John Page

Hi Albert,

Me too! I was hoping to understand your concept of supernatural and how it relates to the natural world. Irrespective of the god thing I think the abstract/material or spirit/natural divide is a key philosophical issue.

Please accept that my questions arose from a desire to understand your conceptions regarding these things. Here is a link to a thread on this topic in the Philosophy forum .

In the context of theism my puzzlement remains. If god is supernatural (making proof of non-existence difficult or impossible) then what do we really mean by supernatural and how is it connected to our natural condition?

Thanks for the answers.

Cheers, John

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Conchobar :

Who's using empirical methods to define God? How are you defining God, if not by empirical methods? And if not, how am I defining God by empirical methods? I say God is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, and the creator of the universe. How do you define him?

You're saying ghosts aren't supernatural. I doubt anyone will agree with you there.

Or else you admit they're supernatural, yet we can still have empirical evidence for or against their existence. I think you lose either way.

Creatures in a two dimensional universe can still see creatures in three dimensional universes; it's just that they don't fully see them. A sphere would look like a line segment to them. Again, the mere fact that God is supernatural entails nothing about whether or not there are natural ways to apprehend evidence of his existence.

Then you must agree that we can disconfirm the existence of supernatural beings. Q.E.D.

I think all self-defeating positions are in fact necessarily wrong. The position that "We can't define God to any degree at all" is inconsistent with itself, because it, itself, defines God to some degree.

The overwhelming majority of theists believes in a god that leaves some evidence of his existence. If you don't believe in that kind of god, then that's fine. But you're not really talking about the same god most of us here describe and about which most of us argue.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Thomas,
Your terminology is loosy-goosy here: “Evidence” is being equivocated. To theists, a lack of evidence, what you might call “negative evidence” is evidence. Whereas, to atheists, only one brand of evidence is admissible, empirical evidence.

For example, if you were the detective at a crime scene of a murder victim found in her locked home with NO EVIDENCE of forced entry or egress, you might deduce that this LACK OF EVIDENCE pointed to, say, the husband, who was the only other person known to have house keys.

Likewise, certain subjective appetites for meaning humans have always exhibited that cannot be satiated by things empirical (e.g., “My heart was restless until it rested in Thee,” St. Augustine), points to either a design flaw or the culprit Designer. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Philosoft

It is, Mr. C, but not by Thomas.

I don't think you know what you mean. Philosophy is a non-empirical form of evidence that many atheists give significant weight to. And, as we will see, your "negative evidence" is nothing of the sort.

This is a purely semantic distinction, and a poor one at that. "Evidence" is not necessarily a material thing. A locked door and a door that has been ripped off its hinges are not quantitatively different. It's the type of information conveyed that's important. "Negative evidence" is a non-concept. There is always information conveyed by circumstance.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani :

I'm sorry, but I really don't see what this has to do with that. My point is that God is the sort of being who can leave evidence (or "negative evidence") of his existence. And therefore, we can come to believe, justifiedly, that he exists or doesn't, based upon empirical findings. You agree with that, don't you?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Philosoft,
See if you can detect what’s wrong with this statement of yours: If you guessed that the period came too late, you get the cigar. That’s right, the period should have been placed after the third word.

I think it was Ezra Pound who said “Poetry does nothing.” The same can be said of philosophy. Philosophy evidences nothing. I’m amazed you would assert the contrary. Pray tell, “prove” me wrong by disgorging a single bit of philosophy’s non-empirical evidence for anything so that we can all agree on it and go home.

The rest of your post is simply incoherent to me… Something about my negative evidence not being evidence but your non-empirical philosophical evidence being evidence cuz doors ripped off their hinges aren’t quantitatively any different than doors that are locked and, well, ‘nough said. I’d be happy to respond to anything coherent you may have to say should you decide to try again. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Thomas,
No. 'Taint nothing empirical about it. Rational, yes. Subjective, yes. Empirical, no. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani :

Whoa, hold on a minute. God's existence is equally apparent with any and every possible empirical situation? A universe that consisted of pure fire from one end to the other wouldn't be any evidence that the Biblical God hadn't created it? A chaotic flux of massless particles with no solid matter wouldn't at all seem strange with the hypothesis that God decided to will it into existence? What about a world in which genuinely pointless evil was extremely common?

Anyway, I think the original poster's idea was that nothing could confirm or disconfirm theism, not even rational argumentation. I trust you and I agree in the repudiation of that claim.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani :

The above is rhetorically and philosophically vacuous, and therefore a waste of time, screen area, and bandwidth. Please refrain in future.

Consider Kant's discovery that abstraction is not a process of standing-in (a là Locke) but instead by forming a rule that describes all circumstances. Or his decisive refutation of the "ens realissimum" ontological argument. Consider Gödel's incompleteness proofs, or the soundness and completeness proofs for first-order predicate logic. Consider the demise of logical positivism, or the abandonment of task-omnipotence in favor of state-of-affairs omnipotence -- or the abandonment of the logical argument from evil -- in philosophy of religion. Consider Gettier's decisive refutation of the crude "justified true belief" internalist model of knowledge. Consider Hume's discovery of the circularity of popular attempts to justify induction.

Philosophy certainly reaches widely-accepted and decisive conclusions from time to time; it's just that they almost completely disappear soon thereafter because they're no longer interesting.

Conchobar

Albert C. writes: "Philosophy evidences nothing. I’m amazed you would assert the contrary. Pray tell, “prove” me wrong by disgorging a single bit of philosophy’s non-empirical evidence for anything so that we can all agree on it and go home."

Thanks for saying what needed to be said for a long time here. Philosophy is "high faluting sounding bullshit," using my less sophisticated language. I was required to take an overdose of it in college (Kant, DeJardin, Santayana, Nietsche, etc.) and I found it all unrevealing of anything but semantic masturbation. The courses were a waste of time when I could have taken useful and meaningful courses in history, higher math, and non-biochemical sciences. Philosophy was required.

When I read of someone posting that obtuse, irrelevant rubbish, it brings back some of the anger I felt in college sitting through those boring lectures.

Thanks Albert.

Conchobar