Stephen T-B

This is going off at a tangent and in deference to Jamie_L we probably ought to pursue it somewhere else...however.
The Natural and the Supernatural are mutually exclusive.
Thus: Anything attributable to a supernatural entity, whether it be a fairy or a god, must, on NO account, have a natural explanation. (That would be a simple contradiction.)

Can we be sure that fairies and gods do not exist?

No.

On the other hand, we are not so well informed that we can state categorically that something attributed to them has no natural explanation. As long as the possibility of such an explanation exists, attributing it to the supernatural is an unwarranted assumption.

Therefore gods and fairies cannot be said for certain to impact upon our experiences, and that being the case, their existence or non-existence matters not at all. At least, not to anyone lacking the psychological need to believe in such things.

Darth Dane

The Natural and the Supernatural are mutually exclusive.
Thus: Anything attributable to a supernatural entity, whether it be a fairy or a god, must, on NO account, have a natural explanation. (That would be a simple contradiction.)

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only contrary to what we know about nature.- st augustine

Could it be that "God" and "fairies" are not supernatural but as natural as yo and I?


Can we be sure that fairies and gods do not exist?

No.

On the other hand, we are not so well informed that we can state categorically that something attributed to them has no natural explanation. As long as the possibility of such an explanation exists, attributing it to the supernatural is an unwarranted assumption.

So yo leave open a little window open so if you saw it tomorrow you will believe.

Therefore gods and fairies cannot be said for certain to impact upon our experiences, and that being the case, their existence or non-existence matters not at all. At least, not to anyone lacking the psychological need to believe in such things.

LOL, yeah whether or not there are any gods, I still need to go to the farmer to get food, or grow myself, unless of course you are as Therese Neumann, who didn't eat and drink for 26 years or so.

But miracle? I dunno, the miracle is that we Are, that we can say "I Am, I have existance. That is a miracle






DD - Love & Laughter

Stephen T-B

If miracles are Natural, they are by definition not caused by a supernatural entity.
If gods and fairies are not supernatural entities, they would be accessible to scientific investigation and analysis which means they must either be directly detectable, or detectable as a consequence of their consistent, predictable interactions with physical phenomena which are detectable.

It is for the very reason that they aren’t accessible to scientific investigation and analysis that we characterise them as “supernatural.”


What else?
“...so if you saw it tomorrow you will believe?”

If I saw it tomorrow I wouldn’t need to believe.
I would know.

Eric H

If there is no God, and life is purely the result of some random chance event, then we can look for any random purpose to life that fills our needs.

If there is a God and he went to all the trouble of creating the universe and life, as we know, then surely he would have a purpose to fulfil.

Peace

Eric

BioBeing

Why "surely"??? You are simply assuming that he does have a purpose. Why could God (if he exists) not have made the Universe on a random whim, just as you might aimlessly doodle a little sketch?

Wyz_sub10

It does not follow that because life arising was random we can find "any random purpose to life".

If it fills our needs, it is not random. My goals in life are specific and deliberate, not random.

They might be "random" at some level, but if so, it would be at a level that this randomness would be totally transparent and basically meaningless.

njhartsh

I think it also resembles a point made by Dan Barker (former fundamentalist minister and now public relations director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) in an essay called "Dear Theologian," which was included in Barker's book, Losing Faith in Faith. I think "Dear Theologian" is the best thing Barker has ever written.

- Nathan

Eric H

Quote: Wyz_sub10
It does not follow that because life arising was random we can find "any random purpose to life".

If it fills our needs, it is not random. My goals in life are specific and deliberate, not random.

They might be "random" at some level, but if so, it would be at a level that this randomness would be totally transparent and basically meaningless.
============================



On reflection I think my use of the word random is wrong, if there is no creator God then the universe was not created for a purpose and we are left to seek any purpose that fulfils our needs.

If there is no God can there be a greatest purpose to life, or are we left to search for whatever meaning suits us as an individual.

Peace
Eric

Wyz_sub10

I would agree with this, actually. The caveat, however, is that we have some fundamental wiring that helps give us some basic direction - self-preservation, reproduction (certainly not always, but often), some designs on power or admiration, etc.

As above, I think. No, I don't think there can be a "greatest" purpose, because in the absence of a purpose hierarchy, "greatest" is not really an applicable word.

I suppose we could define "greatest" as the proces which grants society maximum sustainability, maximum happiness and minimal sorrow, but the parameters or details of this would be almost impossible to establish and would, in any case, be highly subjective and susceptible to change.

Eric H

Quote Wyz_sub10
As above, I think. No, I don't think there can be a "greatest" purpose, because in the absence of a purpose hierarchy, "greatest" is not really an applicable word.

I suppose we could define "greatest" as the proces which grants society maximum sustainability, maximum happiness and minimal sorrow, but the parameters or details of this would be almost impossible to establish and would, in any case, be highly subjective and susceptible to change.
=======================================




I go along with this, I tend to think that it is more beneficial for society as a whole to succeed, rather than to find a purpose that would benefit individuals more than it would benefit society.

Communism and capitalism are probably the two extremes, one supposedly geared up for society as a whole, the other geared up more for the benefit of the individual.

Capitalism is probably the more successful of the two philosophies, but the incentives are more for the individual; rather than society as a whole.

For societies to succeed for all people may depend more on the laws that the government of that country sets

What kind of laws could a government set; that would give society a greater purpose?


Peace

Eric