From this, it can be seen that appeals to logic do not require an appeal to a god or any other immutable external standard.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore