SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Immaterial
--- Having no material body or form.

Air could be considered immaterial, and yet – we can still detect it! So no, saying something is supernatural is not the same as saying that it is immaterial.

http://www.dictionary.com



Could you please respond to my post now? I don't like typing out long messages, and then not getting a response for them. Its kind of rude.

mnkbdky

Air is not immaterial. Air is comprised of elements. For instance, air contains oxygen. Oxygen is an element. Oxygen is an atom, it has 8 protons and neutrons. It is a material thing. However, it is invisible. That is, we cannot see it, because in its natural state it is colorless. Invisible is not the same thing as immaterial. Invisible merely means it cannot be seen.

Let me explain to you what immaterial means in philosophy beyond just having no material body or form. Something that is immaterial not only does not have a material body or form, it also does not exist in space. To be a material object is to have extension. That is, a material object takes of space. It has weight and mass. Something immaterial does not take up space. It has no weight or mass. It is non-spatial. If someone were to ask where the immaterial object existed there is no place to point. Furthermore, because what is immaterial is non-spatial, it also has no parts. There is not some part of it that is location away from another part of it. For example, look at you computer screen. The top right coner of it is in a different location that the bottom left corner. One cannot say this of something that is immaterial, because it is non-spatial. It has no parts. Immaterial things are called simple substances for just that reason. They are not complex, that is they do not have parts.

When theists say God is immaterial this is exactly what they mean. God is non-spatial. You cannot say there is one part of God to my right and another part of God to my left. Strictly speaking God does not exist in space. However, since immaterial things are simple substances that are non-spatial it could also be look at from another view. That is, an immaterial substance is omnipresent. That is, there is no place that it is not fully present. Something immaterial is present in its fullness anywhere and everywhere.

Perhaps you are new to philosophy. These are really tough concepts to understand. Even some atheists believe in immaterial substances, such as propositions. You should keep thinking and wondering about the world. It is full of wonder, or wonderful.


Now let me answer some of you questions.

It does not have to be God behind these experiences. It could be as you say, someone's imagination. However, for one who trusts their senses it is easy to tell the difference. Just as it is as easy to tell the difference between a tree and a car through sight, so too is it easy to tell the difference between experiencing myself and God.

Like I was saying before, we have more than just the five senses we are taught in Jr. High science class. If we did not there would be no way to detect our thoughts. For we do not detect our thoughts through seeing, hearing, tasting, touching or smelling. Some theists have called this sense the sensus divinitatas or sense of the divine. If God exists, and God created us and God loves us and wants a relationship withus, then God would have created us with a way to detect him. The process of detection comes with meditation and prayer, and the hearing and readin of God's word (i.e., scripture). When God enters your presence you will know he is there, you can sense him.


Again God does not have to be behind them. It is possible that their is no God. However, because I trust my senses I am able to that God does exist and is behind them.

The Job interviewer cannot sense that you can type 300 words a min. That is not something that may be sensed. However, God may be senced. God is a personal being who can have relationships with people. He is detectable.

No in order for you to say their is no such sense as the sensus divinitatas you would have to know everything there is about the human body and it senses. However, to say that I know there is the sensus I only have to experience it and use it.

Just as you cannot say my friend Jiaming does not exist because you do not know every person that exists. However, I can say she exists because I know her. I do not have to know every person to know one. The same applies to the senses and to the existence of God. I do not have to know everything about everything to say they both exist. I merely have to know them.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

mnkbdky, my issue with you is definitions and philosophy. It's as if you play word games and avoid the meat of the issue.

You aren't satisfied with definitions of words, instead, you go off on tangents in the the words in their very definitions.

Let me just say that I realize I am a bit late arriving at the debate, but let me make a few points anyway.

First off, it's silly to say, "5 senses;smell, touch, etc". We can't touch or smell individual atoms, but we know they exist because we have the tools to detect them. The same with air, energy, and to some degree, conciousness.

We know that software isn't material, yet it exists and can be detected by looking at computer code and hooking meters up to measure current and so forth.

