SecularFuture

mnkbdk
Did I not give you the definitions that I was using for natural and supernatural?

Natural
--- Present in or produced by nature.

Supernatural
--- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Everything that can be detected [to discover or notice the existence of] can be considered to be of a natural nature. Saying a statement like ‘Pink Unicorns are also apart of the natural world because I can detect them through my thoughts’, would be an irrational and illogical claim, especially if I was making the claim without any critical reason and/or evidence. There are other possible explanations for what you interpret as being a “divine experience”. And where there are other explanations, there is still room for further investigation.

I use the same definitions that the dictionary uses.
http://www.dictionary.com

This is not true. There could be a god. However, as science and technology advances, many of the things that we thought could only have a supernatural explanations are now begin given the title of “natural phenomenon", or a naturalistic explanation. In other words, we are not currently in the position to say an affirmative “yes or no” to the existence of a supreme being. It is not rational to completely rule out the existence of a god, nor is it rational to completely rule in the existence of a god. Without complete knowledge of the natural universe, the theist could be interpreting natural phenomenon as being metaphysical or divine.

These are two different words with two different meanings.

I have not used the word immaterial ONCE in my explanations. You’re the one who insists on equating supernatural with immaterial. The two words have things in common, but they are not the same.

As I stated in a post a couple of days ago. I can not have “faith” in something unless I have reason and/or evidence. I have reason to believe in a big fist. I do not have reason to believe in an invisible super being.

In Response To: “You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].”

No – This argument is against everything theistic. Can you prove to me that what you consider to be divine is not just another natural phenomenon?

I’ve been debating theists and philosophers for years now, and none of them have complained about my use of words as much as you’re doing. The words ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ are not that complicated. Your problem is that you believe that you have reason AND evidence for your beliefs, when you really don’t. Everything that you interpret as being “divine” could, in fact, be naturalistic [having nothing to do with a divine creator]. This is a faith damaging possibility.

During the pre-scientific age, there was a lot of room for speculation and “conclusion jumping”. Christianity, like most theistic religions, could have derived from unfounded interpretations of natural events and phenomenon.

Hey – I can’t know everything about everything. I work as an artist. I’m not a neurosurgeon, or – blah – blah – blah. If I was to ask you a question about rocket science, and you didn’t have your own answer for it, I would not be childish and criticize you for this.

So if I, and a lot of others “thought” that Pink Unicorns governed the universe, that be okay, and that would justify the belief? No belief can turn something into a fact.

I’m not going to just believe in soul concepts just because you say they’re true, or because a book that could have been written by anyone with a little imagination says it’s true. I need evidence and/or a logical reason before I can believe in something. And without evidence and/or reason to believe in a soul concept, I will leave my faith in the hands of naturalistic explanations. I don’t see a supernatural world around me. I see a natural one.

It’s better than putting my trust into things that I can’t detect or test.

What other universes are there? Why should I believe in a supernatural universe [or a universe that involves a deity]?

Unlike god concepts, mathematical truths can be tested by outside sources. Unlike mathematical truths, god concepts are based on individual interpretations [faith / assumption]. 1+1 will always equal 2. There are no two, exact, interpretations of a god concept.

Are you saying that you KNOW that a god exists? If you are, could you please provide some evidence? Claims for TRUTH must be supported by evidence. If this were not the case, anything anyone said would be considered true by default, without the backing of evidence.

Let me turn your statement around on you so you can see how it sounds to an atheist.

“You are saying that Unicornists can not know of The Great Pink Unicorn exists. I am saying that they can, if they experience him or have reasonable arguments that proves his existence.”

Sounds kind of crazy, doesn’t it? And are there not other possible explanations for my “experiences” with The Great Pink Unicorn god? Like I said before, if there are other possible explanations available, there is still room for future investigation.

No I do not. I just have a hard time believing you, that’s all, in the same way that you would probably have a hard time believing me if I made a claim about Pink Unicorns.

No one can see the Pink Unicorn. He/She/It can only be found within.

My Unicorn god told me that if it were visible, it would be pink.

In Response To: “And when people can’t give naturalistic explanation to this question, they assume that a god must have been responsible. It’s the easiest way to feel comfortable in the light of mystery.”

No. I just believe that theists are the victims of ancient [outdated] traditions.

I have more against religion than I do against straight theism or deism. Religious ideas are just too unbelievable.

2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People With the Courage to Doubt This is a darn good reference book.

And this is a darn good site full of good quotes.

I totally agree.

Nah. I’m just saying that you’re inconclusive.

In Response To: “First off – I highly doubt that you know if a god exists or not. As I said before, without complete knowledge of the natural universe, you are not in the position to know anything for an absolute fact. You can have blind faith in such concepts, but you can not have absolute knowledge.”

In Response To: “You do not need to know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. But you do need to everything about the natural world to know [for sure] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural].”

