Would god(s) be natural? - Page 2

Mercutio · 10th October 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Why do you strongly believe getting all to agree is a goal? In fact, asking people what they think implies that it is not.

Agreeing that a thread is "interesting" in no way means we all agree on why. That's the thing about "interesting"; it expresses an attitude while managing to be content-free. We could all disagree about the content, but find the discussion "interesting". Or we could all agree and find it deadly dull.

Or do you think that "interesting" is an opinion with content? If so, why?

T'ai Chi · 10th October 2006, 03:06 PM

I don't think your interruption of the thread is interesting.

kellyb · 10th October 2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

2) In certain circumstances brains were observed to mirror each others states. This appeared to be a fundamental fact about brains that was not reducible to any simpler mechanism. This would be inconsistant with naturalism.

Nope, nope, nope.
It would still be consistent with naturalism. Just because something appears to be 'mysterious beyond explaination' does not mean it is so.
It just means no one's quite figured it out yet.
To say that it's not consistent with naturalism would be a bit like setting up a 'paranormal of the gaps' type of scenario.

Euromutt · 10th October 2006, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I asked what you think ("would your worldview").

Rubbish. In response to the question "what do you mean by 'god'?" you said:

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Then use a dictionary, or use their best idea.

Note: "their best idea," not "your best idea." Don't try to make it my fault that your instruction came round to bite you in the behind.

In my worldview, however--which I might add is well supported by available evidence--gods themselves don't exist, so the question is moot. Thus, all I have to go by is what others believe gods to be, and the consensus seems to be that a god is, by definition, a supernatural entity, and thus not natural. For my part, I would say that the concept of gods is wholly artificial, and thus not natural either.

politas · 11th October 2006, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

If god(s) exist, would your worldview consider them to be natural objects?

The proven existence of any gods would destroy my worldview. Every meaningful definition of god I have seen is incompatible with my understanding of the natural world.

Thus, the question is meaningless. My worldview cannot contain god. Existence of god would force me to change to a different worldview.

So far, I see no reason to prepare for such an event.

T'ai Chi · 11th October 2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by Euromutt

the consensus seems to be that a god is, by definition, a supernatural entity,

Why? You've not addressed the actual point.

fuelair · 11th October 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

I don't think your interruption of the thread is interesting.

Y or Y knot?

Euromutt · 11th October 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Why? You've not addressed the actual point.

There was point to this thread? Color me surprised.

The reason gods are conceived of as entities possessing supernatural powers is fairly obvious, if one studies history. Gods were initially conceived to explain the occurrence of phenomena which humans, at the time, did not understand. In due course, human understanding of the natural world increased, including how and why such phenomena occurred. Thus, it became clear that naturally occurring entities did not have the ability to cause these phenomena, so how could it be possible for these "gods" to do so? In various exercises in ad hoc rationalizations, theists countered, in so many words, "ah, but our god is not bound by the laws of nature; it possesses supernatural powers." Ascribing a supernatural nature to gods also allowed theists to conveniently side-step the question why no verifiable evidence could be found of the existence of these gods.

In short, gods are claimed to be supernatural because there is no viable naturalistic explanation of how, or even that, they occur. Ah, but, I hear you cry, if gods existed, such rationalizations would be redundant. True, but then (as the Dutch say), if my sister had a nutsack, she'd be my brother.

Piggy · 11th October 2006, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Euromutt

True, but then (as the Dutch say), if my sister had a nutsack, she'd be my brother.

<Adds to collection>

<Offers in trade>

The Spanish version: If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.

The Southern version: If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts.

</trade>

T'ai Chi · 11th October 2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Euromutt

There was point to this thread?

Apparently you strongly believe so because you replied.

Quote:

In short, gods are claimed to be supernatural because there is no viable naturalistic explanation of how, or even that, they occur.

What is the naturalistic explanation of how the big bang occured, or for what whatever was there (energy, matter) before the big bang came into existence? If such things are allowed to have existed forever, or came into existance by themself, why do the same things for the notion of god(s) seem so troubling?

Do you think what led up to the big bang is supernatural?

CFLarsen · 11th October 2006, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

Apparently you strongly believe so because you replied.

How on Earth can you possibly make that conclusion???

Marc L · 12th October 2006, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

If god(s) exist, would your worldview consider them to be natural objects?

If a god existed, then yes, it would have to be natural. Anything else?

Marc

Piggy · 12th October 2006, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Marc L

If a god existed, then yes, it would have to be natural. Anything else?

Yes. Would it also be smooth and creamy and chock full of essential vitamins and minerals?

fuelair · 12th October 2006, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Agreeing that a thread is "interesting" in no way means we all agree on why. That's the thing about "interesting"; it expresses an attitude while managing to be content-free. We could all disagree about the content, but find the discussion "interesting". Or we could all agree and find it deadly dull.

