Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christian · 03-23-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)
taken from the II logic article

Interestingly enough, that's the main reason why ruling out the supernatural a priori does not make sense to me (although I now understand that not all naturalists do that.)

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-23-2003, 02:11 PM

Biff,

I don't think endless repetition of the same points and counterpoints is progress in a conversation. That's something I try to avoid.

If you have a question you don't think I have responded to please rephrase.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-23-2003, 02:31 PM

Walruss,

Quote:

But I never made any such assertion, I merely expressed my strong doubt in the existence of anything supernatural. There is a big difference.

OK.

Quote:

Ok, so the bible is your criterion, or protocol, for evaluating claims about the supernatural. Fair enough. I have to ask though, is it complete in it's use as such a guide? For instance, does it have anything to say on the subject of say reincarnation, or akashic records? How would you use it to evaluate my hypothetical claim of an ability to hover? I'm very curious to know.

It is not an exhaustive encyclopeidea of all situations. But it does cover many situations, and contains principles that can be applies to many situations.

Reincarnation is ruled out (Heb 9:27).

The existence of a substance such as akasha or soniferous ether is not addressed in scripture. Scripture is clear though that God wants us to consult Him for guidance rather than a human medium who has access to such a thing as akasha (Deut 18:9-13, 1 Ch 10:13-14). Therefore my protocol would tell me that even if akasha exists I ought not to try to access it directly or indirectly. I am rather to seek such information and insights from God Himself.

Scripture would not help me to determine whether or not you can hover, that I can think of. If there was reasonable evidence that you actually can hover, the pertinent questions for me would be to what end such an ability is being used. God never does parlor tricks on demand in scripture. There is always a reason. In short, if I had reason to believe your miracle I could compare it to examples of actual miracles in scripture and thereby gain clues as to its supernatural source.

Respectfully,

Christian

GunnerJ · 03-23-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
Interestingly enough, that's the main reason why ruling out the supernatural a priori does not make sense to me (although I now understand that not all naturalists do that.)

Respectfully,

Christian

I've never heard anyone caim that the supernatural* must be false because it is unproven. Saying "There isn't any supernatural" isn't a statement of what must not be. It's the expression of the best assumption that can be made based on the information available. Also, when Daggah used the term "argument from ignorance" I'd guess it was meant to imply the "We don't know how to explain it, so it must be supernatural" attitude, not the falacy you defined.

*However it is defined.

Biff the unclean · 03-23-2003, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
If you have a question you don't think I have responded to please rephrase.

Okay I'll try again. Why-when you have no evidence that such a thing as the super-sub-or slightly to one side of-natural is real are you trying to fool people with it? You mock people for not believing in it but present no reasons that we should. You cut me off without addressing any of my questions. Why, what are you afraid of? Why do you need magic?

The AntiChris · 03-24-2003, 01:47 AM

What would it mean to "rule in" the supernatural?

What we'd have to do is assign the provisional explanation "supernatural" as the probable cause for any currently unexplained pehenomena. "Supernatural" would become synonomous with "don't know yet".

Can anyone who objects to the current use of the term "don't know yet", describe what criteria scientists should use to determine whether a phenomenon is best explained as having supernatural causes or the alternative - simply admitting that they "don't know yet"?

Chris

Thor Q. Mada · 03-24-2003, 01:50 AM

Completely agree. The as yet not explainable should be labeled like that, without need for the supernatural label. Please remember that what we think to be normal might appear supernatural for our close ancesters and sorcery for the only a little bit earlier one's.

Christian · 03-24-2003, 05:32 AM

lpetrich,

Quote:

God is not a slot machine, chunking out goodies in response to the self-indulgent wishes of His followers.

But that's what a completely benevolent entity would be.

To tell you the truth, I had never run across the term "omni-benevolent" until I encountered it on this web site. Going by the dictionary definition, you're right.

I would claim that God is completely good. But it's not too difficult to see that giving everybody exactly what they ask for would be pretty cruel.

