Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christian · 03-22-2003, 03:48 AM

Volker,

Quote:

But it is not the job of a religious life to create more virtual idols or natures, it is rather the job to recognize and acknowledge nature as it is in hole. This mistaken understanding of nature in whole does increase conflicts instead to solve them. Recognition of that, what is alone, never ever has crated conflicts.

The origin religious meaning of god is perfection and harmony. Perfection is not compatible with contradictions. If one is teaching contradictions, he teaches imperfection. A very basic recognition from philosophy is, that truth cannot be simultaneously untruth.

Interesting. Of course I want to believe what actually is regardless of whether that simplifies or complicates my life, but it is an interesting assertion that the supernatural contradicts the natural.

Isn�t it possible that the supernatural operates without regard to the natural? In other words, when God works a miracle in this world He simply ignores natural laws rather than forcing them to work backwards for the moment? That would not produce an actual contradiction, although it would produce an apparent one.

Quote:

You have mentioned causes. Nature is not limited to causes and effects. Causes and effects are dynamic processes in time and space exhibiting imperfect states. This means, that perfection cannot be taken from biased temporary states. It is necessary to understand the whole process of nature in its perfect state. Again from this, one can recognize, that perfection is to be found; contradictions of a second nature or a �super nature�, which is in contradiction to nature creates war, but not a common understanding of nature as a state of perfection and harmony.

I wasn�t really able to follow all of that, but I don�t see why a super nature would necessarily be at war with nature. And even if it is, isn�t it possible that the whole process of nature and supernature in their perfect processes includes temporal contradictions which are necessary for perfection when viewed from the whole?

Quote:

Christianity knows, that their claims are not only in contradiction to recognizable truth of nature in hole.

As a Christian I would tentatively argue that the claims of Christianity are in excess to the recognizable truth of nature in whole. Not in actual contradiction to them.

Quote:

This Religion has damned individual recognition (Gnosis), the only path for a soul seeking truth. Christianity doesn�t respects the truth of the very one nature in hole; this is contempt of the spiritual laws, which are part of the very one nature.

I�m curious what you identify as �spiritual laws.� I imagine that we are in simple disagreement here. Thank you for your interesting perspective, though.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-22-2003, 04:02 AM

Jamie,

Quote:

I think you are attacking an incorrect formulation of naturalism.

That�s entirely possible. I have no experience that I know of interacting with naturalists other than this web site.

Quote:

People adopt the philosophy that there are no supernatural events based on all the evidence for natural events and the lack of evidence for any supernatural events - not just in their personal experience, but in the experience of all the other people and institutions that they have reasoned to be accurate and trustworthy in their observations.

We observe events. One can attempt to explain them naturally or supernaturally. Thus far, natural explanations have been proven out and supernatural events have not. Based on this solid history, it is rational to assume, unless proven otherwise, there are no supernatural events.

That makes sense as a rule of thumb, or as a working assumption. But I don�t understand why anyone would make the jump to an ideological premise. It seems an odd thing to have faith (belief which exceeds the evidence) in to me.

Quote:

Here's where I think you are in error. I believe most naturalists assume, until proven otherwise, that naturalism holds because after addressing the evidence at hand, that is the conclusion they've come to. The notion that one adopts naturalism for a reason other than addressing evidence, and then a priori dismisses evidnece of the supernatural is not really what happens in most cases. Where someone to do this - say adopting naturalism because they just like it better - then I would say this is irrational. However, I think you are addressing the OP to naturalists in general, and I think naturalists in general view things as I have described.

I�ll take your word on that. But once it becomes the unprovable assertion on the home page of this web site it does, in fact, rule out the supernatural as a possible explanation for any specific event. That might be pragmatic, but it seems odd to me that anyone would believe it is actually true.

Quote:

Anyone who accepts the scientific method has to be prepared to revise any theory or hypothesis in the event that future evidence proves it wrong. To be completely closed-minded towards such things would indeed be irrational.

Would it be accurate to state that naturalists in general don�t actually believe that anything is true? Just trying to understand.

