Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
You say, Only if all knowledge required experience. But all knowledge does not require experience. We derive knowledge in two different manners, by experiencing that which we come to know or by understanding that which we come to known.

For example, Christopher Columbus had “knowledge” of the second order, in relation to the roundness of the earth. He “knew” he would not sail off the edge of a flat earth enough to bet his life on this second order non-experiential knowledge of his. Christian martyrs have enough of this same kind of non-experiential knowledge of God and the spiritual realm to bet their lives on it, too.

Tho neither Columbus nor the martyrs had experiential knowledge of the realms they sought, or in your terms, they could point to no “link between natural and supernatural,” they were linked nonetheless, to their knowledge. Their link was simply not the kind of link you demand, an empirical link. They were linked to what they knew by the link of pure abstraction, the link of inference, the link of faith.

In short, your assertion is in itself a logical fallacy whereby your assumption subsumes your conclusion. That is, the “link” you ask us to show you is necessarily an empirical one. Both your naturalistic argument and our super-naturalistic argument rest upon the same assumption that no empirical link is possible. Yet, by circular reasoning you dare to claim that this necessary fact of our concurrence proves your case. Shame on you. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Albert:

I am assuming here, from your response, that you are taking the position that there is no link between the natural and supernatural, but that we can know both.

This being the case, are we not a link between the natural and the supernatural?

Tell me as clearly as you can because I'm unclear as to your position.

Cheers, John

hinduwoman

And the atheist position always has been that unless we begin with solid evidence, we can know nothing.

hinduwoman

I know you have not read the whole thing, but should not the op have told you something about what I consider 'proof'?
that was in response to a Christian's insistence that he 'knew' that Crhsitianity is true and all other religions are false.

Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
The operative word in your question: ... begs the question it seeks to answer. If by “link,” you mean something empirical or objective, no. If by “link” you mean something abstract or subjective, yes.

The central problem that divides us is the lack of reality ascribed to our abstract and subjective (read: supernatural) links to reality and the exaggerated emphasis on our empirical and objective (read: natural) links to reality.

You asked me to be clear, so I’ll say what I just said another way. We are all linked (filled with “the true light that enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” John 1:9) to the supernatural via our capacity to experience such abstractions as empathy or love. Acting out on them is another issue. The mere fact that we have the capacity to subjectively experience such abstractions is the only proof an honest person needs to know that we came from and are destined for something other than Nature. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Hi Albert!

...but abstract things are natural .

Example: The word "dog" is written on on a piece of paper. In your mind you interpret this collection of symbols as refering to the concept of canines. This concept exists and is represented in the mind/brain - it is an abstract, not a "real" physical dog. Abstract entities are not supernaturalm, they are informational forms of entities that may or may not exist outside the mind.

Cheers, John

Conchobar

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Page
Concho:

If your summary above is correct then you are talking about something you know nothing about!

That is an irrational sentence. You say "if my summary is correct, then I am talking about something I know nothing about." How could I know nothing about it if it is correct? You seem to be rationally challenged.

Consider, if you have knowledge of the supernatural then there must be a link between natural and supernatural - this is in direct contradiction with your conclusion.

I didn't claim knowledge of a supernatural. Read it again. I said that supernatural is by definition apart from, different from, or not natural. Do you know about etymology? I guess that you don't. Since all we know is what is natural (matter and energy and wave forms) we cannot state anything at all about a supernatural except it is not natural. You are making gross assumptions in assuming existence of such an hypothesised plane of existence. I am merely stating that the assumption of supernatural is invalid.

Here are two choices:

1. God is supernatural and, because we cannot know god, is a made up figment of our imagination.

Translated: God is a hypothesis, not natural, devoid of evidence. We cannot know it. Where else could it come from? It can't come from a telescope, electron microscope, a Bible full of falsehoods, errors and immorality. It can't be measured in any known way. The only way we know of the concept is the subjective testimonies of human beings, notoriously poor at testifying. The more likely than not conclusion is that God is a made up figment of the imagination. God has the same credibililty as leprechauns, ghosts, ESP, Tarot Cards, fortune telling, palm reading, tea leave prophesy, Big foot, Yeti, Goblins, and Alien abductions.

