mnkbdky

Based on previous experience. The experience I had with myself or of myself is not the same type of experiences I have with God.

What does it matter if my experiences can be given a material explanation? It is not impossible that immaterial things cause material events. It is always possible that God is experienced through brain events that are caused by God. Material explanations do not rule out existence of God.

By supernatural realm you mean, "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world [universe]" and natural inside that definition means, "Present in or produced by nature" and nature means, "The material world and its phenomena"--right? So you mean God either lives in someone imagination or he is of or relating to existence outside of the material world and its phenomena." This is all to say that God is immaterial. God is not produced by or constituted of material.

So, yes you did say immaterial--in a round about way.

We do not know if earth-quakes and hailstorms are not caused by God. We merely observe what material events take place when one does occur. We have no clue if there is some immaterial being behind it causing the matter to move in such ways.

You need to stop using the terms natural and supernatural. They are very ambiguous.

For instance your statement could mean that everything around us is material, what logical reason do we have for believing in the immaterial. Or it could mean, everything around us is causes by material events, what logical reason could we have for believing that an agent with incredible powers caused the event.

I am sorry that you believe you cannot know if the world exists. But if you can't know if the world exist, why do you require evidence from other people for their beliefs? Certainly, you would not call somebody crazy for believing the world exists, unless they could provide you with evidence. Otherwise, the majority of the population of the world would be crazy. Simply pointing at something and saying can you see that will not work. For, if the world is illusory, then, so is the evidence.

The point is people can and should trust there sense perception. By trusting their sense perception they are able to say that the world does indeed exist. We cannot say people are crazy for believe they can see actual object, hear actual sound, taste actuals flavors, touch actual objects. They same applies for God. If God does exist, then, he could have made us so that we may percieve him (whereas the pink unicorn could not have made us to percieve it). If that is the case then I should trust my perception of him. If I can trust my perception then I can say that I know God exists, because I do percieve him.


Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Really? They look pretty basic and straight forward to me.

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

Natural
--- Present in or produced by nature.

It’s that simple. Your god can not be detected in the natural universe, am I correct? But you say that he exists, right? Well – either he lives in your imagination or he lives in an unfounded supernatural realm concept.

How do you know this? How can you tell the difference? Why does it have to be a god concept behind the events that you interpret as being divine?

All we have as human beings to perceive our universe are the five senses of seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, and hearing.

If you and I were to stand side by side and look at a bird, you and I would both be able to say – “There is a bird in front of us.” But if you were to say something like - “God is touching me right now.” – or – “God is telling me something.” – or – “God is making me happy right now”, why should I believe you? Why should you believe you? Why should you believe something that is happening entirely within your own mind, which no one else around you can test and experience simultaneously?

If your so-called “divine experience” can be given a natural explanation, then that experience can not be considered divine. It would then be considered a natural experience, of a natural universe.

Again – I said “supernatural”. I did not use the word “immaterial” once in my explanations.

Immaterial definition #2 from http://www.dictionary.com
--- Having no material body or form.

Supernatural definition #1 from http://www.dictionary.com
--- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

I see two completely different words, with two completely different definitions. Immaterial is something that can be found in the natural universe, and something supernatural is something that can not be found in the natural universe; it can only be believed.

Just because it is possible, does not mean that it is real or true. No amount of belief can turn something into a fact, no matter how many people share that belief.

The existence of pink unicorns with gold teeth in their mouths is also possible.

Why does a god have to be the force behind natural events? Because you say and think so? Why can’t natural events have natural explanations? Why do natural events need supernatural [magical] explanations involving a magical deity concept? It doesn’t make any sense. Even at the tender young age of 13 I was wondering this.

How do you know [FOR A FACT] that the Pink Unicorn did not make us to perceive him? Maybe you’re in the wrong religion, and instead of a Christian god that you’re hearing, it’s really the Pink Unicorn talking to you from someone else’s religion. :banghead:

mnkbdky

Before we move any further I suggest we get the definitions straight.

You say,

Notice the word "natural" in the definition of "supernatural." Then look at the definition of "natural", it contains the word "nature." Then look at the definition of "nature". Nature means, "the material world and its phenom." So put them together and what do you get?

supernatural means, "of or relating to existence outside the material world and its phenom" (i.e., immaterial).

Given the definiton of supernatural that you want to use, an immaterial thing cannot be considered part of the natural universe--since natural means material. If you mean by natural, ordinary, not out of the ordinary, or common place, then yes immaterial can be part of the common (natural) universe.


No. He can be detected. However, he cannot be detected through the five senses.

If those are the only senses we have then how do you experience your own thoughts? Can you see, touch, smell, taste or hear them? I can't. But I do experience my thoughts. There must be another type of sense then.

Actually, there are entire groups of people who have experienced God'swork together. They all have been able to talk about the same experience. Perhaps, they had a mass hallucination, however, hallucinations are normally individual, not shared.

I am quite fine with that. I do think experiece of God is quite natural. It is the natural experience of a supernature being. Or it is a material experience of an immaterial being. There is no conflict.

You obiously have your mind made up that such a being could not exist. However, you have no evidence that such a being does not exist or could not exist. You have reasons, but none that the theist cannot easily defend.

I suggest you read some books on religious epistemology. Here is a list of some of the best--in my opinion.

Lious Pojman: What Can We Know?

Rober Audio: Epistemology

John L. Pollock and Joseph Cruz: Contempory theories of Knowledge

R. Douglas Geivett and Brendan Sweetman: Contempory Perspectives on Religious Epistemology

Keith Yandell: The Epistemology of Religious Experience

Alvin Plantinga: Warrant the Current Debate and Warrant and Proper Function and Warranted Christian Belief

Plantinga and Wolterstorff: Faith and Rationality

Linda Zagaebski: Rational Faith

John Hick: An Interpretation of Religion

These are very good books, enjoy.