We can scan the brain and see the "software" in a certain sense. We know from brain damage cases what parts of the brain are responsible for what, more or less. We have a VERY basic understanding ot neural networks and how information travels from neuron to neuron, switching from electric current to chemicals and back. Thought isn't any more supernatural than software is. While we don't understand it in full detail, do you doubt we will? Do you doubt that we can create AI or RI in an artificial system?

Further, I'd argue that your interpretation of the world doesn't change the world at large, merely your interpretation of it, of course!

Now then, we can't detect any gods with any know experiments, tools, etc. You say that god is detecable. I say, "how?" Provide an example of how you detect god?

If you have a relationship with god, then you have adjusted your view of the world - you haven't established god in this world, outside of your brain and it's software.

Further, this means that there are 6 billion gods, potentially. I could tell you that I detect a personal god as well, an invisible red dragon floating over my right shoulder.

He is supernatural and non-detectable. There is nothing I can do to disprove your notion of god, and nothing you can do to disprove my notion of god.

Each is meaningless outside of our own delusions. If your software uses a recycle bin for a trash icon, while mine uses a trash can, neither has any bearing on the other or the world at large.

In other words, your relationship with your god is meaningless to the real world. Any attempt you make to take your ideal into the real world, affecting humans at large, eterneity, life after death, etc., requires outside evidence to back it up. Any such outside evidence fails - the Bible, for example. If your god has no effect, it may as well not exist or becomes meaningless. If you try and re-enter the real world, by some physical means, the Bible, carbon dating, etc., I have you.

In other words, I can't disprove someone's delussion, but once you enter the real world, the weight of natural and physical evidence mounts against you.

I agree with the original poster. There is no place for your god in the natural universe. And, if some funky thing happens, a supposed miracle or something floating, then we need to apply all natural knowledge of the universe first, and only if we fail, can we label it as supernatural.

I would argue that there is nothing supernatural at all - though of course we can't be sure until we prove the negative, that is, until we know 100% of what there is to know, then anything ELSE would be supernatural.

I am using the commonly held notions of natural and supernatural. I am not interested in word origins or other games.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
I will respond to your post by late Monday.
I have some work to catch up on.


davros4269
Thank you for your comments!
:notworthy :notworthy

davros4269

Paul5240, I disagree with you on 2 points.

First, you say that it's near-miraculous that we can think. Well, I'd agree that it's amazing, but not miraculous or, dare I say it, "supernatural".

Take snails, for example. Some snails only have about 20,000 brain cells. There was an effort to scan their behavior/inter-relations into a computer model to study how a snail is able to do what it does - which is a HELL of a lot, compared to even the MOST advanced robot that we have yet come up with.

Now consider rats. Millions or billions of neurons and they are capable of much more advanced behaviour. They apear to dream - do you doubt that they "see" images in their "heads" with their eyes closed? Is this miraculous? Could we not scan in all of their brain cells, and simulate a rat in a computer model, say, in 10 years or so? They have determined, with a fair amount of certainty, that snakes do not see images in their heads; their brains aren't capable.

Cats - cats can learn to hit a button to recieve food just by watching another cat which has been trained to that effect. This is something rats CAN"T do. More neurons, bigger brain.

Orangatauns realize that when they look into a mirror, they are looking at themselves. They use the mirror as a tool to groom, pick their teeth, etc. Simpler animals, even complex animals like Baboons, attack the mirror and never make the connection.

Chimps can be taught to sort pictures into groups of animals and humans. They always put pictures of chimps into the HUMAN pile. This always raises chills on the back of my neck! If you teach chimps to draw, their drawing styles are identical to human children until sometime after age 2, when they diverge. Before the split, chimps draw better and better, even forming shapes like crude circles.

There is a gradual progression at work here, anyone can see it. It's not a miracle. If a snail brain can be understood in any type of complete fasion, so can our brain. Why couldn't it? It is orders of magnitudes more complex, but just as natural as a snail's brain. Amazing that we can contemplate our own existence, yes, but hell, we have THAT many more neurons.

As to your second point, you are considering you, and I and the original poster, as we are now, living forever. This won't be the case. A shrew lives a short life; an elephant a long life. Both creatures have almost identical heartbeats during their lives, and both live VERY different lives.