Knowing something for a FACT and affirming [to express agreement with] the existence of something that you can see standing right before you are two different concepts. An atheist and a Christian can both confirm the existence of a house, without much effort, faith, or room for speculation. But when you start bringing concepts that neither one of us can see, well then...

As for my use of the word “affirm”:
I’m sorry that I didn’t define what I meant by “affirm”. Will defining every word that I type with two syllables or more satisfy you?! DAMN IT!!

Right now they are. Maybe sometime in the future this will change. Do you know about the prosthetic arms that are being made to respond to signals [thoughts] from the brain? I’ll post a link as soon as I find the right one [a good / detailed one].

And you have the nerve to roll your eyes to my reference to my brain science friend. Ugg....

Philosophy is what we created before we had the science to explain things.

Are Souls Real?

Are you 100% sure about this? If so, how?

I, personally, think that an agnostic point of view is best for scientific research. Just an opinion.

Why should the “metaphysical” exist? Why should we believe in the metaphysical? What do you mean by the word metaphysical?


Metaphysical
1) Of or relating to metaphysics.
2) Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3) Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4)
---- a) Immaterial; incorporeal.
---- b) Supernatural


Are you 100% sure about this? If so, how? Can you tell me about the kind of technology we will have 200 years from now?



=======================



My Main Points
1) Anyone with a little spare time and creative writing ability could have written religious scripture. It did not HAVE to come from a supernatural deity.

2) You need not know everything about the natural world to affirm the existence of something natural. You do need to know everything about the natural world to know [without doubt or faith] if something is more than a natural phenomenon [supernatural or metaphysical].

3) Religious notions leave too much room for speculation. And where there is speculation, there is room for other possible explanations.

mnkbdky

Since I am the moron who is have trouble with my definitions, let's play "Indulge the idiot."

Try presenting your argument without using the words "natural", "nature", "supernatural", or "magic".

If you use the word detect, I would appreciate it if you would list the criteria for when something can be said to have been detected.

Thanks

--the idiot

p.s. I will respond to your other points later

mnkbdky

If I were to depend on that rocket scientist for the answers to whether or not abstract ideas or Plato's forms existed, then, you should criticize me. That is not his field. The same applies with the brain scientist. They are in no better position than the philosopher to tell whether or not the soul exists or whether thought content is immaterial. In fact, philosopher is in a better position than the scientist. He merely observes what happen to the physical brain.

Can you tell you are using universe in two different ways. Like our former experiment, try reformulating this question without using the words "natural" or "supernatural."

If you mean by universe the entirety of that which exists, it is logically impossible that there be another universe. If, however, you limit the definition of universe to mean physical or material, then there can be the immaterial universe. That is, it is possible to limit the term universe to a specific type or realm.

Claims like these are no different then big-fish or "he raped me" claims. The person who claimed them does not need to provide you with evidence to know them. You keep conflating your knowledge with their knowledge.

If there is no evidence that a girl was rape, then, those who were not there are forced to say the man accused is innocent. That does not mean he did not do it. If he did do then the victim still has every right to believe he did it, even though there is no evidence to prove to others that he did.

You could say to the rape victim, you know it is possible that material things do not exist therefore you really were not raped. The fact that material thing might not exist should make you doubt that you were. That is, you should not trust your eyes to tell you what exists and what does not because they are fallible. Therefore, you are irrational in believing you were raped.

The one, who experiences, is totally justified.

Notice I did not use them to back up any of my points about philosophy. If I wanted to tell you about cellular structure or atomic combustion then I may use them.

Good mighty Friday.

I guess you should go tell the philosophers and all the university philosophy departments they are out of a job.

They are going to be mighty surprised. But SecularFuture has figured it out. All philosophers need not apply.


Perhaps you might have better luck in defining your terms if you stop looking up adjectives and start looking up nouns. Notice how the first definition uses the noun "metaphysics." Great definition, “metaphysical,” that which deals with metaphysics. That really clears things up doesn't it--"natural", that which deal with nature. Oh, I see. Thank you.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

The Idiot
Really - What was the point in asking me to use different words? So you can complain about my use of them also? Why don't you try presenting your arguments without using the word "God". :banghead: The words *supernatural* and *natural* aren't that fucking complicated. Supernatural has 5 definitions, and *natural* has about 13. To make it easy for the both of us, I've been using the #1 definition from both found here at http://www.dictionary.com

==============

By The Way:
You're not an idiot. You're just annoying. Honestly though - You've been holding your own very well against me in this debate. People usually don't last this long with me. Or maybe I'm not trying hard enough.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Philosophy is based on subjective assumptions. Science is based on objective evidence. You can not find “truth” or "facts" through philosophy.

Is this a desperate attempt to handicap my arguments?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that big fish exist is totally different than saying an invisible super deity exists.