2. Concho is at least in part supernatural but cannot explain him/herself very well.

That is rubbish. It makes no sense. BTW, I explain myself and write in more orderly prose than you can ever hope to closely mimic. Plus, I have studied etymology (Greek, Latin) which you appear to have forgotten.

Which do you prefer - or is it option three?

Option 3. I know the universe of matter, energy, and waves exists, no doubt. I do not know what ignited the Big Bang, 13.4 billion years ago. I simply and honestly admit that I don't know. I don't invent a God, as creator, and define it in such a way as to shield it from all inquiry (make it invisible to logic, reason, and technological investigation = make it appear to be non-existent.) That is a device to make a claim immune to investigation, and unneedful of evidence or proof. I have justification to opine that it is all in your delusional complex.

"There is an invisible pink dragon with 6 legs, red eyes, who lives in your living room but in the 7th dimension. You cannot see him, test him in any way. But I want you to believe in him because I say so, and you are gullible."

No offence intended. But you were a bit nasty, and I responded rather directly and critically to your thought process. Following your insult about my ability to express myself, the gloves were off so to speak. Ergo, I gave my impression of your rational limitations.

Conchobar

Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
You’ve confused the part with the whole, the manifestation of a principle with the principle itself. In logic, you’ve made the error of asserting the reciprocal.

To illustrate, we agree that the following statement is true: The symbol spelled “dog” is an abstraction of a real physical four-legged entity. Extrapolating, we agree that a symbol is an abstraction. However, it does not follow and I disagree with your assertion that, therefore, an abstraction is a symbol.

But you wrote that the letters that spell “dog” is a Not so. Dogs are not abstract entities, the symbols we use to represent them are.

To help you distinguish the abstract nature of symbols versus the non-symbolic nature of abstraction, consider memory. All of our memories are necessarily our personal abstractions of what really happened. And memories are this without being symbolic.

So numbers and words are, indeed, symbolic abstractions. But neither are pure abstractions, that is, neither are abstractions of something other than natural entities. But love and empathy are not like that. They are not symbolic. They are pure abstractions of the face of God. They have no objective correlative in the natural world.

If you doubt the above assertion, simply point out in your evolutionary scheme of things love or empathy (or such derivatives such as justice or mercy). If Nature demonstrated love, our experience of it would be but another one of our links to Nature. Since Nature exhibits no love, we are forced to conclude that our experience of love is our link to a Supernatural entity. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

John Page

Your opinion! I am merely pointing out the contradictory nature of your statement that leads to its semantic impoverishment.
Read my post again - I posed a hypothetical "...if you have knowledge of the supernatural..."
Me too, read my post.

Etymology, isn't that about butterflies?
Concho - I think the prose you are using is confusing. Are you saying we cannot know a hypothesis? Are you saying we cannot know god? If god is a hypothesis, as you claim, how can we not know god?
See above.
. How could I have forgotten you studied etymology if this is the first post in which you mentioned it? How does knowledge of etymology qualify you to dissert on the existence or non-existence of god?
Really! I was just pointing out that your argument was incoherent.....
No problem, I think the point here is to debate the issue in a coherent and rational manner. I'm sure I come up with absurd stuff from time to time but it seems you made the mistake of assuming my criticism of your argument came from my support of theism. It didn't, I'm definitely an atheist.

Cheers, John

John Page

And now for something more meaningful.....
Where did I say dogs are abstract entities? Read again... the letters that spell dog are a collection of symbols refering to the concept of dog and the concept of dog is an abstract entity.
"Love" is a collection of letters that form a word that refers to the concept of love. Love is an internal state of the human body/mind. Empathy is the same, it is a word that refers to a characteristic of human behavior. That love and empathy are internal to our minds/bodies doesn't make them "pure abstractions".

Can you give me a definition of "pure abstraction" so I can understand you better?

Cheers, John (the non-traditional Atheist)