schu

you said quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
Of course this is a natural universe. But nature is one manifestation of divinity. So, to put it simply, god isn't supernatural, god is natural.[/QB]


I said quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If your god is natural as you claim than you should be able to test him. I know many people say one isn't supposed to test god, but then what was JC doing walking on water? Or raising Lazarus? Now I don't mean stories are a test, those stories worked only for those people who were there. Like testifying in a court of law, I need the information first hand so I can testify for it. Could you supply some evidence please?



The point was that you claimed your god was a part of the natural universe, and as such it should be possible to test for him/her/it. I wasn't claiming you were christian. I was just using the JC examples to show how a proclaimed god has been tested for. I was also clear that I would expect you to give me evidence that was present in the here and now. Something I could go and look at like the perpetual motion machine, or the supposed human tracks in amongst those of the dinosaurs at Glen Rose. Not just some old stories whether chirstian or not. Again I ask you, what is your evidence?

Veil of Fire

"The point was that you claimed your god was a part of the natural universe, and as such it should be possible to test for him/her/it."

The first part, yes. The second part is you putting words in my mouth, but I suppose it's still theoretically accurate.

"I wasn't claiming you were christian. I was just using the JC examples to show how a proclaimed god has been tested for."

I thought you were expecting me to explain the JC examples as non-supernatural. My bad. I'm a ditz.

"I was also clear that I would expect you to give me evidence that was present in the here and now. Something I could go and look at like the perpetual motion machine, or the supposed human tracks in amongst those of the dinosaurs at Glen Rose."

How about a tree? Or a cicada? Or the stars at night?

My point being, you HAVE tested it, and will continue to test it, and will continue to find things you can't explain at the same time you're explaining the things you couldn't a decade ago. We have minds to study and observe with so that we might eventually comprehend Divinity. What do you mean "can we test it"?? Do you want me to give you a formula to call an angel down for the sole purpose of thumping you in the nose like a misbehaving kitten and say "naughty naughty atheist!"??

"Again I ask you, what is your evidence?"

The question was asked, "when is a negative shown to be false in reasonable terms?"

My question is, how much evidence do you really need? Every time something "supernatural" (fie! there's no such thing!) is explained and discovered to be, in fact, natural, you seem to see that as evidence AGAINST a natural divinity, when in actuality it's merely us coming closer to comprehending the infinite, if only in a microcosm.

I honestly don't think you quite comprehend the concept of a "natural" divinity. I think you've been arguing with Christians for so long, who say "this down here is dirt, and that up there is God" that you don't quite get my gist when I say "this down here is dirt, and is also God."

schu

"The point was that you claimed your god was a part of the natural universe, and as such it should be possible to test for him/her/it."

"The first part, yes. The second part is you putting words in my mouth, but I suppose it's still theoretically accurate."

Sorry if that seemed as if I was quoting you. I didn't mean for it to. It is just what I was saying about your claim. You claim there is a god, and I claim that if there is, then we should be able to test for him/her/it.

snip

"How about a tree? Or a cicada? Or the stars at night?
My point being, you HAVE tested it, and will continue to test it, and will continue to find things you can't explain at the same time you're explaining the things you couldn't a decade ago. We have minds to study and observe with so that we might eventually comprehend Divinity. What do you mean "can we test it"?? Do you want me to give you a formula to call an angel down for the sole purpose of thumping you in the nose like a misbehaving kitten and say "naughty naughty atheist!"??
"Again I ask you, what is your evidence?"
The question was asked, "when is a negative shown to be false in reasonable terms?"
My question is, how much evidence do you really need? Every time something "supernatural" (fie! there's no such thing!) is explained and discovered to be, in fact, natural, you seem to see that as evidence AGAINST a natural divinity, when in actuality it's merely us coming closer to comprehending the infinite, if only in a microcosms.I honestly don't think you quite comprehend the concept of a "natural" divinity. I think you've been arguing with Christians for so long, who say "this down here is dirt, and that up there is God" that you don't quite get my gist when I say "this down here is dirt, and is also God."

Well, how about "some" evidence? To proclaim that all of nature is god is to make god so amorphous as to be nonexistent. How is all the universe, known and unknown "Divinity"? Is it just proclaimed "divinity" by fiat? My view of that is one wants to stay religious and proclaim religion without really being religious. Have the best of both worlds so to speak. I can't prove the universe isn't god, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that it is so. To claim that
"How about a tree? Or a cicada? Or the stars at night?" is proof of god is no different than saying that existence itself proves god. This only proves that the universe exists, nothing more. Your right in claiming that I don't comprehend "natural divinity". Not trying to be confrontational here, but it sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Schu

Sojourner553

I was speaking of why at least SOME theists were afraid to even show a willingness to contemplate or confront their own mortality. Indeed if you disprove a belief system to one theist -- more often than not they rush to fill in "the void" with another belief system.