No – Totally inconclusive. There are other possible explanations for “divine experiences”, and where there are other possible explanations, there is room for further investigation.

Do you have something against the dictionary?

mnkbdky

Like I said great job at defining your terms. You are using adjectival definition which include the noun form of the term.

Natural: present in or produce by nature.

If you can't do give an argument by not using these terms I am sorry. But that probably means you do not understand your own position.

If you would like I will give an argument by not using the term God. The term God is very ambiguous. Do I mean the Muslim God? The Xian God? The Hindu God? Is this God personal? Impersonal? Is God Trinitarian? Is God pantheisic, is God the entirety of that which exists?

If you will notice I have clarified my term God and I do not change or use my definition of God in equivocal ways.

If you would like me to use something other than God I am happy to oblige. Now by God I mean, a personal being (i.e., a living entity that is capable of having relationships) who is of one immaterial substance and exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who is capable of doing anything that is logically possible, knows all that is logically possible. This being is the creator of heaven and earth of all contingent things that seen and unseen (though not of that which necessarily exists, such as propositions or forms).

So when I say, "I know God exists", I mean that I know a "personal being who is of one immaterial substance and exists as three persons, Father, Son and HS, who is capable of doing all that is logically possible (i.e., omnipotent) and knows all that is logically possible (i.e., omniscient), who is also the creator of all contingent things that are seen and unseen" exists.

Definition are imperative.

I hope to hear your argument of what is knowable with your new definitions of what is natural and supernatural (using nouns).

Thanks,

--mnkbkdy

p.s. Yes, I do have a huge problem with the dictionary. I hate it when it uses the same word it is trying to define in the definition (e.g. natural, that which is present in or produce by nature). Natural is the adjectival form of nature. You cannot use nature to define what natural is. A definition is a limiting process.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
You're making this more complicated that it really is. What don't you understand about my use of the term "natural world" or "supernatural world"? Whats so damn hard to grasp, or understand, about those terms? Its not as unclear as you would like it to be. :banghead: I think you may be suffering from a form of Dictionary Envy! I've NEVER met anyone who was so obsessed with word definitions, especially after I made it clear [many times] which definitions I was using.

---- By natural world I am referring to everything that can be detected around a physical body.
---- By supernatural I am referring to everything that is metaphysical, magical, mythological, etc.

Happy now?

And don't try to critique the statements that I posted above too much. I didn't put too much thought into them. Hopefully they’ll be good enough for you to return your focus back to the original subject of our conversation [the spoken exchange of thoughts, opinions, and feelings; talk]. That’s what I mean by conversation, by the way.

Nature
---- The material world and its phenomena.

Natural
---- Present in or produced by nature
---- (OR) Present in or produced by the material world and its phenomena

Nature and Natural are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORDS. I'm having a hard time believing that you don't know what simple words mean. This is clearly a desperate attempt to avoid my questioning.

Supernatural
---- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
---- (OR) Of or relating to existence outside the the material world and its phenomena.

World
---- The earth.
---- The universe.
---- The earth with its inhabitants.

Damn... you could have figured these words out on your own!

mnkbdky

My problem is not with the definitions per se, or in and of itself. Rather it is with your use.

So, you say natural means,

Now please notice that inside your definition there are two uses of the word natural, namely,

(N1) present in the material world, which means all material objects

and

(N2) produced by the material world, which means the actions and reaction action of material objects (i.e., laws of nature, or the ways in which material object act and react).

You must be specific to which one you are using in your argument.

The same applies to supernatural, which you have as meaning,

Notice that there are also two uses of the supernatural in the first definition. Also take notice that the word natural is used and as we saw above the definition you are using is actually two definitions. So supernatural has four meanings,

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

(S2) of existence outside of that which is produced by the material world, (i.e., contrary to the laws of nature or miracles)

(S3) relating to existence outside that which is present in the material world

(S4) relating to existence outside of that which is produced by the material world,

I am willing to grant that (S3) and (S4) are so similar to (S1) and (S2) that in essence there is no real difference. However, (1) refers to immaterial objects or things and (2) refers to laws of nature.

So now to your argument. There are four arguments you could be presenting.

Are you say,

A1: one needs to know all N1 before they can know any S1

A2: one needs to know all N2 before they can know any S1

A3: one needs to know all N1 before they can know any S2

A4: one needs to know all N2 before they can know any S2

Now, A1 is an argument saying we cannot know any immaterial objects. A2 and A3 are just ludicrous and A4 is an argument against miracles.

Which one is your argument?

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. This is what I have been pointing to the whole time. If you cannot see it, I am sorry.

SecularFuture

[deleted]

SecularFuture

Never mind - I'm not going to waste anymore of my time talking with you about what words mean. Either we get back to the original subject of our conversation, or this debate is over. I have far too much to do, and I don’t feel like wasting my time with trying to give you an English lesson.