mnkbdky

I have done all the work for you. All you need to do is pick from A1-A4 to tell me your argument.

Is it A1?

Is it A2?

Is it A3?

Is it A4?

It is simple, just choose.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. When the term "or" is used it may either be disjunctive or conjunctive. The disjunctive use of "or" gives another option, such as true or false. There are two options, it is either one "or" the other. The conjunctive use is more of an epexegetical use. This means that it is merely repeating the samething in a different way, such as New York City "or" the Big Apple. Here the Big Apple is the samething as New York City. In the definitions above for "natural" and "supernatural" the "or" is disjunctive giving two options.

SecularFuture

You need not know everything about the natural [N1] world to confirm [C1] the existence [E1] of something natural [N1]. You do need to know everything about the natural [N1] world to know, without doubt or faith, if something is more than a natural phenomenon [P1] / or supernatural [S1] / or of a metaphysical [M1] nature [N1].

So, in other words, A1. I don't want to talk about word definitions anymore. I'm tired, over worked, and I don't have the patience for any horse dookie.

mnkbdky

Since then you use S1 in your argument. You must also mean, when you say God is supernatural, that God is S1? If not then you are equivaocating.

Your argument is then this,

A1: one needs to know all the material objects that exist before they can know if anything is immaterial.

God is immaterial.

Therefore, one needs to know all the material object that exist before they can know if God exists.

But why think this?

Why does one need to know every material object (N1) to know that something is immaterial (S1)?

It seems to me that one need only know what material is and that an immaterial thing is not material.

That is, one only needs to know that material things are those things which have extension, that take up space, have weight or mass, color or shape.

Where as immaterial objects do not take up space, they do not have weight or mass, and they do not have shape or color.

Why does one need to know all the trees, bugs, animals, cells, atoms, etc. etc., that exist in order to know that something is not material or does not take up space, is colorless, has no weight and mass . . .?

Why does someone need to know every existing material object-- that is, every object that has extension--to know that something is not material--that is, that something does not have extension?

The only thing required is to know the difference between the two substances. It is the same case with material objects. I do not need to know all types of trees to know that a car is not a tree. I only need to know the difference between the two.

I do need to know what a tree is and what a car is, but I do not need to know every type of tree or every type of car to know that one is not the other.

This is your argument. One cannot tell the difference between a material thing and an immaterial thing unless one knows every type of material thing.

That is false, one only needs to know the difference between material and immaterial.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
I'm not going to repeat this again.

#1 - I did not say "immaterial". Do not put words or definitions into my mouth/statements. I said "supernatural". And do not try to equate "immaterial" with "supernatural". The two words, even though they have some similarities, are completely different concepts. http://www.dictionary.com

#2 - Your god is a supernatural concept because he supposedly exists outside of the natural world. Definition number 1 of supernatural is "of or relating to existence outside the natural world." If your god was not supernatural, he would be detectable and testable.

#3 - What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know for a fact that what you believe is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenons. Only then will you be able to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a supernatural one.

#4 - If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being divine, there is still room for doubt and further investigations. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth, as most theists claim, based from personal – untested - interpretations of events that could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

mnkbdky

This has to be the most frustrating thing I have every encountered.

You just said in the post before last,

If you will go back and check N1 means material objects and S1 means immaterial objects.

Yes. You did say material and immaterial. Maybe you didn't mean to, but you did.

All you need to do is go back and check.

Now, in #3 above you talk about "acts of natural phenomenon" this would be N2, or laws of nature. If this is what you mean by natural then you are not arguing A1. You are either arguing A2 or A4. Is this what you are arguing?

Please do not be offended, but may I ask how old you are? I am 29. This may help our discussion.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Wrong! The immatrial can exist within the natural world, and the supernatural can not. TWO DIFFERENT WORDS! Why can't you get that through your thick head?! I am talking about thinking deities [the supernatural]. I am not talking only about things that are without physical bodies [the immaterial]. Get it?

Lets say I was arguing all of them at the same time. S1 againt N1-N4. What would it matter? Whats the point in making a big deal about it?

