Page 1 of 12 [ 191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Apr 2011, 10:57 am

Ok, just to stir up the pot a little on religion, y'know, to make WP suffer. How should we think about theism, or even supernaturalism and explanation? What principles are just and fair to use to argue that something is explained by powers that are not dependent or emergent from natural laws? Is it impossible to ever consider something from a supernatural source? Is it difficult in practice to do so? If I claimed that I knew God and I started predicting when and where it would start raining fire, and these predictions came true, is this sufficient to trust my claim, or would more be needed?

It really seems to me that most theistic claims are such that they argue that God exists, and that there is something about reality that God is good at explaining(the existence of the cosmos, their order, particular miracles, etc) Only, the relatively crappy, ontological argument doesn't attempt to do this. Well, so, if we are to look at it this way, what principles are rational, and do supernatural claims meet them or fail?



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

02 Apr 2011, 11:06 am

It's a bit of a contradiction of terms, no?

Once a phenomenon is empirically-observable, it is no longer "super-natural", because of the methodological naturalism of science.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 02 Apr 2011, 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Apr 2011, 11:07 am

I've heard people argue that "If your conclusion leads to God then you must be wrong!", so how about a tangential argument about the validity of that as well? :twisted:



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Apr 2011, 11:15 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
... what principles are rational, and do supernatural claims meet them or fail?

"Who has gone up to the heavens and come down?
"Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
"Who has bound the waters in a garment?
"Who established all the ends of the earth?
"What is His Name, And what is His Son’s Name, If you know it?"
(Proverbs 30:4, ISR)

What man can make a flower?

What god would need to make a bomb?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Last edited by leejosepho on 02 Apr 2011, 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

02 Apr 2011, 11:17 am

leejosepho wrote:
What god would need to make a bomb?


One who was tired of merely whispering to superstitious old ladies and potheads on their rooftops?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

02 Apr 2011, 11:21 am

Bethie wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
What god would need to make a bomb?

One who was tired of merely whispering to superstitious old ladies and potheads on their rooftops?

Such is the way of man.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

02 Apr 2011, 12:06 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
What principles are just and fair to use to argue that something is explained by powers that are not dependent or emergent from natural laws?

I have seen it argued that there are none, that God cannot possibly be know intellectually; that the only way to know God is by a direct connection, spirit to spirit, not through the sences or in your mind.
Quote:
But yet all reasonable creatures, angel and man, have in them each one by himself, one principal working power, the which is called a knowledgeable power, and another principal working power, the which is called a loving power. Of the which two powers, to the first, the which is a knowledgeable power, God that is the maker of them is evermore incomprehensible; and to the second, the which is the loving power, in each one diversely He is all comprehensible to the full. Insomuch that a loving soul alone in itself, by virtue of love should comprehend in itself Him that is sufficient to the full—and much more, without comparison—to fill all the souls and angels that ever may be.
The Cloud of Unknowing


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Apr 2011, 7:16 pm

Bethie wrote:
It's a bit of a contradiction of terms, no?

Once a phenomenon is empirically-observable, it is no longer "super-natural", because of the methodological naturalism of science.

Not really, no. Supernatural vs natural is actually an intuitive ontology. I mean, the approach you are taking leads to problems like have been outlined by philosopher Victor Reppert: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2009/ ... alist.html The issue is just that Reppert's idea of a physicalist theism, isn't logically impossible without further argumentation, but it strains the concept of physicalism/naturalism. In any case, you've missed the underlying point. The underlying point isn't about the definition of supernatural, but rather whether entities conventionally labeled supernatural could be detected. I don't care what definition of supernatural and natural you work with, we're talking about God, angels, spirits, magic, and how they'd fit into a larger explanatory schema, or even whether this is possible.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Apr 2011, 7:17 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I've heard people argue that "If your conclusion leads to God then you must be wrong!", so how about a tangential argument about the validity of that as well? :twisted:

That is a valid tangent, as it could be considered valid that "If your conclusion leads to God, then you are most likely wrong".



