While We Still Can
<<
prev
Supernatural is something that acts in defiance of natural laws. If some deity came down, made a man's head explode, then reformed it and brought him back to life, and could do it repeatedly for observational purposes, that would be what I meant by empirical yet completely circumvent all naturalistic explanations.
The word god is used to illustrate a religious construct. I don't care what you call it, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin; they all follow the pattern I mentioned prior, and that gives it definement. Rejecting the word doesn't eliminate the concept.
So then fine, it's not atheist, it's aYahwehist, aAllahist, aVishnuist, and aOdinist. That's just a lot of extra words to say the same thing.
The word god is used to illustrate a religious construct. I don't care what you call it, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin; they all follow the pattern I mentioned prior, and that gives it definement. Rejecting the word doesn't eliminate the concept.
So then fine, it's not atheist, it's aYahwehist, aAllahist, aVishnuist, and aOdinist. That's just a lot of extra words to say the same thing.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
I must disagree with you there. Natural Laws are not something that is written, it is merely an observation made by man and writtn down. You description of exploding heads and reforming is used in various Science Fiction movies and explained with science.
If something defies natural laws than we humans have not observed it correctly. There are already many laws that only work in an certain domain and outside that domain it does not comply.
Basically we observe an input and output. We do not know what happens in between. That's called a blackbox. Now we figure out a formula, and that formula we call a natural law.
If something acts in defience of the natural laws, than it means that our natural laws are incorrect or not fully understood.
Like in the words of Arthur C. Clarke: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This is exactly a problem with the definition of a deity. You say that the exploding head is a deity, while I say it is a being that is so highly evolved we see his power as supernatural.
If something defies natural laws than we humans have not observed it correctly. There are already many laws that only work in an certain domain and outside that domain it does not comply.
Basically we observe an input and output. We do not know what happens in between. That's called a blackbox. Now we figure out a formula, and that formula we call a natural law.
If something acts in defience of the natural laws, than it means that our natural laws are incorrect or not fully understood.
Like in the words of Arthur C. Clarke: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This is exactly a problem with the definition of a deity. You say that the exploding head is a deity, while I say it is a being that is so highly evolved we see his power as supernatural.
If something defies natural laws than we humans have not observed it correctly.
I was trying to make an example that is so far gone from what is observably possible that it is beyond naturalistic expectation (mainly it was the being able to undo it that was more impressive).
What I mean is that under all conditions of natural existence, the matter and energy should not act in that way. If you have a perfect vacuum and suddenly a frog appears in it, that then grew into a lion in three minutes. Eventually there's a point that you destroyed everything we know about the world.
Regardless, yes, the generic claim of a god is not falsifiable; that makes the claim worth less than the label. That's why it's wrong. It doesn't invalidate a personal use of a word. If you're in the United States and someone asks "Do you believ in God?" you can make a pretty good estimate as to what they mean.
I was trying to make an example that is so far gone from what is observably possible that it is beyond naturalistic expectation (mainly it was the being able to undo it that was more impressive).
What I mean is that under all conditions of natural existence, the matter and energy should not act in that way. If you have a perfect vacuum and suddenly a frog appears in it, that then grew into a lion in three minutes. Eventually there's a point that you destroyed everything we know about the world.
Regardless, yes, the generic claim of a god is not falsifiable; that makes the claim worth less than the label. That's why it's wrong. It doesn't invalidate a personal use of a word. If you're in the United States and someone asks "Do you believ in God?" you can make a pretty good estimate as to what they mean.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileYes, but Yoda destroying evrything we know has already happened.
First we had Newtons idea of gravity, which was basically Empty space with objects in it. Than Einstein came and threw a whrench inta that, by saying the empty space is not empty. It is curved in 4 dimension or something.
Now there is a theory called the Holographic universe that totally destroys all the fundamentels in Science, plus it will make your head explode trying to understand it!
And what you describe with the perfect vacuum, stranger stuff than had happened in Quantam Physics.
My believe system is simple. If it happens than it is natural, humans are there to observe what happens and try to explain it according to their views.
Now about America and their deity. Well the Cristian God has these 3 charecteristics.
-Omnipotent
-Omniscience
-Omnibenevolent
Well let's say that this is pure bullcrap. If he is so ifnitely good why is their evil in the world. Some would say that God gives us free will and will not force us to choose good
But he is omnipotent he is able to give us free will and a ability to always choose for good. Or the famous saying: " Can God create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?"