You have a serious problem, and I think I'm almost done with talking with you.

mnkbdky

Please do bear with me. You say that "the immaterial can exist within the natural world." However, "the supernatural cannot."

Because I am not as smart as you, I am still confused.

N1=present in the material world, which means all material objects.

Perhaps you are thinking that "present in" is not limiting the type of existence or "existing as", but rather limiting the sphere of existence or "existing with".

If this is the case, then, one could say that natural can include the immaterial. However, in the former understand one cannot say the natural includes the immaterial.

Let's call the former, N1*. And let's call the latter N1**

N1*=existing as somthing in the material world.

N1**=existing with something in the material world.

Your understanding of natural is then N1**. So you claim that something immaterial can exist with the material world., meaning that immaterial objects and material objects may co-exist in the same sphere of existence.

However, you claim that the supernatural cannot exist in the natural world. More specifically you claim that the supernatural cannot exist with the material world.

Now we agreed that you are using supernatural to mean,

S1=of existence outside that which is present in the material world, (i.e., immaterial objects)

Again or definition is in need of revision since it uses "present in" abiguously.

Let's us S1* and S1**.

S1*=of existence outside that which is existing as the material world.

S1**=of existence outside that which is existing with the material world.

I hope you will agree that S1* must mean that which is immaterial. Since, then, you claim you are not talking about the immaterial you cannot mean by supernatural S1*. Therefore, you must mean S1**.

My question then is this, Is S1** even a coherent defintion? What does it mean for something to exist outside that which exists with the material world.

Anything and everything that exists, exists with that which exists. There is either existence or not existence. If something exist, then it exists with everything else that exist. If something does not exist then is does not exist with that which exists. Is it this last statement you mean by supernatural? That supernatural means that which does not exist. Surely this cannot be it.

I know this is frustrating but please stick with the idiot to the end. Help me understand.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky


p.s. It was Parmenides that said there is either existence or non-existence. All that exists has being, that which does not exist does not have being. Therefore, there is either being or non-being. Furthermore, if there is being then, there is no change. For if there is change then somethings come to be out of nothing, but nothing comes from nothing. Therefore, change must take place in what alread is. However, if it already is, then it does not change, for it alread is what it is. Therefore, being does not change. That which has being and does not change is one thing. Therefore, all is one thing. Therefore, there is only One.

davros4269

mnkbdky, thanks for replying.

I do still have an issue with definitions in the way that you use them, because it thins the debate. I agree that definitions are important, but the debate isn't about the meanings of words, at least, it shouldn't be. Can we not use the "survey" definitions, that is, what 100 random people think about what a word means? Wouldn't this be a good baseline for a debate? After all, if we have different definitions, then we aren't really debating about the the same topics, not really, which makes the process mute. At least, we should say that if word A means B, then C, but if word A means D, then E - rather than try and prove to each other that word A means B or D. I hope I got that right

I disagree with this as well:

f one were to experience God, and I am not saying anyone is, but if one were to experience God that would qualify as revealing the existence of such a being, whether anyone else knew it or not.

Because if it were true, why don't you argue for the existence of my invisible red dragon god? The answer to that is the answer to why your god is not detectable.

What is the difference between your god, my dragon, and a psyc patient who talks to plants, and gets responses back? I guess the question then would be, what is the significance of a God that only the individual can detect? Will you at least conceded that I simply cannot accept this as evidence of detection in general? Do I believe that you believe in your god? Sure, I'll believe that. But what does that say about the universe, other than people can believe in all manner of things?

Wasn't there a story in the news a few months back (maybe years), about a dog being put on trial for being possessed or something in a third world nation? Couldn't your god-detection be used by the prosecutors to show that they aren't abusing the local recreational drug of choice? If not, why must I accept it as evidence from you?

Yes, energy is immaterial. You showed us this with your section on energy 101. If you get hit with a baseball traveling at 90 mph, you don't see the kinetic energy or the momentum, you see the ball. When the ball hits, you feel the matter. The damage done is the effect of matter and energy on your body - you can see and hear the effects, but you don't see or feel the energy itself. You can only experience energy's effect on matter.