Quote:

With that said, all evidence suggests that there are no supernatural events. I don't need to suspend judgement. I'm justified in believing that, until new evidence presents itself, there are no supernatural events. Someone postulating a supernatural event must provide some evidence to invalidate my current theory, which thusfar has held up to scrutiny.

A rational approach.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-22-2003, 04:16 AM

Gerald,

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Christian
This I agree with, but there are things that actually happen that cannot be predicted or tested. "Unnatural" events if you will. If you encounter such an event, what merit is there to an approach which rule out supernatural causes to explain it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please provide documentation of such events.

I have a Christian friend here in Korea who has not used an alarm clock for 3 years. He says that God knows what he needs to accomplish the next day, and that he trusts Him to wake him up in time to accomplish it. He prays before going to sleep for God to wake him up, and then gets up whenever he wakes up in the morning.

In 3 years he has never overslept. We have "alerts" on a periodic basis over here where we practice our go-to-war actions. They are unannounced, but are usually some time during the night. Every time we have had an alert in the past 7 months my friend has woken up 15 minutes before hand.

In a training exercise a few months ago he had only gotten 6 hours of sleep in 3 days. He had an opportunity to go back to his room for a quick 3 hours or so of sleep. Again he woke up 15 minutes before hand and made it back to work on time.

Please suggest a natural explanation. This post is your documentation.

Respectfully,

Christian

HelenM · 03-22-2003, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
I have a Christian friend here in Korea who has not used an alarm clock for 3 years. He says that God knows what he needs to accomplish the next day, and that he trusts Him to wake him up in time to accomplish it. He prays before going to sleep for God to wake him up, and then gets up whenever he wakes up in the morning.

In 3 years he has never overslept. We have "alerts" on a periodic basis over here where we practice our go-to-war actions. They are unannounced, but are usually some time during the night. Every time we have had an alert in the past 7 months my friend has woken up 15 minutes before hand.

In a training exercise a few months ago he had only gotten 6 hours of sleep in 3 days. He had an opportunity to go back to his room for a quick 3 hours or so of sleep. Again he woke up 15 minutes before hand and made it back to work on time.

Please suggest a natural explanation. This post is your documentation.

Respectfully,

Christian

I've been reading here a while so I can guess at the reactions to this post...such as, "if God is in fact the one waking your friend up, why would He bother to do that and yet He doesn't do anything about millions of starving/abused children (and adults) in the world? When God starts solving some of the real problems of this world, let me know..."

Maybe I'm wrong but that's the kind of response I'm expecting to see from the nontheists...

Helen

Christian · 03-22-2003, 04:32 AM

Biff,

Quote:

Christian a working description of insanity is to continually do the same things while expecting different results.

One of my favorite Einstein quotes!

Quote:

Science does not have an automatic stop that keeps it from investigating the supernatural. The fact that there is no supernatural keeps it from being investigated by all but mythologists and sociologists. And they investigate it only as fictional stories.

Science only investigates what is repeatable and observable. What basis is there to assume that every thing which is real is repeatable and observable? You are applying your ideological bias to the question of what science investigates. My question is what basis does your anti-supernatural bias rest on?

Quote:

Every claim of the supernatural that has been investigated has been shown to be either a natural phenomenon that was being misinterpreted or a hoax. Not 'some claims,' not 'most claims'---every single last claim. All of them, without exception.

An unprovable ideological assertion. Your bias is as great as any charismatic Christian I�ve ever met.

Please prove that your assertion here is true. If you cannot, please explain what has driven you to believe accept that particular ideological premise.

Quote:

So the question isn't 'why don't scientists consider supernatural answers?' That's easy, because it has been shown to be a complete and utter waste of their time to do so.

Unless you equate scientists with naturalists, that was not my question. I agree that it is a complete and utter waste of time for science to pursue supernatural answers. That�s beside my point. Why do naturalists make and accept such unprovable ideological assertions as you have given in your post here? That�s my question.

Quote:

No, the question is "why do you, in the 21st century, entertain magical thinking?" I mean, here you sit at a computer, talking with people all over the planet and you still cling to magic and superstition!! We aren�t going to laugh at you, some here, like Rhea, are bending over backwards to be polite to you. But how is it that you lack such a basic knowledge of how the world works that your resort to primitive fantasies? What brought you to this state?

