seebs

And not all of them would. Both might well do other superstitious things; I buy wintergreen mints on my way to any court event I go to, because the first time I did this, the resulting event was absolutely hilarious.

diana

I certainly am in need of convincing, as I am unable to believe simply through choice.

This is true. I would, of course, begin with an understanding of what water is, so that I could identify it when tossed into it, and an understanding of what heat is, so I would be able to identify the lack of it.

Imaginable or not, I think my being convinced that experience pointed to a god still comes back to the basic assumptions I employ to interpret that experience. My experience of an unimaginable and overwhelming spiritual experience, I'm afraid, would only point to my having experienced something unimaginable and overwhelming.

Just as Christians cannot explain why they think God does the things he does, I'm just as willing to admit I don't know what causes certain things. I've experienced things before that were, up to that point, unimaginable to me. I daresay that if my spiritual experience were overwhelming enough, I'd find myself a competent doctor as quickly as I was able. This is all because of the basic assumption I use to interpret the world: there is no supernatural.

d

danrael

That is not what I am saying: an experience which convinces, via of the experience itself, rather than an argument to make you believe, is what I meant is needed. Most of us are looking to be convinced via of argument and demonstrable proof: due to the nature of the subject matter, it simply cannot be done that way. But just because you demand to be convinced, does not mean that you will be. It is just something that happens, unintentionally.

That kind of knowledge is already built into your consciousness: you would know immediately that the water is cold, without thinking about it.: that is my point. The characteristics you mention will not alter your experience at all. They might be useful to you after the experience is over, when you have time to reflect upon what you did experience, but your study is of an experience which is now in the past. What is the nature of this consciousness without thought which knows immediately that the water is indeed cold?

But what if the experience were so powerful and overwhelming that those basic assumptions were wiped out; that is to say, that the reference point you call "you" is indadequate, and the experience actually transforms you into another state of being. In addition, the nature of the experience is not one which simply overwhelms, leaving one clueless as to what one just experienced, as you suggest, but an experience which is truly enlightening, so that you are able to see absolutely clearly into the nature of reality in a way which is more lucid than anything you have ever experienced before, the experience being enligtenment itself, which you would understand to be your own true nature. Being run over by a Mack truck is also unimaginable and overwhelming, but I failed to add in the other dimension of "knowing" also being transmitted.

In the same breath you are saying that you do not know, and then you finish by saying that you know that there is no supernatural: you know nothing of the sort. It is simply that you have never had an experience of this kind before. But that does not mean the supernatural world does not exist. Why take a position either way? Both are in error. You know, it is perfectly OK to take up a "position" of "no-position." You speak of your basic assumption to interpret the world, but the world includes you. So what is your nature as a conscious being? Are you just so many molecules, organs, and nerve endings, or is there another dimension to your being in the here and now, a dimension which knows immediately that the water is cold?

diana

Now we have an experience that is not only beyond anything I've ever experienced or imagined, but now my reference point of myself is inadequate and the experience is both mind-boggling and enlightening at the same time. I mean no offense, but IMO you're veering into the realm of science fiction here. Perhaps you can describe such an experience to me.

But then, you can't, can you? By definition, it can't be imagined, and therefore can't be described. That sounds suspiciously like the usual "definition" of God. (I put that in quotations because it isn't a definition at all; it is merely marking off two things God isn't. My dog isn't a doberman and it isn't toothless; does that help you understand what sort of dog I have?)

In short, any attempts to "explain" anything by reaching into the realm of "what ifs" and "unimaginable" are non-sensical (by definition ). Please don't waste my time with appeals that I imagine the unimaginable, then ask me to "reason" from there. My sense of logic prohibits such exercises.

No. I said that I interpret the world through a basic assumption that there is no supernatural. Theists interpret the world through a basic assumption that the supernatural exists. Neither of us know. Theists often confuse their belief in God with knowledge of God, but I do neither. I do not believe in the supernatural because I have no knowledge of it.

You clearly base this assumption on your definition of such an experience as something that would end in my belief in the supernatural. Since I do not believe in the supernatural, then clearly I have never had such an experience. At least, that's how I read your statement above. My only other way of interpreting it is that you must be omniscient and therefore qualified to state that I've never had such an experience. Which is it?

I assume the first, in which case you have ignored the possibility that someone might experience something completely unexplainable (etc) and be content to state that he can't explain it. God is unexplainable; to reach for God under such circumstances only removes the unexplainable one level. It certainly does nothing to alleviate the problem of experiencing something unexplainable.

I have not taken a position either way, you see. Please do not confuse my beliefs and assumptions--those lenses through which I interpret reality--with my presumed knowledge of reality.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. It sounds like an argument for agnosticism. (?)

If this is the case, I'll state for the record that I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of the supernatural (agnostic) and I do not believe in the supernatural (atheist).

I think we're crossing wires here, though. I was talking about basic assumptions, our mental schemas, the untestable "facts" upon which we build all subsequent knowledge and thus define our understanding of reality and our interpretation of events. I have stated that I can think of nothing that would provoke me to change my schema that there is nothing supernatural. I juxtapose this with my understanding that most believers can find nothing that will change their schemas that supernatural things exist.

In order to change my mind on this, the ball is in your court to produce one concrete example of something that, if it happened, I would change my position. (For the record, "imagine something unimaginable" is not the sort of example that gives me pause.)

