Not Prince Hamlet

Depends on how you define a god. If you define a god as something that was unnatural, then yes, using your a priori definition, of course not. But that doesn't necessarily have to be a requirement for divinity.

Jeff

NOGO

I don't know if anybody has brought this up.
What Atticus_Finch says that all phenomena must have a cause is in fact incorrect.

In our world we transform matter and energy from one form to another. These transformations are also caused by natural processes. However in all these trasnformations energy is never destroyed nor created.

The question is why would anyone logically jump to the conclusion that energy must have a cause. We have never obseved its creation nor have any reason to think that it was ever done.

In other words the basic material in our universe can be trasnformed and thus we have the concept of cause and effect but this basic material cannot be destroyed nor created which means that the cause and effect concept does not apply to it.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that the cause/effect concept does not apply to Energy/matter. It does not necessarily follow that since every trasnformation in this world requires a cause then the basic material (energy)
also requires a cause.

Since energy is never created not destroyed we can logically take the position that it always existed.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

99Percent

Not Prince Hamlet: Depends on how you define a god. If you define a god as something that was unnatural, then yes, using your a priori definition, of course not. But that doesn't necessarily have to be a requirement for divinity.

Please define a god that is not necessarily divine.

Not Prince Hamlet

You've missed my point. Of course a god is, by definition, divine.

But does divine imply unnatural?

Jeff

99Percent

Divine implies supernatural, ie not bound to laws of nature, and therefore never comprehensible by the human mind.

Not Prince Hamlet

I dispute that. Please prove this statement before continuing with your argument.

Jeff

Technos

Hey finch, your "god did it" argument is cute but it only shows that you misunderstand the Quantum Singularity of Energy. Is it flawed to assume that there's no pot of gold at the end of every rainbow, or that Buddha was just a man and not really the final incarnation of "the great buddha"? I'm sure some would say so, but these are the same people who would be likely to believe in Big foot and the Loch Ness Monster. We naturalist hold that all things are natural or man made, and most Atheist hold that all things supernatural are false.

Technos

You seem to confuse Webster's Dictionary (which is little more than a public dictionary, and thus quite opinionated) with the National Dictionary of the English Language, which states that Atheism is as follows:

atheism n

"Disbelief in the existence of each God or deity."

This is the only definition listed for Atheism but the definition for Atheist is as follows:

atheist n

"One who does not believe in any God or gods."

According to America's national dictionary an agnostic can be an Atheist, but doesn't have to hold to the word Atheism.

Well, it's all semantics, so it's not too important. Peace.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Technos ]</p>

joedad

Prove?

Are you simply stating that gods are both natural and divine, and that "natural" includes the divine, and that there are possibly other extranatural states?

If so, is that anything new, whether one takes the position that natural includes the divine, or divine includes the natural?

An atheist has no beliefs in "gods," or is at least atheistic when it comes to believing in any gods heretofore invented/imagined/discovered.

Or are you stating that extranatural states are somehow part of some larger natural order, call it the "multinatural?"

Isn't that just an exercise in semantics?

joe

Not Prince Hamlet

Joedad,

I may just be tired, but I didn't understand your post. Can you rephrase, please?

Jeff