When we gain the technology to live thousands or even millions of years, I'm sure that current conditions like depression and loss will be able to be dealt with as well

In other words, we don't cross the atlantic ocean in 3 hours using super fast wooden ships with HUGE sails, we use supersonic jets. Think about it.

If we understand ourselves enough to greatly extend our lives, I'm sure we can erradicate pshycological disorders and "the blues" as well - we won't be HUMAN in our current sense of the word. Folks have methods today of dealing with pain and loss, I'm sure we will have suitable or better methods in line with our new, non-human selves in the future.

Excuse spelling errors, no time to proof-read.

davros4269

mnkbdky, I forgot to point out an additional flaw in a recent post by you, concerning your comaprision of knowing your friend to knowing God.

SecularFuture doesn't know your friend, and therefore, may choose not to believe in her - but, is it unreasonable to have a friend? Is it unreasonable that your friend would have a certain name? Of course you don't have to know every person to know your friend!

What about God? That is _unreasonable_. Think about it. How many OTHER omnipresent sentient all-powerful beings do you know?

What about aliens? We can't believe in them until we have proof, but aliens are just life on planets. We know there is life on this planet. We know this planet orbits and gets power from, a star. We know there are other stars, and other planets. It requires no faith to speculate that perhaps similar cirucmstances could be happening elsewhere.

Angels - well, we've got sentient, invisible, flying immortal beings. Ok, so, what other invisible, sentient, immortal, flying beings are in are experienece? Right - NONE!

Do you see the difference and the flaw in your comaprison?

In a similar manner, we have no knowlege/experience with the supernatural.

You came up with what I consider to be an apples-oranges comparison.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
And what makes you jump to this conclusion? Just because I got one word mixed up? Not all of my focus goes into our discussions. I do have a job to attend to. This is just something that I do in my spare time to help me relax.

In response to: “How do you know this? How can you tell the difference? Why does it have to be a god concept behind the events that you interpret as being divine?”

Wouldn’t a simpler answer make more common sense? Seriously – Think really hard about this for a moment. What seems more *realistic*? Your experiences are being caused by your Christian interpretation of natural phenomena. – OR – There is a super powerful magical deity [who we can not see or test the existence of] who loves to spend his time disturbing our freewill with magic tricks.

A tree and a car are visible in front of you. “God” and your imagination both exist within your mind, away from the critical eye of scientific testing.

You say this like it’s a true statement. Can you prove this? And no – it’s not up to me to disprove it. The burden of proof lies on the person who is making the claim.

Are you 100% sure that there is NO OTHER explanation for the nature of our thoughts?

The BIGGEST assumption amongst religionists is that their “scripture” was inspired by a deity. The fact remains that anyone with a little bit of spare time and creative writing ability could have written that “scripture”.

What is the difference between ‘when you hear the voice of a god’ and ‘when crazy people hear the voices of imaginary figures’?

My question about the job interviewer and fast typist was relating to the burden of proof argument. If you say god exists, it is up to you to prove your claim, and not the person [the atheist] who is denying it.

Now - Take what you just said and apply it to the universe. For anyone to say that "there is a god” or “there is no god” they would need to know everything about the natural universe. You can only believe or disbelieve, at this moment.

mnkbdky

One needs to recognize that affirming the existence of something and denying the existence of something are two totally different claims. Remember, one need not know all data to affirm something existence. However, to deny somethings existence you must know everthing that exists.

For example, one may have never seen a black swan. It is possible, though, that a black swan exists. In order for me to say that a black swan does not exist I need to know all the swans that do exist.

However, one need not know all existent swans to know that a black swan does exist. They only need to a black swan.

The same applies here, I need not know all about the human body and its senses to know that the sensus divinitatis exists. I need only know that it does. To claim that it does not, though, one needs to have exhaustive knowledge of the human body and its senses.

The two claim are not equivalent.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. I will respond to the other claims latter

mnkbdky

Anthony Flew also made this claim. He used our judicial system to prove his point. The defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecutors, who are making the claim against him/her, could prove their point. His point was that the burden of proof was on the one(s) making assertions, not on the one(s) denying them.

