tronvillain

I'm going to have to agree with Not Prince Hamlet on this one. We can only ever hope to approximate knowledge and there is nothing logically impossible about all God concepts.

joedad

Philosophically speaking, a person could hold to a position that the divine and the larger supernatural, or any extranatural state is part of a larger natural cosmic order.

So, I thought that you and 99 were getting into semantics is all.

When you asked that 99 prove that divine implies supernatural, I was convinced, maybe because I think that such a statement is more readily explained, as opposed to proven.

Personally, I accept for purposes of discussion that divine implies supernatural because divine means having to do with gods. Didn't mean to confuse.

joe

99Percent

I am surprised tron. Wouldn't this be the agnostic position? I ask becauce in your profile you state you are a strong atheist. To me a god concept precisely means a logical impossibity and why it ultimately becomes a question of faith, not reason.

joedad is right, this has become an argument over semantics.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: 99Percent ]</p>

tronvillain

Well, if strong atheism holds that all God concepts are logically inconsistent, I am not a strong atheist and consider all strong atheists irrational.

Malaclypse the Younger

Sigh... atheist (strong/weak), agnostic, theist, christian, deist, they're all labels. They are over-generalized, and as much political and arbitrary as they are objective.

It's unproductive to argue about self-identification labels. One chooses a label so that others can make a few quick generalizations, but if you want to know precisely what a person feels about a specific proposition, you have to ask him. Since the "god" issue is so complicated, it is pointless trying to define very precise meanings for each label.

I self-identify as an "atheist" half for my philosophical position, half to indicate to others that I don't believe in a god and I'm not at all confused or uncertain about what I believe.

But if you want to know what I believe about "conception of God #132" and why I believe it, you have to ask me specifically.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

To emphasise what Malaclypse says, and to repeat (assuming the Finchmeister is still around):

AF, please define the particular god you have in mind. Then we can discuss more accurately.

Oolon

Not Prince Hamlet

Joedad,

A counter example is the set of kami from Japan's Shinto religion. Kami are gods who by their very definition are nature. Therefore, they are both divine and natural.

Heh, this is fun, arguing from a theist's point of view.

Jeff

joedad

Kami includes the divine. Correct? It includes gods. But that it also includes other supernatural manifestations such as the "spirit of our ancestors" doesn't make it unique and doesn't change 99's original point that divine implies the supernatural.

But why go the kami route? The christian trinity does the same thing. The god of Moses would be the actual divine god. Jesus would be the god and nature as it is asserted that this existing demigod is both natural and divine. Now add a spirit, in this case a holy spirit. And of course, all these manifestations are stated to be a singular coherent entity. Is that logically consistent? There's more evidence for Gaia than for this line of reasoning.

I think I understand your point. but I'd have to retrace this thread to see exactly how atheism would become logically inconsistent.

But if one starts to redefine terms, anything could become possible.

joe

Not Prince Hamlet

I still think that this conclusion is invalid. In many religions, divinity is often supernatural, but that's not the same thing as saying that divinity equates to supernaturalism.

Putting it another way, both "supernatural deities" and "natural deities" are proper subsets of "deities".

Shintoism makes it quite clear that their kami are the natural order of things, and hence by definition can not be supernatural.

Christianity is difference. It makes it quite clear that there are laws for God and that there are laws for men, and that they are different laws. (Actually, come to think of it, whether there are laws for God is not made clear ...)

Jeff

99Percent

Malaclypse The Younger: Since the "god" issue is so complicated...

What is so complicated about "god"? "God" by its very definition, means that it is above the laws of nature and logic and therefore beyond the understanding from the human mind.

Clearly this is not a real possibility. This is not the same as discarding the existence of say unicorns, because unicorns are not necessarily above the laws of nature, or flying dragons since they could have some extraordinary (but not supernatural) ability to fly.

Superheroes like Superman or Spiderman are also not gods because they also are restricted to certain laws that fall withing the control and understanding of human beings. For example Superman could be theoritically controlled with kryptonite. If he did not have any such weakness then indeed he would be a god.

God means that it is not bound to any law, it is beyond laws. Are you still willing to accept this a possibility?