If you try to describe energy, you must do it in terms of matter. Try to describe what energy feels like, or smells like, or looks like without referring to matter (and lets not get into another definition debate - we both can agree, can't we, that I do not mean energy as a descriptor of ones level of enthusiasm and such). Energy is immaterial. Hence "matter AND energy" => together, they cover all that is, that we know of - the material and the immaterial that make up the universe.

You said:
Outside of your head the content of your thoughts are undetectable. So, what worth or relevance is there to your thoughts. That is, no one else but you can be sure that you have a mind which contains thought with content. Since, then, they are undetectable by others they are worthless--according to that argument.

Exactly! You hit it on the head - unless we are talking about something common to both of us, be it by direct experience (we just saw the same movie and are discussing it), or general knowledge (our textbook understanding of matter). Anything that I conjure up in my head that isn't common knowledge and can have no outside-my-head evidence is either made up or, at best, lacks significance because it applies only to me. Hence your god is as real to me, as my dragon is to you. Without outside-the-brain evidence, who can say which is the real god? Why not both? Neither?

We can't explain the wonders of the human mind - yet. But, as you can see from my response to Paul, we are starting with simpler systems, like snails. What, in your education, prevents you from thinking that mankind can't use the same techniques on snails today, on the human mind tomorrow?

Take my atom example - this was debated over during Greek times, yes? We know better now. Do you still accept the Greek idea of atoms? Who would? Don't think the brain different because it's a current mystery, since we can understand, quite well, simple brain-models; we will work our way up.

Also, machine intelligence approaches the same problem from a different angle. The two will borrow from each other until we solve the problem.

I have no plans to read those books right now; I haver never been able to convince someone with which I debate to read a book, so, childish though it seems, I flat out refuse to read a book just for the purpose of one debate. Citing people are smart and famous works both ways, after all; do we want to debate, or do we want to throw quotes around and paste pages and have the experts debate the debate for us? The occasional quote is good for bonus points, but in general, I try to avoid pasting in large text from other sources. Credentials also mean nothing - there are many highly credentialed folk who work for the Center for Creation Research, after all And I assume we both have similar views on such silliness.

I'm not downplaying the achievements of the ancients. It does amaze me how, with their lack of science and technology, they are able to deduce that God isn't real; just as I am amazed that Darwin came up with his ideas before the discovery of DNA! Having said that, I don't consider ancient philosophy on the soul, for example, to be of much use today.

I'm not mixing science and the metaphysical, I'm saying that the metaphysical doesn't exist, or, is pointless. Take my red dragon example again. Since we can't, as you say, use science, then I say, that the soul is merely the next generation of baby dragon servants. Disprove this; you can't. Is this relevant to anything? What are the rules of the metaphysical? None exist! It's all belief and faith.

Try looking at it this way. Did metaphysics exist before humans came along to "think" about them? What did snakes think about? Did their thoughts about gods matter, if they had any? What forces were at play when snakes were on earth, and not humans? Science can give us those answers. Why does the universe get bigger, and allow metaphysics, supernatural events, immortal souls and so forth, just because humans were added to the mix? You do accept that age of the earth, right, and that humans were late comers? Did God invent us, or, did we invent God?

You can never convince me that your god is real on purely philosophical grounds, just as I can never convince you that my dragon is real. But, we can both use science to convince each other that computers are real.

Isn't science then the best method we have to determine anything and everything about the universe in which we inhabit? If an absolute truth eludes us, isn't science as close as it gets, given your god and my dragon?

You said:

If aliens exist and were created by God and he wished to have a personal relationship with them, then, I see no reason why they could not detect God.

So, we met sentient beings from elsewhere, and they did not believe in God, you would then say that God simply chose not to have a personal relationship with them, even if they are much more highly advanced in all disciplines? What was your comment about straw men?

I dare say that if aliens, which, say, are a thousand years more advanced than us, arrive, communicate, and speak of having had a similar primitive past with religion, it would be the show-stopper, so to speak!

