Supernatural [W:1230]

FreedomFromAll said:

You cannot know anything about the supernatural, so therefor whoever invokes the supernatural is making it up.

Click to expand...

Are you also asserting that if something is made up, it does not exist?

WCH said:

I have complete faith in our Creator. I have seen and continue to see his miracles everyday.

Click to expand...

Is giving children cancer a miracle?

shagg said:

Are you also asserting that if something is made up, it does not exist?

Click to expand...

Does Gandalf exist?

shagg said:

Prove it.

Click to expand...

He's trying to illustrate how claims about the supernatural are unfalsifiable. By definition, this means the belief is constructed in such a way (often deliberately) that proof cannot be given.

Just FYI.

FreedomFromAll said:

You cannot know anything about the supernatural, so therefor whoever invokes the supernatural is making it up.

Click to expand...

In fact, believers can't even define what the supernatural is. They can only define it in terms of what it isn't. They haven't the slightest clue what the supernatural is, nor can they point to a single demonstrable example of the supernatural. It's all imaginary.

zyzygy said:

Does Gandalf exist?

Click to expand...

Gandalf is a specific fictional character. The more appropriate question would be do wizards exist? But you could throw examples of ridiculous imagined things all day. That does not support the idea that imaginary things can not exist because they are imaginary.

Visbek said:

He's trying to illustrate how claims about the supernatural are unfalsifiable. By definition, this means the belief is constructed in such a way (often deliberately) that proof cannot be given.

Just FYI.

Click to expand...

I guess my problem is the use of "unfalsifiable" to justify the dismissal of skepticism as false. I could accept inconsequential.

This "Childish imaginary things don't exist, obviously, duh!" angle that FFA seems hung up on is based solely on asserting a certain view is below scrutiny and can be dismissed without thought as false.

FreedomFromAll said:

The supernatural is fantasy, so you will find it hard to know anything about it.

Click to expand...

so was bacteria until we became capable of identifying it

FreedomFromAll said:

The same way that one can deduce a lie. Or how us adults know that a imaginary friend is imaginary. Claims of the ridiculous. unbelievable stories.

Click to expand...

but what if they are not imaginary, what if the child is merely capable of a higher level of discernment

shagg said:

I guess my problem is the use of "unfalsifiable" to justify the dismissal of skepticism as false. I could accept inconsequential.

Click to expand...

The difference is that many scientific claims can be proven, e.g. we have evidence which proves that species come into existence via evolution. Adding an unfalsifiable supernatural explanation provides no predictive abilities; it is superfluous. Thus, treating the supernatural explanation as one with causal power, when it has none, is difficult to justify.

This "Childish imaginary things don't exist, obviously, duh!" angle that FFA seems hung up on is based solely on asserting a certain view is below scrutiny and can be dismissed without thought as false.

Click to expand...

I see.

Well, if you can demonstrate how a belief in Satan is more rational than a belief in Santa Claus, I'm all ears.

And while I won't speak for FFA, I for one have no problems whatsoever asserting materialism as the default position. Among other advantages, it makes it more obvious how theologians often need to contort their views into pretzels trying to make their more sophisticated views fit the myths of their chosen religion.

Is that better? :mrgreen:

zyzygy said:

Is giving children cancer a miracle?

Click to expand...

The child is the miracle. Satan gave it cancer.

_Sal said:

so was bacteria until we became capable of identifying it

but what if they are not imaginary, what if the child is merely capable of a higher level of discernment

Click to expand...

Bacteria was never supernatural. ANd if you want to believe that kids are magic thats fine. But dont be surprised if I laugh.

shagg said:

Are you also asserting that if something is made up, it does not exist?

Click to expand...

I dont know.. but that sounds like a loaded question.

shagg said:

Are you also asserting that if something is made up, it does not exist?

Click to expand...

I think he is saying, "All imaginary stuff is imaginary...and since I have decided that gods are imaginary...they are imaginary."

Or something like that.

Ummm...a thought that I think you were getting at:

A fictional character is a real fictional character.

A mirage...is a real mirage.

An illusion...is a real illusion.

Visbek said:

The difference is that many scientific claims can be proven, e.g. we have evidence which proves that species come into existence via evolution. Adding an unfalsifiable supernatural explanation provides no predictive abilities; it is superfluous. Thus, treating the supernatural explanation as one with causal power, when it has none, is difficult to justify.

Click to expand...

I would agree 100% that in a scientific endeavor or discussion, it is not in any way productive to introduce unfalsifiable and untestable claims, and that such claims should be dismissed once it is determined they are unfalsifiable/untestable. But this is Philosophy. You can't sweep entire schools of thought aside by casually asserting that they're childish and beneath our attention.

I see.

Well, if you can demonstrate how a belief in Satan is more rational than a belief in Santa Claus, I'm all ears.

And while I won't speak for FFA, I for one have no problems whatsoever asserting materialism as the default position. Among other advantages, it makes it more obvious how theologians often need to contort their views into pretzels trying to make their more sophisticated views fit the myths of their chosen religion.