Obviously if one already is an atheist -- they were able to confront the reality of mortality.

It is a decision I had to make -- truth vs security through fantasy. I have watched others decide not to open the box (contemplating there is really no God) for where it might lead them. Haven't you heard the line, "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe in something?" Seems to me it would be better not to believe at all then to believe the WRONG religion.

Bill

Illegitimai non-carborundum! (Don't let the bastards wear you down!)

Realize that religion appeals to emotion. It takes a strong intellect (like yours) to bring your emotions under control and adhere to reason instead of to emotion. But those humans who exercise their reason in this fashion cannot let go of emotion entirely or else they will cease to be human. One of the most frustrating parts of being a committed rationalist is to know that you do not dare extirpate your emotions! Thus, for your whole rational life, you must try to find some reasonable balance between giving sway to your emotions and controlling them with the force of your intellect. It is not easy!

The other key aspect of religion is its social aspect. Many people who are "unbelievers" (or at least, "apathetics") continue to go to church simply for the social aspects of meeting people on common ground. The friendships we form in these situations are also a vital part of what it means for us to be fully human. Even the hardest of the hard core atheists seem to obtain this same sort of social connection through groups like <a href="http://www.atheists.org/" target="_blank">American Atheists</a>. Certainly, a number of members of that organization have a reputation for fundamentalism that would do justice to a follower of Jerry Fallwell. It seems that those who have converted away from Christianity are so frequently the most activist against Christianity. I guess this is just another aspect of the old saying: "nobody is as virtuous as a reformed whore."

We need to keep emotionally involved with our fellow humans, even if we do not share their superstitious beliefs. I'm glad to see you continuing your participation in your pagan rituals, Brighid. Many atheists at least observe the changing of the seasons. There is value to traditions even if we have discarded the superstitions.

Tell your mom that if she is right about the truth of her religion, then her God made you to be the way you are, and the both of you just have to accept that this is the way things are and go on from here. Tell your mom that if she doesn't like it, then take it up with God, not you.

You may experience a falling-out; but few of these falling-outs last for very long so long as one of you is open to re-establishing the relationship. When my own sister converted to fundamentalist Christianity about 30 years ago, she exhibited all the zeal of the "reformed whore," mentioned above. This caused a falling-out, but it didn't last. Some other crisis can come along that will not be focused on you, and that could be your opportunity to gain at least some degree of acceptance from your mom. At least, thats the way it worked for me.

Don't blame your mom for being what she is. It isn't your fault that she was raised to live in ignorance and superstition. And don't try to change her because forced change rarely works. Instead, preach tolerance.

Or, is your mom immune to tolerance because her church is one of the really bigoted ones? If so, then don't worry about it, and just live your life to please yourself. Its nice to keep in touch with our relatives, but not at the cost of our own emotional upset!

== Bill

Bill

I think that you misperceive the claim made by (at least) most of the mechanical perpetual motion machines.

If I have a ship at sea, and the wind blows, I can put up a sail and obtain movement (energy) from the force of the wind moving by. Similarly, if I am next to a running river, I can put out a wheel and obtain movement (energy) from the force of the water moving by.

So, since we live in an environment where the force of gravity is always pulling down towards the center of the Earth, why can't we put out some equivalent mechanism and obtain movement (energy) from the force of the gravitons moving by? (I realize that the graviton is just a theoretical particle, but hopefully you will understand that once we do have a proper theory of gravity, there ought to be something there that can be in some way harnassed to produce energy.)

So, in the great spirit of "hope springs eternal," some people <a href="http://www.free-energy.co.uk/" target="_blank">are still promoting the idea of a gravity-based perpetual motion machine</a>. The reason that such a machine cannot be disproven by science lies in the fact that we do not yet have a sufficiently good theory of gravity. Once we do understand gravity well enough, we ought to either be able to build such a machine at will, or else we ought to be able to prove that building such a machine is flatly impossible.

== Bill

Bill

One of the side effects of <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552394" target="_blank">Godel's Incompleteness Theorum</a> is the philosophical idea that every epistemological system (and science is an epistemological system) must rest upon one or more unproven (and unprovable) assumptions.

The basic (and unprovable) assumption of all of natural science is the idea now called formally methodological naturalism. The formal claim of theism is that science cannot invalidate theism because science has "arbitrarily" decided to use only those epistemological methods consistant with methodological naturalism, and by making that basic assumption, science has committed an a priori exclusion of all possible evidence in favor of the theistic worldview. By the fallacy of the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum" target="_blank">argumentum ad numerum</a>, you cannot use any number of failed attempts at proof to operate as a disproof. This is particularly true in a situation, such as this, where there is no agreement between the sides on epistemological methodology.

