Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 03-21-2003, 07:43 AM

Christian, do you see any difference between 'assertion' and 'explanation'? Put differently, what doess "God did it" exlain and, equally important, what does it exclude?

The problem with the supernatural is that there exist no known protocols for dealining with it. Faced with creation, you say God did it. Which God? Did He do it 6,000 years ago or billions of years ago? Did he do it as per Genesis or through the mechanisms of P-branes and M-Theory? Did he work alone or with other Gods? What possible method can be brought to bare when selecting one supernatural "explanation" over an endless supply of potential alternates? There simply is none.

On the other hand, methodological naturalism and has been remarkably effective, particularly given its relative youth. One of my favorite quotes is the following:

Quote:

For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." ...

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection, by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Christian · 03-21-2003, 07:48 AM

Rimstalker,

Are you saying:

The laws of nature are descriptive > therefore they sometimes change over time > therefore it is impossible for an actual exception to a natural law to occur?

If so, I don't understand the jump at the second "therefore."

If you are just saying that it's possible for something to seem like a supernatural event when it really is not, then I agree.

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea · 03-21-2003, 07:53 AM

I think he's saying that the events which were previously thought to violate natural laws and hence be supernatural are being studied and discovered and understood such that we now know they do NOT violate the laws of nature and by this process the pool of events which are "supernatural" is getting vanishlingly small.

It was once claimed "The matter of the human body - ORGANIC MATTER - cannot be created by man because it was supernaturally created by God" Until scientists created UREA from ammonia and carbon. And "God's Domain" was breeched.

Christian · 03-21-2003, 07:54 AM

From the home page of the Internet Infidels Web Site:

Quote:

Our goal is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds that the natural world is all there is, a closed system in no need of a supernatural explaination and sufficient unto itself.

The goal of the web site is basically to rule out (and defend ruling out) the possibility of the supernatural.

What basis is there to do that?

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea · 03-21-2003, 07:57 AM

Aaaauuugh! Not RULE OUT!!!!

"a closed system in no need of a supernatural explaination "

in no need.

They are not trying to defend RULING IT OUT. They are trying to show that it wasn't needed.

Huge, monga difference.

They are trying to show that the supernatural explanation didn't pass muster. Not that it wasn't to be allowed as a possibility.

callmejay · 03-21-2003, 07:59 AM

What is supernatural?

One could argue that it doesn't exist by definition. The "natural" Universe is everything that we can see and perceive, directly or indirectly, around us. If God existed, and we could perceive Him, why then he would be Natural, since he would exist in our Universe.

Consider, for example, that when the concept of heaven was created, people were thinking of an actual place way up there "in the heavens." In other words, not really "supernatural," just a natural place that we couldn't get to ourselves. Later on, when people realized that the Earth was round, that it wasn't the center of the Universe, and that the stars weren't stuck in some "firmament," which could separate us from heaven, they then turned to "supernatural" explanations.

Rhea · 03-21-2003, 07:59 AM

And by showing again and again and agian that the supernatural explanation doesn't pass muster, we can begin to show why it should not be the first guess at the solution to a problem given the current evidence of the universe.

Christian · 03-21-2003, 07:59 AM

"the natural world is all there is"

Are you saying that "all there is" really doesn't mean ALL there is?

If so, what does it mean?

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian · 03-21-2003, 08:05 AM

I'm out of play time tonight. Thanks for the thoughtful responses!

I'll be back some time tomorrow.

Respectfully,

Christian

Rhea · 03-21-2003, 08:05 AM

All there _is_.

Not, all there can be
Not, all there will ever be
Not, all that could be...

All there IS. Given the current level of evidence.

There is no claim made to a condition of changed evidence.

G'night.

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

03-21-2003, 07:48 AM	#22
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	Rimstalker, Are you saying: The laws of nature are descriptive > therefore they sometimes change over time > therefore it is impossible for an actual exception to a natural law to occur? If so, I don't understand the jump at the second "therefore." If you are just saying that it's possible for something to seem like a supernatural event when it really is not, then I agree. Respectfully, Christian

03-21-2003, 07:53 AM	#23
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	I think he's saying that the events which were previously thought to violate natural laws and hence be supernatural are being studied and discovered and understood such that we now know they do NOT violate the laws of nature and by this process the pool of events which are "supernatural" is getting vanishlingly small. It was once claimed "The matter of the human body - ORGANIC MATTER - cannot be created by man because it was supernaturally created by God" Until scientists created UREA from ammonia and carbon. And "God's Domain" was breeched.

03-21-2003, 07:57 AM	#25
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	Aaaauuugh! Not RULE OUT!!!! "a closed system in no need of a supernatural explaination " in no need. They are not trying to defend RULING IT OUT. They are trying to show that it wasn't needed. Huge, monga difference. They are trying to show that the supernatural explanation didn't pass muster. Not that it wasn't to be allowed as a possibility.

03-21-2003, 07:59 AM	#26
callmejay Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 466	What is supernatural? One could argue that it doesn't exist by definition. The "natural" Universe is everything that we can see and perceive, directly or indirectly, around us. If God existed, and we could perceive Him, why then he would be Natural, since he would exist in our Universe. Consider, for example, that when the concept of heaven was created, people were thinking of an actual place way up there "in the heavens." In other words, not really "supernatural," just a natural place that we couldn't get to ourselves. Later on, when people realized that the Earth was round, that it wasn't the center of the Universe, and that the stars weren't stuck in some "firmament," which could separate us from heaven, they then turned to "supernatural" explanations.

03-21-2003, 08:05 AM	#29
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	I'm out of play time tonight. Thanks for the thoughtful responses! I'll be back some time tomorrow. Respectfully, Christian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.