Is that better? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I'm an agnostic atheist, arguing for a sliver of doubt, and my position is dismissed as childish and not worthy of a logical response. That has never been acceptable in a philosophical discussion. "Chilish imaginary things can not exist" is a baseless assumption. And also false.

If you're instead trying to say "Childish imaginary things are so incredibly unlikely to exist that they can, in the course of day to day life, be dismissed offhandedly without any thought" you won't find any argument from me, and that would include gods of any kind. But in the philosophical section of a debate forum you have to do more than wave your hand and mutter "that's ridiculous" to dismiss one of the cornerstones of Agnosticism: You do not know with certainty what you can not prove with certainty.

shagg said:

I guess my problem is the use of "unfalsifiable" to justify the dismissal of skepticism as false. I could accept inconsequential.

This "Childish imaginary things don't exist, obviously, duh!" angle that FFA seems hung up on is based solely on asserting a certain view is below scrutiny and can be dismissed without thought as false.

Click to expand...

It really depends what the subject is. On one hand you have a 5 year old claiming that you just sat on their imaginary friend. Only a fool would not think that the 5 year old imagined their imaginary friend. ''

No one wastes time looking for imagined things, knowing that they are imagined. Everything known or proposed has a explanation to some degree. All of the discoveries made in science has some kind of explanation for it.

The supernatural is defined as something outside of nature. Where did the concept come from if we cannot know anything about it? There is no rational reason to invoke the supernatural. There real is no difference between me making up some silly thing and the people who made up the supernatural to explain why their god cannot be found. No one proposes the supernatural in science. That is because no one seriously (except theists etc) thinks of the supernatural as being anything more than imagination.

shagg said:

I would agree 100% that in a scientific endeavor or discussion, it is not in any way productive to introduce unfalsifiable and untestable claims, and that such claims should be dismissed once it is determined they are unfalsifiable/untestable. But this is Philosophy. You can't sweep entire schools of thought aside by casually asserting that they're childish and beneath our attention.




I'm an agnostic atheist, arguing for a sliver of doubt, and my position is dismissed as childish and not worthy of a logical response. That has never been acceptable in a philosophical discussion. "Chilish imaginary things can not exist" is a baseless assumption. And also false.

If you're instead trying to say "Childish imaginary things are so incredibly unlikely to exist that they can, in the course of day to day life, be dismissed offhandedly without any thought" you won't find any argument from me, and that would include gods of any kind. But in the philosophical section of a debate forum you have to do more than wave your hand and mutter "that's ridiculous" to dismiss one of the cornerstones of Agnosticism: You do not know with certainty what you can not prove with certainty.

Click to expand...

You are not certain that the supernatural is a irrational argument?

FreedomFromAll said:

I dont know.. but that sounds like a loaded question.

Click to expand...

It seems like you're afraid to commit to your own philosophy, and I'm still not sure what that is exactly.

It's important, and has heavy implications as to how the discussion of your OP will go, that's for sure. Are you refusing to answer? After making a thread dedicated to the topic, you'd think you would be able to tell us whether or not you're implying that made up things can not exist. But if you want to run away, or even run in circles, it's what I have come to expect. Or you could give a simple yes or no answer and surprise me.

shagg said:

It seems like you're afraid to commit to your own philosophy, and I'm still not sure what that is exactly.

It's important, and has heavy implications as to how the discussion of your OP will go, that's for sure. Are you refusing to answer? After making a thread dedicated to the topic, you'd think you would be able to tell us whether or not you're implying that made up things can not exist. But if you want to run away, or even run in circles, it's what I have come to expect. Or you could give a simple yes or no answer and surprise me.

Click to expand...

I can see that you are wanting me to answer the question as a absolute. So that you can trot out examples of things that at one time imagined that are known to exist now. SO if that is what you are up to, then....yes I wont actually answer your loaded question.

And please dont ****ing try to school me about philosophy. Just make you damn argument.

FreedomFromAll said:

You are not certain that the supernatural is a irrational argument?

Click to expand...

I am not certain the supernatural do not exist.

I'm not suggesting stocking up on garlic and holywater or silver bullets. I don't let the remote possibility influence my day to day decisions. But I am not absolutely certain, no.

FreedomFromAll said:

The supernatural is nothing more than the moving of goalposts. When one wants their claims to be untouchable, they use the supernatural notion to hide their claims in it.

Click to expand...

Not necessarially.

At least in my case.

The goal posts are where the goal posts are.

I don't want or need my claims to be "untouchable".

My faith and my God are what they are.

You don't like it, you think I'm silly, my accounts of why I believe the way I do aren't enough for you?

So what?

If that's the way you feel then you can just go right ahead and have the best day ever.

Your opinion means nothing to me.

But adults who invoke the supernatural, do they know that they are just playing and making crap up?

Click to expand...

Having been agnostic, and probably even atheist, I now ask myself the same thing about agnostics and atheists.

Do they know that they're just making crap up?

But I don't really feel any need to bash them or run their lack of faith in to the ground.

That the kind of bashing and bullying that the agnostic or atheist does of the faithful is really just out of fear and jealousy.

That's where pretty much all bullying comes from, right?

