Ojuice5001

Duck of Death,

I would say that all of those could be true, although all but reincarnation are less likely than either polytheism or naturalism, the last much less so. Objections can be raised to all worldviews, but just making the world intelligible means that a worldview deserves a certain minimum amount of consideration. (Not that it's everyone's duty to consider all worldviews, just that they are worthy of it.)

After all, why should polytheists, Christians, and other supernaturalists give any consideration to naturalism? Isn't it because "Naturalism makes the world intelligible as a system operating according to natural laws. And most naturalists believe in a specific system of natural laws that is likely to cause the events that we see"?

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

How did you dertermine this? What methodology do you know and practice that allows to to determine the relative plausibility of reincarnation, panspermia, Thor, and the farts of the Jabberwocky?

emotional

It is undisputed by all people that the natural world exists. Making sense of something that certainly exists is a worthy goal, unlike making sense of something whose existence is disputed. You can build a great edifice of speculation about the Greek or Celtic gods, or about the One True Single Idol of monotheism, but that great of theology is precisely this: building a tower upon air, without foundation. It's like speculating about the various ways of spending of lottery money.

Theistic religion is the opposite of science in that regard: it professes to impart knowledge of what cannot be known, whereas science is concerned with Nature, which is our environment creatrix. To know Nature is to know for certain. To know Nature is to know one's mother.

Starboy

That is tooooooo easy. One of the most well known is the resurrection.

Ojuice5001

Well, the most important criterion is, which worldview is most likely to cause the world that we see? Duck of Death is right to say that all worldviews seem that way to their adherents, but I think polytheism best accounts for the fact that there is are a whole lot of processes that seem purposeful, and yet there is a total lack of organization among them. Although a universe where naturalism is true could contain a lot of purposeful processes, there's no reason to think that sets of natural laws in general would make this happen--unlike the case with personal deities. Most monotheistic theologies would lead you to expect a greater amount of cohesion in the world than exists.

As for something like "the farts of the Jabberwocky," this strikes me, and seems intended to strike someone, as totally bizarre and unbelievable, so unless it had any explanatory advantages over more popular cosmologies, there's no real option but to ignore them.

Ojuice5001

What are you saying? The resurrection, if it happened, had only a supernatural cause; it was not an example of directed chance. And I have no interest in defending the resurrection.

Starboy

[quote]Originally posted by Goliath:
<strong>Ojuice,

Prove it.
Sincerely,
Goliath</strong> [quote]

No, not at all, I simply posit that it is a purported event that can have both a natural and supernatural explanations. The salient facts as reported:

1. Jesus nailed to a cross.

2. Presumed dead by reason of the poked with a spear test.

3. Taken down.

4. Tomb later found open and no Jesus, just his shroud.

The standard supernatural Christian explanation is that Jesus was a god living as a man and died as a man. That as a god he became alive again (the resurrection). This is supposed to explain the open tomb and the missing body.
Consider just one of several natural explanations:

1. He never died on the cross. His apparent death was faked.

2. He was never placed in the tomb, just his shroud.

3. When he was seen later it was because he was alive and getting the heck out of dodge.
Thus it is demonstrated the case of a well-known event that has both a supernatural and a natural explanation.

Of course in this day and age, it is irrational to accept a supernatural explanation for events if there is a natural explanation, no matter how strained.

Starboy

Jayhawker Soule

Absurd - worldviews do not "cause the world that we see".
You project purpose, and then promote polytheism as your best explanation for your projections. The outlook is self-serving and, otherwise, worthless.
I see: you select Thor because the alternative stikes you as "bizarre and unbelievable" -- this from the person who views Neptune as something less than "totally bizarre and unbelievable". Yours is truly a methodology best suited to the funny farm.

Jayhawker Soule

Defend Thor.

Ojuice5001

Against what charge?