The bottom line here is that if you accept this argument you have stated, above, you have acted upon your own presupposition to the effect that science is the only proper epistemological methodology. You have thus engaged in an a priori rejection of theistic claims. No committed theist will see this as anything logically valid from a theistic perspective.

Oh well; science works for me, and nothing fails like prayer.

== Bill

DMB

Sorry to interject a side issue, but I don't like to see Percy Bysshe Shelley treated a woman. He was a man!

His second wife, Mary (author of Frankenstein) was the daughter of Mary Woolstonecroft and William Godwin. Shelley himself, as well as a major poet, was a passionate campaigner for atheism and social justice. As a teenager, he wrote a pamphlet called The Necessity of Atheism, for which he was chucked out of University College, Oxford (much later to be the college of Bill Clinton).

Of course, now the college has a nauseateing marble memorial to him. It reminds me of Salzburg and its posthumous exploitation of Mozart.

Bob K

There is a way of understanding how the gods could be as natural as any other thing or event in the universe, and that the concept of a supernatural thing/event is irrational and that, therefore, supernatural things/events did not and do not and will never exist.

First, start with the universe. The general definition of ‘universe’ is ‘all there is.’

Some physicists try to explain nature by discussing ‘multiple universes’ and ‘parallel universes’ as if there exist more than one universe.

If there exist more than one universe, where are they, and what term can we use to refer to ‘all there is?’

The point herein is that there exists only one universe, with no other universes in any other dimensions or explanations du jour.

In our one-and-only universe there are three independent realities:

1. The spatial reality, which consists of the limitless/unbounded place which would be a perfect vacuum except for the presence of the other realities. The spatial reality is infinite in geometrical dimension. [A truly straight line would be infinite in length--would have no end.] The spatial reality is infinite in duration; it has always existed, exists now, and will always exist in the future. There never was a beginning to the spatial reality, and there will never be an ending to the spatial reality.

2. The temporal reality, which is the measurement of the occurrences of events in chronological sequences by the use of time-intervals. When men want to determine if Event A happened before, at the same time as, or after Event B they use time-intervals to provide a unit of measurement for clocks which use those time-intervals to provide by their face readings the asymmetry needed for the establishment of history. Time moves forwards only and is thus asymmetrical. Time is infinite in extending into the past and/or the future by means of face readings, but moves forwards only. There was never a beginning of time—the temporal reality, and there will never be an ending to time.

When variable time-intervals are used for the measurement of time, as in clocks which are subject to changes of velocity and gravity but are neither self-adjusting [to compensate for the effects of changes of velocity/gravity] nor synchronized to a clock ins specified reference frame, such as an ‘earth clock’ on the reference frame of the earth, then time appears to be dependent upon and thus not independent of space.

When invariable time-intervals are used for the measurement of time, as in clocks which are velocity/gravity sensing and self-adjusting [to compensate for the changes of velocity/gravity] or otherwise are synchronized with a specific clock in a specified reference frame, then clocks everywhere show the same face readings/measurements of time, and time and space are total independent, thus when invariable time-intervals are used or clocks are synchronized spacetime becomes an illusion.

3. The physical reality, which consists of the matter/energy which comprises all things and events, and which is the source of all causality. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed but only changed in form as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2; thus matter/energy is infinite in duration. Matter/energy is finite in quantity; the sum total of matter and energy being a constant. The physical reality is the source of causality wherein things/events as causes cause/create other things/events as effects. Because matter/energy is infinite in duration the physical reality never had a beginning and will never have an ending.

The gods, if they exist, must exist as physical realities comprised of matter/energy of some kind, even if of a kind not currently observed and therefore known by men. For ‘things’ to be gods they only have to have more knowledge and capabilities for using that knowledge to perform feats/events man currently cannot; as we expect gods to be more knowledgeable and more powerful than man, a natural being who/which is more knowledgeable and more powerful than man can qualify as/be defined to be a god.

Thus, where the supernatural does not exist because nothing exists/can exist outside of or otherwise superior to the universe [there is no need for it to exist], then the gods—if they exist—must be natural as part of/comprised of the physical reality. They may not have created any thing/event from nothing, but they could have ‘created’ something from something by reorganizing that something which is a physical reality.

But as gods are part of the physical reality/comprised of the physical reality, there still remain these possibilities:

1. The gods never existed.
2. The gods existed but somehow died/creased to exist as gods.
3. The gods exist but do not intervene in human affairs.
4. The gods exist and intervene in human affairs.

We are thus still faced with answering the fundamental question of religion: Do gods exist?

To prove gods exist, either (A) the gods show up and prove they are gods and thus have superior knowledge and powers by performing feats man cannot currently perform; or (B) we capture a god and convince him/her/it to perform feats that man cannot currently perform and thereby prove he/she/it is a god.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

wordsmyth

Without time nothing would change, so our senses tell us that time is not an illusion. We track time using clocks and calendars, but we observe time based on change both in ourselves and the environment around us.