The concept of Christian God is contradictory and impossible. If you believe this you got to get your head checked.
First we had Newtons idea of gravity, which was basically Empty space with objects in it. Than Einstein came and threw a whrench inta that, by saying the empty space is not empty. It is curved in 4 dimension or something.
Now there is a theory called the Holographic universe that totally destroys all the fundamentels in Science, plus it will make your head explode trying to understand it!
And what you describe with the perfect vacuum, stranger stuff than had happened in Quantam Physics.
My believe system is simple. If it happens than it is natural, humans are there to observe what happens and try to explain it according to their views.
Now about America and their deity. Well the Cristian God has these 3 charecteristics.
-Omnipotent
-Omniscience
-Omnibenevolent
Well let's say that this is pure bullcrap. If he is so ifnitely good why is their evil in the world. Some would say that God gives us free will and will not force us to choose good
But he is omnipotent he is able to give us free will and a ability to always choose for good. Or the famous saying: " Can God create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?"
The concept of Christian God is contradictory and impossible. If you believe this you got to get your head checked.
Obviously I have no problems calling religions markedly stupid.
The thing about Newtonian gravity is that we already knew that things fell down--that didn't change. And I'd also think it unfair to compare today's knowledge as relatively unreliable as five hundred years ago.
The theory of relativity, for example, was formulated after the slightest of inconsistencies in Newton's equation. It was revolutionary but didn't destroy everything we knew, it merely refined it. Breaking many laws and theories not slightly but entirely all at once I would arguably suggest is enough.
I don't think a virtual particle is stranger than fully grown oranisms materialising and morphing. C'mon, be fair here.
And the holographic principle appears to be a part of string "theory" (it doesn't really qualify as a theory, yet).
While I don't think any of your examples work, it doesn't really matter. It's a semantic argument, and thereby pointless. Call it what you will, most have a common understanding, however convoluted, of the word "god."
I have no problem with practical naturalism.
The thing about Newtonian gravity is that we already knew that things fell down--that didn't change. And I'd also think it unfair to compare today's knowledge as relatively unreliable as five hundred years ago.
The theory of relativity, for example, was formulated after the slightest of inconsistencies in Newton's equation. It was revolutionary but didn't destroy everything we knew, it merely refined it. Breaking many laws and theories not slightly but entirely all at once I would arguably suggest is enough.
I don't think a virtual particle is stranger than fully grown oranisms materialising and morphing. C'mon, be fair here.
And the holographic principle appears to be a part of string "theory" (it doesn't really qualify as a theory, yet).
While I don't think any of your examples work, it doesn't really matter. It's a semantic argument, and thereby pointless. Call it what you will, most have a common understanding, however convoluted, of the word "god."
I have no problem with practical naturalism.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileWell Yoda I know the holographic theory is not yet a theory but more an idea, but if it is true than yes it would change everything.
I am not saying that suddenly a apples will fall upwards, I mean it will change our understanding of things.
Einsteins theory explanation why things orbit is different than Newtons theory. I am not saying that suddenly the observed stuff are irrelevant.
Plus we recently discovered that the universe is accelerating rapidly. This means that there is a force that repels mass. An anit-gravity if you will.
So in a sense things are falling upwards, but only in a cosmic sense. But like you said this is semantics, but wait I am also now a practical naturalist?
Man first I discovered my believe system is Ignoticism and now it seems I am also a practical naturalist. Man and I thought I invented these things myself.
But do you agree with my assesment of the Christian God and not is not logical? And do you agree that for instance Greek Gods make more sense than the Christian one?
I am not saying that suddenly a apples will fall upwards, I mean it will change our understanding of things.
Einsteins theory explanation why things orbit is different than Newtons theory. I am not saying that suddenly the observed stuff are irrelevant.
Plus we recently discovered that the universe is accelerating rapidly. This means that there is a force that repels mass. An anit-gravity if you will.
So in a sense things are falling upwards, but only in a cosmic sense. But like you said this is semantics, but wait I am also now a practical naturalist?
Man first I discovered my believe system is Ignoticism and now it seems I am also a practical naturalist. Man and I thought I invented these things myself.
But do you agree with my assesment of the Christian God and not is not logical? And do you agree that for instance Greek Gods make more sense than the Christian one?
