SecularFuture

Bill Snedden
Hehe... Okay

mnkbdky

When one seriously takes a look at what is being said things tend to break down and one has to be even more specific. The man who has brought this to the forefront is Jack Derrida and the process is called Deconstruction.

Deconstruction, however, does not mean that one can make something mean anything. There are limits. However, words have give or play to them.

Please take notice of this with me.

Natural very much may mean, only material objects. Let me try to demonstrate this.

First, let me bring your attention to the term "or". The term "or" may function is two ways. First, it may function disjuctively as in either this "or" that. When "or" is functioning in this manner it designates two options. For example, someone may ask you, "would you like to play football or baseball?" In cases like these there are actually two questions being asked, namely, "would you like to play football?" or "would you liketo play baseball?"

The second way "or" may function is conjunctively or epexegetically. When "or" is functioning in this manner the term or phrase consequent to "or" is only repeating what was said antecedent to "or." For example, someone may ask you, "would you like to play baseball or America's favorite past-time?" In this case "or" indicates that America's favorite past-time is just another way of saying baseball. The two terms mean the same thing and thus there is only one question being asked.

Keeping this in mind, let's now take a look at the term natural.

Natural, as you have pointed out means, "Present [existing or happening now] in [within the limits, bounds, or area of] or produced [to create by physical or mental effort] by nature [the material world and its phenomena]."

Notice how may times "or" is stated. Now ask yourself how "or" is functioning each time it is written. Is it disjunctive or conjunctive? If it is disjuntive then there are two option. If there are two options each must be stated separately.

The first "or" occurs with the definition of "present", which means, "existing or happening now." It does not seem to me that "happing now" means the samething as "existing." Therefore, "or" must be functioning disjunctively. If so, then there are two option. If there are two option in a given definition then there are two definition. This will be confusing to some, so one should break them into two definitions.

The beginning of our defintions then look like this,

NT1: existing

NT2: happening now (concurrent)

Continuing on, the second occurrence of "or" is found in the definition of "in" which means, "with in the limits, bounds or area of." How is "or" functioning here? There is also the added complication of the term following a comma. Does this indicate that bounds is another option or the same thing as limits? It seems to me that it is just another way of saying limit, so that is how I will take it. Also notice that the definition of "in" uses "in." Nevertheless, it seems there are two options. The first, is "within the limits." The second is, "within the area of."

Adding these to our definition we get,

NT1: existing within the limits

NT1*: existing within the area of

N2: happening now within the limits

N2*: happening now within the area of

The third "or" is preceeded by "produced by." Is this"or" disjunctive or conjunctive? Obviously, since you give the defintion of produce as "to create by physical or mental effort" it does not mean the same as "present." So now we have another branch of defintions.

Our definitions now look like this,

NT1: existing within the limits

NT1*: existing within the area of

N2: happening now within the limits

N2*: happening now within the area of

N3: produced by

You should by now get the picture. There are several definitions of natural inside the definition you gave me. What I am trying to do is narrow it down to just one definition.

Natural mean only material objects when it means,

NT1: existing within the limits of the material world and it phenom.

You say, however, you are not using natural this way. Please then take sometime and use the process I have been using and narrow your definition of what natural means in your argument. It cannot be the definition you give because there are several defintiions within it. That, my friend, is equivocating. You, perhaps unknowingly, pick and choose which meaning insided the definition you are going to use.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

I'm using ALL OF THEM AT ONCE!
Do you have a problem with that?! :banghead:

If someone was to say, "I'm going to go out and have some fun", would you waste time asking them, "Which definition of fun are you using? Fun means many things. Fun is a source of enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure. Take notice of the word 'OR' in the definition. Now, are you going to go out and have enjoyment? Or are you going to go out and have amusement? Or are you going to go out and have pleasure? Please define.... blah - blah - blah."

Do you see how you sound?!




This may be my last response to you.
It all depends on how you respond.

=======================

5 Points against Religious Theism

The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electrical devices. Therefore, god must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed to be both omnipotent and omnipresent.

Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent


1) What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “religious faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike history books, many religious scriptures include stories about supernatural worlds that can only be believed and not seen. This is why many freethinkers are able to have “reasoned faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by analytical reason, in history books and not in most religious scripture.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being of a divine origin or nature, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested - personal - interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through subjective thinking alone.