There is a big problem here, though. Any and every negative claim can be made positive. That is, the negative claim, "God does not exist," can be made into a positive claim, such as, "it is the case that there exists only material beings." Since this claim is now making an assertion and not just denying that an immaterial being exists, according to the rule the burden of proof is now on the atheist or materialist. They must now prove that only material beings exist.

Since every negative claim can be made positive, the best stance by the one(s) judging is ignorance. In the case of our judicial system, the best way to enter a trial is with the attitude of ignorance, "I don't know if he/she did it and I do not know if he/she did not do it." Once the evidence is presented then you decide.

Notice I did say evidence here. Normally the judge and jury did not experience the crime and therefore have nothing to decide the case on other than outward proof or evidence.

However, even if evidence is lacking, the person who experienced the crime has the right to believe that the person on trial is either innocent or guilty. That is, if a person was mugged and got a good look at the person committing the mugging, yet at trial there was lack of evidence to convict the mugger, the person who was mugged is well with in his or her rights to believe the person on trial guilty of that crime. However, because the judge and jury do not have that experience to draw from they may only judge based on evidence. Once the decision is made they must stick with it, until further evidence comes forth.

In the case of theism, again perhaps the best stance is ignorance. Like the judge and jury one should listen to the arguments. If you are not satisfied with the arguments for Gods existence and/or you have not experience God, then, you may have no reason to believe in him. You are well within your epistemic rights not to.

However, perhaps there are those who are persuaded by the arguments and/or have experienced God. They then have every reason to believe or to say they know God exists. I am not persuaded--at this point--by any arguments for God's existence. Though, I think the existence of things is best explained by God. That is, I think God best answers the question, why is there something rather than nothing? However, I base my knowledge of God's existence on my experience of him. In analogy to the above scenario, I have been mugged by God. I am in a position to know, the judge and jury are not.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
[Side Note: Could you please keep your responses as short and ‘to the point’ as possible. My schedule is tight, and I do not have a lot of time for reading.]

You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].

This is true. However, as an atheist, I am not saying “Deities DO NOT exist”. As an atheist, I am saying “I do not believe in deities.”

http://www.dictionary.com

Atheist
--- One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

So you KNOW that the “sensus divinitatis” exists? Since you KNOW this, you have the proof for it, yes? Could you please provide your proof?

How can you make the quote “I don’t believe you” turn into “You’re wrong”? Those are two completely different quotes.

You’re saying ”God exists.”
I’m saying “I don’t believe you.”
I’m NOT saying “You’re wrong.”

This goes back to my job interview point. If someone came into my office and said that they could type 300 words per minute, it would not be up to me [the person who is denying the claim] to disprove anything. The person who is making the claim should have evidence to support their claim. If this weren’t true, anyone would be able to say anything, and by default all claims would be considered truth.

If I said that Pink Unicorns exists, would it be up to you or me to prove my claim?

Or have interpreted an unexplained natural phenomenon as being the touch of a deity.

No they do not. They’re assuming.

And when people can’t give naturalistic explanation to this question, they assume that a god must have been responsible. It’s the easiest way to feel comfortable in the light of mystery.

The assumption that your “experience” was caused by a god.

== The Unanswered Part of Post ==
In response to: “How do you know this? How can you tell the difference? Why does it have to be a god concept behind the events that you interpret as being divine?”

Wouldn’t a simpler answer make more common sense? Seriously – Think really hard about this for a moment. What seems more *realistic*? Your experiences are being caused by your Christian interpretation of natural phenomena. – OR – There is a super powerful magical deity [who we can not see or test the existence of] who loves to spend his time disturbing our freewill with magic tricks.

A tree and a car are visible in front of you. “God” and your imagination both exist within your mind, away from the critical eye of scientific testing.

sensus divinitatis
Are you 100% sure that there is NO OTHER explanation for the nature of our thoughts?

The BIGGEST assumption amongst religionists is that their “scripture” was inspired by a deity. The fact remains that anyone with a little bit of spare time and creative writing ability could have written that “scripture”.

What is the difference between ‘when you hear the voice of a god’ and ‘when crazy people hear the voices of imaginary figures’?