We're entirely in agreement about science changing over time. "Apples falling upward" - "cats chasing dogs" was my original point, but yeah, we're past it.
Naturalism is that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Practical naturalism is that for all intents and purposes, nothing exists beyond the natural world.
To have another thing you didn't invent, your assessment of the Christian interpretation of God is Epicurus' Problem of Evil.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
My assessment is that it's completely sound, but completely unnecessary. The problem of evil requires Omnipotence and Omnibenevolance. Omnipotence alone is self-defeating by definition:
Omnipotence
1. Nothing is impossible
2. Impossibility is impossible
Number 2 is an impossibility, therefore statement 1 is false. Problem of Evil is more poetic though
As for making more sense, it's a weird question, since I think "sense" is mostly binary, but the Greek gods at least aren't self-defeating (well, for what little I know. Honestly, I'm not well read on them). I can tell you I'd much rather have the existence of the Greek gods than the malevolant, vindictive, hateful, spiteful, meandering, biggoted, sexist, slave-trading, child-stoning monstrosity that is Yahweh.
Naturalism is that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Practical naturalism is that for all intents and purposes, nothing exists beyond the natural world.
To have another thing you didn't invent, your assessment of the Christian interpretation of God is Epicurus' Problem of Evil.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
My assessment is that it's completely sound, but completely unnecessary. The problem of evil requires Omnipotence and Omnibenevolance. Omnipotence alone is self-defeating by definition:
Omnipotence
1. Nothing is impossible
2. Impossibility is impossible
Number 2 is an impossibility, therefore statement 1 is false. Problem of Evil is more poetic though
As for making more sense, it's a weird question, since I think "sense" is mostly binary, but the Greek gods at least aren't self-defeating (well, for what little I know. Honestly, I'm not well read on them). I can tell you I'd much rather have the existence of the Greek gods than the malevolant, vindictive, hateful, spiteful, meandering, biggoted, sexist, slave-trading, child-stoning monstrosity that is Yahweh.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileYes Yoda I read the Problem of Evil. I was in fact refering to it indirectly. With inventing I meant only Ignosticism, in other words I has a certain belief I formed and only later did I discover there was a name for it. Now I discovered the term practical naturalism 
Well the best gods are the Nordic ones Yoda, because they can be killed
De Hindu deity Brahman actually speaks of multiple universums and sound like the multi-verse theory. They all make more sense than the Abrahamic one.
And de Christian God changed over time in the Biblle too. And if you trace it back the christianity has different elements of various earlier religions too. That I find weird, most Christians are Atheist when it comes to the earlier religions, while believing there own.
Why only their own, why not the older one or the Spagetti monster? The answer is simple they are Christians becuase they are raised to be Christians.
Conclusion: people are dumb sheep!
P.S. how the fuck did we end up in this discussion anyways?
Well the best gods are the Nordic ones Yoda, because they can be killed
De Hindu deity Brahman actually speaks of multiple universums and sound like the multi-verse theory. They all make more sense than the Abrahamic one. And de Christian God changed over time in the Biblle too. And if you trace it back the christianity has different elements of various earlier religions too. That I find weird, most Christians are Atheist when it comes to the earlier religions, while believing there own.
Why only their own, why not the older one or the Spagetti monster? The answer is simple they are Christians becuase they are raised to be Christians.
Conclusion: people are dumb sheep!
P.S. how the fuck did we end up in this discussion anyways?
My clarification on agnostic vs atheist for punk started this 
A great Dawkins quote also predates you,
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
All discussions on why someone is religious where the person is willing to admit logical errors leads to one of two results:
1 - It's faith
2 - It was a personal experience
And as we demonstrated earlier, it had better be one hell of a personal experience to attribute it to the supernatural.
A great Dawkins quote also predates you,
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
All discussions on why someone is religious where the person is willing to admit logical errors leads to one of two results:
1 - It's faith
2 - It was a personal experience
And as we demonstrated earlier, it had better be one hell of a personal experience to attribute it to the supernatural.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
In the words of Stephen Hawkins: Anything that we see, that we cannot explain, is not in contradiction to nature, but in contradiction of our understanding of nature.
Pure and simply if it exist it is by definition natural.
And there are many shamanistic believes that closely link nature and religion.
And the word god is useless anyways, because the Greek, Cristian and Hindu all have totally different concepts of gods. Heck Nordic gods could even be killed.
And anyways what is supernatural supposed to mean?