From scripture I would claim that God is "good" to everyone, but that He is "more good" to some than to others. That would be a tentative position on "omnibenevolence" though. I've never seriously looked at whether God is completely benevolent or not.

Quote:

And I don't see how surviving diseases and disasters is anything like "self-indulgent wishes".

Agreed ... that would be a different category of requests.

I would respond to that basically the same way I respond to the problem of pain and suffering. No pat answers, but God thought it was so necessary that He chose to experience it personally. I understand from scripture that somehow the end result that all this pain and suffering is leading to is better than what could have been achieved by avoiding it. (Rom 8:20-21)

Quote:

I can see how you might get that idea if you watch TV, but that's not how He actually works.

Tell that to your friendly neighborhood TV evangelists.

I'll try!

Quote:

I do a little bit myself in Jesus name and at His command to help alleviate the tragedies you refer to.

Why should that be necessary when doing such things would have zero cost for an omnipotent being?

God choses to work through imperfect people. Can't explain the ultimate why of that, but I'm glad He does. That's just His nature.

Quote:

But the fact that God thought it necessarily to not only show up in a human body but to experience the dirtiest pain and suffering of this world Himself is somewhat reassuring to me.

Which is unnecessary, since an omniscient being would be aware of EVERYTHING -- including the "dirtiest pain and suffering of this world".

He wanted to be better able to relate to imperfect people like me, for one thing. The goal wasn't knowledge. The goal was redemption.

Quote:

And why not show up as a woman who is kidnapped by some conquering army, gets raped, and dies giving birth? Especially someone who does not become a big celebrity.

I don't see any value in such speculation. Jesus did not experience an exhaustive list of every specific bit of pain and suffering possible. But He did humble Himself so much as to experience humanity, as a peasant, and to go through rejection and torture and painful death. That's enough to prove His point in my book.

Quote:

I trust Him that the pain and suffering in the world is in fact necessary in order to bring about a greater good.

Meaning that "Heaven" is a bad place, because its absence of pain and suffering would produce no such opportunities.

That's not what I said. We are passing through pain and suffering on the way to something better. That is different than saying the better thing requires constant pain and suffering to be better.

Quote:

... and since He personally experienced poverty and torture and ridicule I trust Him to know what He is doing.

Someone who could have jumped off of that cross?

But did not.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-24-2003, 05:36 AM

If everything that exists is "natural," then Theism and Christianity specifically (if true) both fall under the umbrella of "naturalism."

Right?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-24-2003, 05:42 AM

Alec,

lpetrich asked basically the same question. Please see my response to him below. Thanks.

Respectfully,

Christian

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

03-23-2003, 02:11 PM	#112
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Biff, I don't think endless repetition of the same points and counterpoints is progress in a conversation. That's something I try to avoid. If you have a question you don't think I have responded to please rephrase. Thanks. Respectfully, Christian

03-24-2003, 01:47 AM	#116
The AntiChris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: UK Posts: 5,932	What would it mean to "rule in" the supernatural? What we'd have to do is assign the provisional explanation "supernatural" as the probable cause for any currently unexplained pehenomena. "Supernatural" would become synonomous with "don't know yet". Can anyone who objects to the current use of the term "don't know yet", describe what criteria scientists should use to determine whether a phenomenon is best explained as having supernatural causes or the alternative - simply admitting that they "don't know yet"? Chris

03-24-2003, 01:50 AM	#117
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	Completely agree. The as yet not explainable should be labeled like that, without need for the supernatural label. Please remember that what we think to be normal might appear supernatural for our close ancesters and sorcery for the only a little bit earlier one's.

03-24-2003, 05:36 AM	#119
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	If everything that exists is "natural," then Theism and Christianity specifically (if true) both fall under the umbrella of "naturalism." Right? Respectfully, Christian

03-24-2003, 05:42 AM	#120
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Alec, lpetrich asked basically the same question. Please see my response to him below. Thanks. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.