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Apr 2011, 7:22 pm

leejosepho wrote:
"Who has gone up to the heavens and come down?
"Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
"Who has bound the waters in a garment?
"Who established all the ends of the earth?
"What is His Name, And what is His Son’s Name, If you know it?"
(Proverbs 30:4, ISR)

What man can make a flower?

What god would need to make a bomb?

leejosepho, your post is irrelevant as it doesn't address the question. The question is all about what principles should we use to identify divine/spiritual/supernatural interaction for reasons of explanation. Whether or not people can make flowers is irrelevant. Typically, flowers make flowers. Within biology, people argue that evolution caused organisms we now would label "flowers" to emerge. Even further, a random quote from the Bible, unless it is referenced to support an argument, only suggests that you have lost your mind. (we'd probably say the same if people quoted Dawkins in such a random manner as well)



AliPasha
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 34

03 Apr 2011, 5:05 am

Why must most Atheists be so assumptive that "god" as a concept is only a mysterious man in the sky, or that he would always caring and would create a perfect world at least in Juedo-Christian concept (no offense in tone). As a deist I believe that "god" was responsible for the big bang, but also believe that "god" sits back and watches not caring to intervene. So just because the universe isn't perfect and planned, and there is no eden doesn't mean a supreme architect couldn't exist.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

03 Apr 2011, 6:37 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
leejosepho, your post is irrelevant ...
Whether or not people can make flowers is irrelevant ...

... and it is also irrelevant if/when people believe there is no "God".

Again:

"Who has gone up to the heavens and come down?
"Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
"Who has bound the waters in a garment?
"Who established all the ends of the earth?
"What is His Name, And what is His Son’s Name, If you know it?"
(Proverbs 30:4, ISR)


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

03 Apr 2011, 7:24 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
What principles are just and fair to use to argue that something is explained by powers that are not dependent or emergent from natural laws?

Can men do it?

In my own experience, that is the bottom line.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

03 Apr 2011, 7:29 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I've heard people argue that "If your conclusion leads to God then you must be wrong!", so how about a tangential argument about the validity of that as well? :twisted:

That is a valid tangent, as it could be considered valid that "If your conclusion leads to God, then you are most likely wrong".


I would phrase it as " if your conclusion leads to God then you have no conclusion/"

Attributing something "to God" is not an explanation. It is the absence of an explanation.
Its just another way of saying "its a black box" and "we just cant figure it out right now".

This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.
Even if god caused something to happen it would still look like a random act of nature and thus it could only be studied empiracly as an act of nature.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

03 Apr 2011, 7:37 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Even if god caused something to happen it would still look like a random act of nature and thus it could only be studied empirically as an act of nature.

My permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism neither looks like nor was any "random act of nature".


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2011, 8:11 am

AliPasha wrote:
Why must most Atheists be so assumptive that "god" as a concept is only a mysterious man in the sky, or that he would always caring and would create a perfect world at least in Juedo-Christian concept (no offense in tone). As a deist I believe that "god" was responsible for the big bang, but also believe that "god" sits back and watches not caring to intervene. So just because the universe isn't perfect and planned, and there is no eden doesn't mean a supreme architect couldn't exist.

Well, the issue is that most conceptions of God are Judeo-Christian in the background society, and even often in the philosophical literature.

In any case, principles justifying the use of such a being in explanation are still valid. Nothing I wrote required a Judeo-Christian conception of God. In any case, I would tend to be cynical towards Deism for a few reasons:
1) It seems to me to be a God of the gaps. There is a gap, but we haven't shown that other ideas are in principle impossible, which makes the invocation problematic.
2) A deist notion of God will still be a horrible explanation all else equal. Minds are complex, and a Deist God will probably have a mind. If minds are the horrendously complex thing that psychologists, cognitive scientists, and AI researchers know they are, then Occam's razor would basically tell us to accept ANY simpler explanation. The same issue of simplicity emerges as well because God is a different KIND of being compared to dogs.
3) Such a notion lacks other explanatory virtues, such as the use to make predictions, any way to test for it directly or indirectly, even problems in just describing it using the language we would use to describe other entities. As such, it would have be put lower than these other possibilities.