SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Not possible at the moment. “Not possible at the moment” and "impossible" are two completely different concepts and terms. Not possible at the moment means that it could be possible later. Impossible means that it will never be possible.

No. You’re trying to refute it by searching for little mistakes in my wording.

No. Its not possible at the moment. Like I said above, and like I’ve said a few times now, without complete knowledge of the physical world, I don’t think it would be logical to label anything as being “impossible”, nor are we in the position to deem something as having a supernatural origin or nature either.

Think about it for a moment before you respond again.

mnkbdky

Actually, impossible is synonymous with not possible. To say that it is not possible for me to fly at the moment, is the same as saying it is impossible for me to fly at the moment. Impossible is not the same thing as saying never possible. Some things may be be contingently impossible, such as me being able to fly, since it is always possible that I develop the ability to fly. And some things may be necessarily impossible, such as me being able to both run forwards and backwards at the same time, since that is not logically possible.

To my question you answered: No, it is not possible at the moment--which is equivalent to saying, it is impossible at the moment. Your statement is that, it is impossible to know these types of things without complete knowlegde of the physical world. That is, it is always or necessarily impossible to know if there is a God or that things are impossible unless you have complete knowledge of the physical world.

Well I am just assuming that you are not a super-genius and, therefore believe you cannot say things are impossible. Therefore, you cannot say that it is not possible for someone to know these types of things unless they have complete knowledge of the physical world. Because that is equivalent to saying that it is always or necessarily impossible to do so. That is, you saying that in every case where some one is not a super-genius they may have no knowledge of such things, because complete knowledge is required.

In other words, you are saying, it is necessarily impossible that someone without complete knowledge know that God exists or somethings are impossible.

That is self-refuting, and self-destroying.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
Great! Now, since you can’t play the "word game" with me, you're trying to take what I say out of context.


I didn't say "not possible". I said "not possible at the moment", which is totally different from saying "not possible" or "impossible". “Not possible at the moment” means that something that isn’t possible now could be possible later.


10 more points for SecularFuture!



and I thought this thread was about death…..

Maybe it is possible. Maybe there is a way to break a physical law via some super advanced machine built around a worm hole in space. Neither you or I know, at this moment.


This “word play / taking statements out of context / dodging my original point” game is doing nothing to refute my original statement.


Here’s a question for you:
How can you claim that the supernatural exists without having complete knowledge of the natural world? To know for a fact if something is not of this world, you would need to know everything about this world.

Theism is one of the greatest self-destroying concepts of all time!

SecularFuture

If you want to talk about theism, Christianity, or the existence of a god concept, we could always talk it in these threads.

Transhumanism: The Ultimate Cure against Religion II
Theism / Religion is Neither Logical nor Acceptable


After we finish up here.

mnkbdky

As for the above argument I suggest you take sometime and think about it.

For now let's discuss this new question and see where that takes us.

Here is your question(s):

Your second question/statement is a bit ambiguous. What do you mean by world? Is it Earth? If so, that is easily answered. I know that the sun is not of this earth because it is not part of the earth. However, I don't know everything about the earth--for instance how long it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. I don't see how not knowing everything about the earth does not allow me to know that the sun is not part of it.

Perhaps, though, by world you mean universe. Well, I think it is rather impossible not to be part of the universe. Since universe seems to be the idea of all existent things.

But maybe you are thinking by world, all physical or material things. Again, I don't see why I would have to know about all physical or material things to know that something is non-physical or immaterial. For instance, thoughts are non-physical or immaterial--that is there is no place where they are located, you cannot see, taste, smell, touch, or hear them; yet, I know they exist and I don't know about every physical or material thing that exists.

So it seems very likely that I may know that something is not of this world (however world is to be defined).

The same problem occurs with the first question. What do you mean by supernatural or natural? It seems that you mean by supernatural, that which is not of this world.

It also seems that by natural you mean, that which is of this world. If so, then both supernatural and natural fall prey to the objections above.

Perhaps, though, you mean by supernatural, a being or object that can do anything that is logically possible. And by natural you mean, a being or object that has limited ability or cannot do everything that is logically possible. But if this is the case, why would I have to know "everything that cannot do what is logically possible" in order that I may know "what can do everything that is logically possible"?

Thanks,

--mnkbdky

p.s. I am not talking about theism or Xianity. I am talking about your claim concerning what we can and cannot know and why.

mnkbdky

While you must be omniscient to know that something absolutely does not exist (unless that thing's existence is logically impossible). You do not have to be omniscient to know that something does exist.

The two claims are not the same.

SecularFuture

mnkbdky
I meant universe.

Updated Question
How can you claim that the supernatural exists without having complete knowledge of the natural universe?

You can see the sun. The proof for the sun is right in front of you. You can only believe in a god concept.

Thoughts can be detected through electronic devices. I think a Lie Detector may be an example; not sure.

Second Question
What evidence do you have to prove the existence of a supernatural realm, while existing in a natural universe?

If god was of the natural universe, he/she/it would be visible or detectable.

What do you mean by this statement? Could you please rephrase it?

From an Xian point of view.

Third Question
And how do you know that a god exists?

Viti

Secular Future...I find your fear irrational...you say you don't "get" that we aren't bothered by non-existence. There were millions of years you didn't exist before you were born...do those years bother you? Dying is returning to exactly the state before you were born, non-existence...you are not conscious of anything.

SecularFuture

LadyShea
Actually – in a way, yeah.

Think about all that had to happen, in the perfect order, to bring humanity to the universe. Now think about all that had to happen, in the perfect order, to bring you into existence on planet Earth.

So much “effort” went into bringing me to where I am today, and I should just “not mind” loosing it all for oblivion? That sounds more irrational than theism. I'm sorry, but I love life and existing too much.

Natural isn’t always good. If there is a way to enhance something (to make better), we should consider doing it. I don’t believe in being idle.

mnkbdky

Could people believe in thoughts before there were machines that could detect brain waves or patterns?

Also, electronic devices can only detect electrical impulses of the brain. They cannot detect the content of the thought. That is, if I were to think that Elizabeth Shue is good looking, the machine would only be able to detect that I was in the process of thinking. It would not be able to detect what I am in the process of thinking about. It is what I am thinking about that is the thought, not the electrical impulse.

I am still allowed to believe that my thought about Elizabeth Shue exists.


You did not define what you meant by supernatural or natural. I am assuming you mean, immaterial and material.

It is true that you cannot see, smell, hear, taste or touch things that are immaterial. But how does that entail that immaterial things do not exist or that they cannot be detected? Or that it is irrational to believe in them. Again, the content of my thoughts are not material, but they do indeed exist and I can detect them. Yet, they cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, touched or detected by any machine. Am I irrational for believing that I believe that Elizabeth Shue is attractive? I hope not.

Let's take your belief that one should only believe something if they have physical evidence or proof of it. Do you have proof of that belief? That is, do you have physical evidence that someone should only believe something if they have physical evidence for it? You belief that people should not believe what they do not have physical evidence for is in itself non-physical. It is the content of a thought, which cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, heard, touched or detected by machines.

You might say it can be heard or seen if spoken or written. But so can the opposite claim. However, when it is spoken or written it is no longer merely a thought.

My statement:


Your question about my statement:


I mean, if someone knows that something or someone exists that has incredible powers--such as being able to create something out of nothing--why do they have to first know everything or everyone that does not have such powers?

I see no reason why someone would have to know everything about the material universe in order to know that there exists something or somebody that is immaterial and has incredible powers.

I am not here to talk about the existence of God. That is another issue. So let's not go into that.