I have this hole in me somewhere, and I feel inadequate in some way, so in order to feel better about myself I'm going to do everything I can to make life miserable for so-and-so.

I don't feel that kind of emptiness anymore, so I feel no need to fill it by running you down.

Like I said, have the best day ever and enjoy your lack of faith, it isn't hurting me any and I sure as hell don't envy you.

And I'm going to edit this to add that I am well aware that not all atheists and agnostics are bullies.

Plenty of you are perfectly happy with who you are and where you are.

I'm only talking about the kind of atheist/agnostic who is a bully, like the author of this thread here.

If this guy were secure in himself and his lack of faith he wouldn't have logged in to the Internet for the express purpose of beating up on people who aren't lifting a finger to hurt or even bother him.

You kind of have to feel really sorry for the kind of empty, painful life that would lead a guy to do something like this.

I'm praying for you, FreedomFromAll.

You could use all of our prayers.

FreedomFromAll said:

I can see that you are wanting me to answer the question as a absolute. So that you can trot out examples of things that at one time imagined that are known to exist now. SO if that is what you are up to, then....yes I wont actually answer your loaded question.

And please dont ****ing try to school me about philosophy. Just make you damn argument.

Click to expand...

I don't care if the question is loaded, it exposes a flaw in your position that warrants discussion and/or clarification, and that you apparently want to pretend doesn't exist. But I need you to get down off the fence and make up your mind as to what your arguing for, because every time I try and interpret the position behind your posts, you insist I'm wrong and putting words in your mouth, and instruct me not to do so. So for ****s sake, take a position. If your argument was supportable you wouldn't have to worry about "loaded" questions.

You almost seem to say, without saying it, that you are not implying that made up things can't exist. Couldn't you have simply said no? Can I proceed as if you had answered no? Or are you just realizing that you either have to betray the spirit of your OP and answer no, or go with yes, which you've already stated is easily disproven? Loaded or not, it's a legitimate question. If you can not answer, then you have nothing here.

And my point about philosophy is that there are certain standards when it comes to arguments. "That's ridiculous" does not make the cut. If it's ridiculous you should be able to explain why, in a way that isn't just an extended rephrasing of "That's ridiculous".

soot said:

Not necessarially.

At least in my case.

The goal posts are where the goal posts are.

I don't want or need my claims to be "untouchable".

My faith and my God are what they are.

You don't like it, you think I'm silly, my accounts of why I believe the way I do aren't enough for you?

So what?

If that's the way you feel then you can just go right ahead and have the best day ever.

Your opinion means nothing to me.

Click to expand...

But I do not have to believe your claim. And that shouldnt bother you.

Having been agnostic, and probably even atheist, I now ask myself the same thing about agnostics and atheists.

Do they know that they're just making crap up?

But I don't really feel any need to bash them or run their lack of faith in to the ground.

That the kind of bashing and bullying that the agnostic or atheist does of the faithful is really just out of fear and jealousy.

That's where pretty much all bullying comes from, right?

I have this hole in me somewhere, and I feel inadequate in some way, so in order to feel better about myself I'm going to do everything I can to make life miserable for so-and-so.

I don't feel that kind of emptiness anymore, so I feel no need to fill it by running you down.

Like I said, have the best day ever and enjoy your lack of faith, it isn't hurting me any and I sure as hell don't envy you.

And I'm going to edit this to add that I am well aware that not all atheists and agnostics are bullies.

Plenty of you are perfectly happy with who you are and where you are.

I'm only talking about the kind of atheist/agnostic who is a bully, like the author of this thread here.

If this guy were secure in himself and his lack of faith he wouldn't have logged in to the Internet for the express purpose of beating up on people who aren't lifting a finger to hurt or even bother him.

You kind of have to feel really sorry for the kind of empty, painful life that would lead a guy to do something like this.

I'm praying for you, FreedomFromAll.

You could use all of our prayers.

Click to expand...

You seem a little sensitive; perhaps this thread inst the best place for your ego?

FreedomFromAll said:

Bacteria was never supernatural.

Click to expand...

did I say it was? no

ANd if you want to believe that kids are magic thats fine.

Click to expand...

oh kids are magic in multiple ways

however the point was discernment which you have not commented upon either above or here

I can't help but to believe it is because you can not comprehend that just as there are various levels of IQ there are also various levels of discernment

just because you can't doesn't mean that others can't

But dont be surprised if I laugh.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that, so we are good

FreedomFromAll said:

But I do not have to believe your claim. And that shouldnt bother you.

Click to expand...

Like I said, it doesn't bother me at all.

Why does it bother you that others would make claims that you're unwilling to believe, or incapable of believing?

You seem a little sensitive; perhaps this thread inst the best place for your ego?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

I said that you're a bully, and that's sad because it's coming from a place of broken emptiness, and that I'm praying for you.

Where in that do you detect a damaged ego or hypersensitivity?

Understand, you're not hurting me at all, not scaring me, not making me the least bit uncomfortable.

I'm talking about how sad it is that you feel the need to run other people down, I'm not claiming that I'm sad because you make a game of trying to run faith down.

Do you see the difference?

Whether you do or don't, I'll be praying that at some point you gain the ability to do so.