SecularFuture

"Crunch - Crunch - Grumble - Grumble"

mnkbdky

Let me approach this from a different angle.

You adamantly deny that supernatural means immaterial.

You have even said on the second page of this thread in the second post,

You even offered air as an example. However, I pointed out that air is not immaterial.

Anyway,

If immaterial things can be found in the natural univerise and what is found can be detected, then, immaterial things must be detectable.

Therefore, you must not have a problem with a theist who says God is immaterial and detectable.

However, what I have heard you say is that there is always a natural explanation of things. Perhaps, they didn't detect God (i.e., an immaterial thing), but rather their brain is playing tricks on them.

Their brain is material. If their brain is playing a trick on them, then, if they claim to detect an immaterial being they are really only interpreting a material event. You are thus saying that it is impossible to know if they detected something immaterial.

However, you just said that immaterial things are detectable.

Which is it? Are immaterial things detectable or not?

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
su•per•nat•u•ral
adj.
---- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
---- Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
---- Of or relating to a deity.
---- Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
---- Of or relating to the miraculous.


Mmmm… I wonder why I don’t I see the word ‘immaterial’ anywhere in the definition? Probably because ‘immaterial’ is not the main word, or the only word that is used to define supernatural.

Yeah. Thoughts are immaterial, and they can be detected.

SecularFuture

god
n.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.

2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

5. A very handsome man.

6. A powerful ruler or despot.

=================

Dang..... For some reason I’m having a hard time finding the word ‘immaterial’ in the definition of ‘god’. I found the word 'supernatural' in there a couple of times though.

mnkbdky

If you continue to do your philosophy according to dictionary.com you are going to have serious problems. If you want a definition of what God is to someone or some religion you might want to ask them or check with a theologian of that Religion for a definition.

Here is the concept of God according to the orthodox Judeao-Christian-Islamic tradition and some Hindus:

God: a living personal being (i.e., a living entity that is capable of having relationships) who is of one immaterial substance, who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

This is a general description. I will garuantee if you ask any orthodox Jew, Muslim, Christian and/or some Hindus if this is an accurate description I guarantee they will concur. I do have my master's degree in theology, I know this is what they teach. In fact, as a Christian theologian this is what I teach.

So, would you please answer the question according to the definiton of God I have just given.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

davros4269

The immaterial like energy, computer software and thought can be detected and in the case of thought, this will improve in the near future.

Interstingly, we may be able to detect your thoughts of god in your head in our lifetimes, though this has no bearing on the really-real "rest" of the world. Similar to my red dragon god. We will detect that your thoughts are just that, thoughts - the software of the brain - to establish a link between brain software and anything with god-properties requires outside-your-brain evidence.

The supernatural, on the other hand, can't be detected - isn't what why we call it supernatural? If ghosts are made of energy, lets say, they have thus far eluded detection. This is different from other forms of energy which, while immaterial, have been detected.

Of course words have play; but there has to be a limit in a debate, or, it's not good sportsmanship! We can desonctruct each sentence until we no longer understand English as we know it, but, where have we gone then? Nowhere!

Tootles,

Davros

SecularFuture

Davros4269
Does the following pretty much cover everything?

===============

5 Points against Religious Theism

The existence of a god can not be tested by science, seen by the naked eye, nor detected by electrical devices. Therefore, god must be a supernatural being if he/she/it is believed to be both omnipotent and omnipresent.


Definitions for the word ‘supernatural’:
- of or relating to existence outside the natural world
- attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces
- of or relating to a deity
- of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; the miraculous

Definitions for the word ‘natural’:
- present in or produced by nature
- of, relating to, or concerning nature
- conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature
- not acquired; inherent


1) What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know, without doubt or “religious faith”, if something is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you have reason to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a super-natural one.

2) Unlike history books, many religious scriptures include stories about supernatural worlds that can only be believed and not seen. This is why many freethinkers are able to have “reasoned faith”, a kind of faith that is supported by analytical reason, in history books and not in most religious scripture.

3) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. A god is not the only being capable of inspiring or writing books.

4) If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being of a divine origin or nature, there is still room for doubt and further investigation. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth. Untested - personal - interpretations of so-called supernatural events could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

5) Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through subjective thinking alone.

===============

Or am I forgetting something?
[edited to correct formatting]