Machines will never be personal. Machines will never be able to think as humans do. Many serious scientific philosopher, atheist and theist alike, know that that A.I. will never be personal.

Use your anthropology, not your philosophy: we are just machines. Zoom in to the molecular level and the atoms obey the natural laws just as they do in computers, stars, and cars. On this point I can confidently say you are absolutely wrong. I challenge you to find a quote from an educated atheist+scientist - not an agnostic, mind you, an educated atheist+scientist, who thinks we can never create a machine that can think.

What if we do? Pretend you believe it - if we do, and it has no sense of God, will you then also say that god merely chose not to have a personal relation with the machines? This is the religion-defense mechanism, and why we must use science as a common denominator!

Of course I doubt existence! What if my life thus far is a complex dream, and when I wake up, I will be a drunk in the gutter, wishing I had made different choices? What if the Matrix is somehow real, and I'm being farmed (silly - just an example), and so on and so forth.

I refuse to just philosophize myself into an alternate state; I refuse to accept my red dragon is really there for me.

What if the whole world is just an experiment on me, to see how I react to this world? What if it's all here JUST for me, and every second of my life, I'm being watched, so see if I can figure out if I'm in a box or not?

The only common denominator is science. Of course, science and everything else could be just a figment as well; you might not be real.

But, lets assume we are both real, we both exist. In that world that I call real, science is the closest you can come to a truth that everyone can agree on. Any speculation above and beyond, like a god, is silly until science shows us all that it's not silly. Assuming that we exist, etc., isn't science a good way of determining reality from BS?

These are reasons why I said in my first post, I believe, that if we get too philosophical or metaphysical, we don't get anywhere at all

I could just say you don't exist, therefore, your viewpoints are wrong.

Finally, I certainly do not doubt that theists doubt God, since nothing else in anyone experience can relate to anything with “god” properties. It's as if one is stuck in a 2D world, yet believes in spheres...of course they will doubt spheres, even if this makes death more difficult, which, come on, is what this all boils down to anyway

Davros

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Why do you insist on fucking with the definitions of words? I'm not the only one who notices this either. Davros4269 also made comments about your FETISH with word play.

Natural does not just mean "all material objects"! I can't believe that I have to TEACH you what the word natural means.... You’re 29 years old! You’re in college for a complicated major! You should know what words mean!


Natural
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].

The Material World and Its Phenomena
The material [the substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made] world [i][the universe / the earth with its inhabitants][i] and its phenomenon [an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.]

Supernatural
---- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. http://www.dictionary.com

Other Definitions for Supernatural
---- 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.

Now you're just trying to be funny.

Tell that to the dictionary!

Listen... To believe something is ‘present in’ our natural world and to detect and test something that is ‘present in’ our natural world are two completely different things. Your belief in a god is far different from my belief in a motorcycle. At least we can confirm the existence of a motorcycle.

#3 - What theists interpret as being acts of divine intervention could be the acts of natural phenomenon. To know for a fact that what you believe is more than a natural phenomenon, you would need to understand the nature of all natural phenomenon. Only then will you be able to rule out all natural explanations, and rule in a supernatural one.

#4 - If there are still other possible explanations for what theists interpret as being divine, there is still room for doubt and further investigations. And where there is room for further investigation, there is no absolute knowledge or absolute truth, as most theists claim, based from personal – untested - interpretations of events that could be nothing more than natural phenomenon.

This is a personal - philosophical - opinion. Or can you prove this?

Bill Snedden

Participants:

This discussion appears to be getting a bit heated. Everyone please step back from your computers and take a deep breath.

Now let it out. Now take another.

Now let it out.

Thank you. Please return to the conversation refreshed and calm.

Remember that this forum is for the discussion of Philosophy, and while such discussions may not be devoid of passion, excessive emotion isn't generally helpful nor is it amenable to the rational discourse that is necessary in the pursuit of knowledge.

All that to say, please maintain a civil tone in your posts. Thank you.