Thanks,

mnkbdky

SecularFuture

Heres some good stuff for you
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer
Arguments for the Existence of a God by Infidels.ORG



I'll be back later to respond to your post.
I have to finish some work.

mnkbdky

I am already a theistic evolutionist. Evolution does not debunk God nor does it give any insight into the truth or falsity of religions.

I was an anthropology major and studied evolution for two years, perhaps three years depending on how you look at it. Truth is a philosophical matter, not anthropological or evolutionary. Furthermore, I have my masters in systematic theology and philosphy of religion. I am very familiar with all the arguments for Gods existence.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky

You Conveniently Skipped Some of My Questions
I couldn't let this slide

How do you know this? How can you tell the difference? Why does it have to be a god concept behind the events that you interpret as being divine?

Why does a supernatural god have to be the force behind natural events? Because you say and think so? Why can’t natural events have natural explanations? Why do natural events need supernatural [magical] explanations involving a magical deity concept?

If I went on a job interview and said that I could type 300 words per minute, would it be up to me or the person interviewing me to prove that I could type 300 words per minute? It’s a simple question that requires a very simple answer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are you trying to criticize the dictionary now? Wow!

And now you’re trying to make up definitions for words that already have definitions. I’ve played your other games, but I’m not going to play this one. We’re going to stick with the dictionary’s definitions for supernatural and natural, okay?

The definition of supernatural that I gave was - “Of or relating to existence outside the natural world [universe].” And immaterial things can be detected within our universe. Can a living god concept be detected? No. So, therefore, it must be either apart of the religionist’s imagination, or it is a part of an unproven supernatural realm concept.

Natural does not mean material. Natural means – “Present in or produced by nature.”

You just said that you can “experience” “Him”. Do you have an extra sense, and if so, could you please describe it?

By thinking.

No, but they can still be detected. A thought is a product of mental activity, and through detecting mental activity, one is able to detect thoughts; mental activity can be detected. Can we detect the content of those thoughts? Not at the moment, but maybe some time in the future after technology advances some more.

Really? And what might that be? Could you please elaborate?

Because they all share the same unfounded beliefs. It’s easier for the average person to believe in a god than to understand the advanced science behind macroevolution and quantum mechanics. This is probably one of the many reasons why belief in god is so popular, aside from the fact that its comforting.

No. You’re wrong. I never said that a deity “could not” exist. I, as an atheist, by definition, do not believe in a deity because I am without reason or evidence to do so.

And you don’t have evidence that a deity does exist or could exist. You just believe in Him/Her/It.

You only see what you want to see, don’t you?

The entire title said:
”Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins or Religious Thought

If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

mnkbdky

I will ask only one question this time.

What does the word "nature" mean inside the definition of natural?

After that is answered I will answer the remaining questions.

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

SecularFuture

If you're so smart, why don't you know what basic words mean?

natural
--- Present in or produced by nature [the material world and its phenomena]

phenomena
--- An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

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


And I wasn't a Linguistics major in college, so I can't explain the origin or words, why they mean what they mean, what the letters in each word means, or any of that shit.

mnkbdky

Let's look carefully at each word and try to decipher their meaning.

Natural means, "pesent in or produced by nature [the material world and its phenomena]

Notice the definition says "its phenomena" where "it" is referring to the material world. Therefore, phenomena in this case means any occurrence or cimcumstance that is caused by or has its origin in material.

The definition of supernatural is "of or related to existence outside the natural world." Now, remeber natural world was defined as "the material world and its phenomena." Therefore, to exist "outside of the natural world" means, to exist outside of the material world or its phenomena. To say that something is immaterial is to say that it is not of the material world or the material worlds phenomena. Now that which exists outside the material world and it phenomena is immaterial. Therefore, to say something is supernatural--in the way you are using it--is simply to say that something is immaterial.

I am not asking for etymology. I am askin what words mean.

p.s.Just FYI both English words are derived from Latin.

Super is derived from the Latin preposition supra meaning, above.

Nature is derived from the Latin term naturae, meaning exactly the same as our definition(s).

Paul5204

To my atheist friends [or more correctly, to those holding to the view that there is neither evidence of, or reason to believe in, a God]:

I doubt that I will be able to convince any of you that there is indeed something supernatural at work in the universe, but I will nevertheless ask you all to consider the implication of what I consider the simply indisputable reality that there is nothing in our so-called "first principles" that would serve to explain why the matter making up my brain should somehow be any more or any less conscious of its existence in this universe than that same matter was before it became [part of] my brain. I do not know how anyone here defines "miracle" or "miraculous," but I would submit that we are very much in miracle land when it comes to the reality that the matter constituting my brain is apparently conscious of its existence in the universe.

As concerns death, I am afraid that we will all need more than stem cells. Is there an answer for the toxic effects accompanying the presence of heavy metals in our cells? And if we of the limited span think that UV radiation and melanoma are a problem now, what about the problem if we were somehow able to live for hundreds and hundreds of years?

We might also think about the psychological effect of living a long life. I would submit that unless one became most thoroughly heartless, that one would sooner or later reach the point of what I will call "overwhelming grief/pain." Just how many family members or friends can you endure being murdered, raped, tortured, etc.? I am 41 years old and have had a former secretary stabbed to death, a former client strangled to death, and have had the "privilege" to watch the two year old of another client die in hospital after life support was terminated. I am already at the point of overwhelming grief/pain, and I will be the first to admit that I simply do not want to leave forever in a world replete with murderers, rapists, and torturers. So I for one can say that my death will be an act of mercy [and will save for another day a discussion on just why my mortality is a necessary predicate to my being redeemed].