I believe in God because it would be irrational not to given the evidence I have seen and the experiences I have had.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-22-2003, 04:40 AM

Clete,

OK. You are basically equating "natural" with "real."

I believe in a "natural" Creator who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and who designed this particular "natural" universe we all live in. He also "naturally" was born of a virgin, died a natural death on a Cross, and "naturally" came back to life after three days. A little later He "naturally" ascended up into the sky.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-22-2003, 04:43 AM

Jamie,

Thanks for the link. I will read that article some time in the next week or two. Right now I need to continue responding to all these nice people.

Respectfully,

Christian

HelenM · 03-22-2003, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
Right now I need to continue responding to all these nice people.

Nice but bad?

On the other thread you said "I think we are all really bad people, including me."

Helen

Christian · 03-22-2003, 05:02 AM

Marduck,

[quote]Pardon me while I interject my own jibber jabber; which was already touched on a bit, Define supernatural,[quote]

By all means, jump right in! I would define a supernatural event as "God acting in the world in a way contrary to the laws of nature." Or without the theistic overtones, "an actual exception to a natural law."

Quote:

what am I suppose to accept?

Whatever explanation best fits the facts of the case at hand.

Quote:

There are things that exist that I can�t perceive?

Surely you believe that things exist which you can�t perceive. Have you ever seen a quark?

Quote:

Maybe, but if I can�t perceive them who cares if they exist?

Things which you cannot perceive could impact your life greatly. A lot of people who had Enron stock lost money because of the companies financial problems which the stockholders could not perceive yet which were very real.

Quote:

Are there �super�natural things I should ignore?

Probably.

Quote:

Like astrology, ghosts or fairies in my garden, or homeopathic medicine or some exotic �cure� for what ails me? What criteria should I use to discern which things I can't perceive are '�real�?

I believe the more important category is �things which you can perceive but which are not repeatable on demand and which violate a known natural law.� But since you ask for a criteria, I suggest the Holy Bible.

Quote:

Explain, just for fun, how I would be able to decide what information from a supernatural source is true.

Test that information against the written Word of God. If it contradicts, then it is false. We�re chasing rabbits now, but it is �just for fun� and that is my honest answer. You, of course, don�t have to agree.

Quote:

The universe has many levels,... with many things, groovy, what am I supposed to do about it?

See the written Word of God for instructions on what to do about it.

Quote:

What is the difference between gods and aliens? Neither are from Earth, so they are all extra-terrestrials by definition, so how could I tell a life-form millions of years more evolved than me from a god.
If such beings exist, we have no criteria or perspective to evaluate such things, so why bother.

A criteria has been provided, and one which has withstood the arguments of critics and the violent suppression of rulers for thousands of years.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-22-2003, 05:06 AM

Rimstalker,

Quote:

Not quite, you were closer the second time. My point is that the whole concept of "supernatural" events is nonsensical. It's nothing more than the gaps where we currently lack explainations. I think one of the main problems in discussing this with you is that I don't deliniate between "supernatural" and "natural" events. Things happen, and when they do, it's logical to find an explanation. If it turns out that that explanation is the action of some powerful intellegent agent working with methods we don't fully understand, than that's the way it is. But I wouldn't call such events "supernatural."

I'll try and elaborate more later.

At least 3 times that answer has been given on this thread. I'll mull that approach over more completely and look forward to any forthcoming elaborations.

Respectfully,

Christian

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2003, 04:40 AM	#66
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Clete, OK. You are basically equating "natural" with "real." I believe in a "natural" Creator who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and who designed this particular "natural" universe we all live in. He also "naturally" was born of a virgin, died a natural death on a Cross, and "naturally" came back to life after three days. A little later He "naturally" ascended up into the sky. Respectfully, Christian

03-22-2003, 04:43 AM	#67
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Jamie, Thanks for the link. I will read that article some time in the next week or two. Right now I need to continue responding to all these nice people. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.