For years, I've mulled this over in my mind and have failed to think of a single impossible thing that, if it happened, would make me believe in the existence of the supernatural. If God himself appeared to me, slapped my face and told me to believe in him or else, and when he disappeared, I had a bruise where I'd been slapped and others testified that they saw God appear to me and slap me and that's what I remembered myself, I'd check myself into a mental hospital posthaste, and recommend they go looking for the person who'd said it had happened. Why? For the same reason I'd freak if a leprauchan appeared and did the same thing.

The existence of the unexplainable does not support the notion that an unexplainable being exists. It only supports the notion that things happen we can't explain. I'm content to acknowledge things happen I can't explain. This doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. As a matter of fact, it seems quite consistent with my being human.

I wonder how hundreds of people can see a cross in the clouds at the same time and place. I don't understand how such a thing is possible. It hasn't happened to me, but I have no reason to doubt that they experienced what they said they experienced. It boggles my mind. I cannot imagine experiencing such a thing myself. However, although I cannot explain it, it doesn't make me leap toward the supernatural in an effort to make sense of the world and explain the phenomenon. I simply admit that it's pretty incredible and I can't explain it, and barring natural explanations, I'm satisfied with the fact that I can't explain it.

I guess the short and sweet version of all this is: Appeal to the Supernatural is not an explanation at all. It's just a mental bandaid that allows you to feel as though you understand something when you do not.

d

Jobar

Danrael, he who knows the Tao doesn't try to speak of it; He who tries to speak of it, doesn't know it.

When we try to talk about absolutes and ultimates in the real world, our words fail us. Language can only meaningfully delineate the things we perceive.

As diana says, the supernatural is meaningless. It has no explanatory power. If you want to call what is unknown, the supernatural, well fine- but calling it that actually tells us nothing about the unknown. Better to follow Lao Tzu's advice, and not try to speak of it.

seebs

I am much closer to agreeing with you than you'd probably expect, Jobar. I think it is necessarily the case that words do not adequately or correctly describe some things. However, I don't think the simple boolean division of "known and unknown" answers all the questions there are, or even all of the important ones. Some things are partially known; some things are speculated about, or experienced but not fully understood.

It is our nature, and it mostly works out, to try to figure things out; it is, however, very important to remember that the map is not the territory. If there is something trasncendent, all the human words about it are not the thing itself, and limiting it according to those words would be stupid.

danrael

I fail to understand why you place a basic assumption of any kind between you and the world, as if the world were an object outside of your own experience. You, too, are the world. If you have no knowledge of the supernatural, how can you say that you do not believe in its existence? You are clearly taking up a position. Would it not be more accurate to say: "Because I have no knowledge of the supernatural, I neither believe, nor not-believe."?

John A. Broussard

I have no knowledge of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I can say with supreme confidence that I do not believe in its existence.

Please show why my reasoning is incorrect.

Thank you.

Jobar

When I use the word 'universe', I can define it as the totality of reality; all the things we see, plus all the things we can't see, considered as a group. We can (and do) learn a great deal about this ultimate group, but we can never learn everything about it. (We can't see beyond the event horizon of the edge of the expanding universe, in astrophysical terms.)

There's no question that we can learn a great deal more about the things we observe, because we can observe them. We're still expanding our powers of observation- our instruments get better and better, and our theories more precise. But even now, we know that there are limits beyond which we can't observe, can't measure.

"In the world of the large/And the world of the small/We approach stunning mysteries/Forming hyperbolic walls."
-me, 1977.

Within those walls- between the edge of the expanding universe, and the diameter of an electron, approximately- we can use our words and numbers to express our knowledge with incredible precision. Our maps of reality within the observable universe are extremely accurate, and growing more so as we continue to learn. But outside those limits, words can't go.

Within those walls, I feel very confident in saying that there's nothing like gods, or God. And outside those walls, it's just pointless to try to talk about it!

danrael

The idea of an Invisible Pink Unicorn is an obvious willful concoction; no one, other than you, is advancing the possible existence of same. The idea of the supernatural, on the other hand, is an idea which is reality for millions around the world, though there is variation from culture to culture. The idea of a Pink Unicorn might take off for a short while, but most likely would soon die off as a mere fad. The idea of the supernatural has staying power over time amongst those millions. Now, for most, it may simply be a security device to ease their anxiety about the after-death state, so they believe "just in case". But for many, many others, the supernatural is more than an idea: many will testify that they have had authentic religious/spiritual experiences, as the writings of the saints, monks, and yogis do testify, as well as the sacred rites of the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, just to name a few. Please do not misunderstand MY position regardng the supernatural: I am not advancing a belief in such. So, if one has had no knowledge or experience of the supernatural, but knows that many others have, why assume the position of unbelief, when the real case is that one simply does not know one way or the other? Besides, nothing can be both invisible and pink at the same time.

Baby fish: "Momma, all my friends tell me about the sea. Please tell me what the sea is."
Momma fish: "Well, baby, the sea is all around you, everywhere."
Baby fish: (looking around) "Where? I don't see anything."
Momma fish: "It's right there in front of you, all around, and inside as well."
Baby fish: "Sigh. Well, I have no knowledge of this thing you call the sea. I can say with supreme confidence that I do not believe in its existence."