Or do you think that "interesting" is an opinion with content? If so, why?

Getting all to agree (or, actually, temporarilly pretend to) is a goal if you are engaged in collaboration.

Marc L · 12th October 2006, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Piggy

Yes. Would it also be smooth and creamy and chock full of essential vitamins and minerals?

The fake god's not necessarily good for you, so what makes you think the real one would be?

Marc

10th October 2006, 02:59 PM	#41
Mercutio Shakespeare's Sock Puppet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Live Free Or Die Posts: 16,325	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Why do you strongly believe getting all to agree is a goal? In fact, asking people what they think implies that it is not. Agreeing that a thread is "interesting" in no way means we all agree on why. That's the thing about "interesting"; it expresses an attitude while managing to be content-free. We could all disagree about the content, but find the discussion "interesting". Or we could all agree and find it deadly dull. Or do you think that "interesting" is an opinion with content? If so, why?
	__________________ "But to see her was to love her Love but her, and love forever."

10th October 2006, 03:06 PM	#42
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	I don't think your interruption of the thread is interesting.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

10th October 2006, 05:00 PM	#44
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Auburn, WA, USA Posts: 1,094	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I asked what you think ("would your worldview"). Rubbish. In response to the question "what do you mean by 'god'?" you said: Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Then use a dictionary, or use their best idea. Note: "their best idea," not "your best idea." Don't try to make it my fault that your instruction came round to bite you in the behind. In my worldview, however--which I might add is well supported by available evidence--gods themselves don't exist, so the question is moot. Thus, all I have to go by is what others believe gods to be, and the consensus seems to be that a god is, by definition, a supernatural entity, and thus not natural. For my part, I would say that the concept of gods is wholly artificial, and thus not natural either.
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice Last edited by Euromutt; 10th October 2006 at 05:02 PM.

11th October 2006, 01:30 PM	#45
politas Pirate King Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 1,081	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi If god(s) exist, would your worldview consider them to be natural objects? The proven existence of any gods would destroy my worldview. Every meaningful definition of god I have seen is incompatible with my understanding of the natural world. Thus, the question is meaningless. My worldview cannot contain god. Existence of god would force me to change to a different worldview. So far, I see no reason to prepare for such an event.
	__________________ Myk Rational Capital Podcast

11th October 2006, 02:06 PM	#46
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Euromutt the consensus seems to be that a god is, by definition, a supernatural entity, Why? You've not addressed the actual point.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

10th October 2006, 03:10 PM	#43
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,410	Quote: 2) In certain circumstances brains were observed to mirror each others states. This appeared to be a fundamental fact about brains that was not reducible to any simpler mechanism. This would be inconsistant with naturalism. Nope, nope, nope. It would still be consistent with naturalism. Just because something appears to be 'mysterious beyond explaination' does not mean it is so. It just means no one's quite figured it out yet. To say that it's not consistent with naturalism would be a bit like setting up a 'paranormal of the gaps' type of scenario.

11th October 2006, 02:58 PM	#47
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi I don't think your interruption of the thread is interesting. Y or Y knot?
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900

11th October 2006, 07:06 PM	#48
Euromutt Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Auburn, WA, USA Posts: 1,094	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Why? You've not addressed the actual point. There was point to this thread? Color me surprised. The reason gods are conceived of as entities possessing supernatural powers is fairly obvious, if one studies history. Gods were initially conceived to explain the occurrence of phenomena which humans, at the time, did not understand. In due course, human understanding of the natural world increased, including how and why such phenomena occurred. Thus, it became clear that naturally occurring entities did not have the ability to cause these phenomena, so how could it be possible for these "gods" to do so? In various exercises in ad hoc rationalizations, theists countered, in so many words, "ah, but our god is not bound by the laws of nature; it possesses supernatural powers." Ascribing a supernatural nature to gods also allowed theists to conveniently side-step the question why no verifiable evidence could be found of the existence of these gods. In short, gods are claimed to be supernatural because there is no viable naturalistic explanation of how, or even that, they occur. Ah, but, I hear you cry, if gods existed, such rationalizations would be redundant. True, but then (as the Dutch say), if my sister had a nutsack, she'd be my brother.
	__________________ "Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo by birth, by choice

11th October 2006, 07:20 PM	#49
Piggy Unlicensed street skeptic Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ralph's side of the island Posts: 15,248	Originally Posted by Euromutt True, but then (as the Dutch say), if my sister had a nutsack, she'd be my brother. <Adds to collection> <Offers in trade> The Spanish version: If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. The Southern version: If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. </trade>
	__________________ . How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?

11th October 2006, 08:43 PM	#50
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Originally Posted by Euromutt There was point to this thread? Apparently you strongly believe so because you replied. Quote: In short, gods are claimed to be supernatural because there is no viable naturalistic explanation of how, or even that, they occur. What is the naturalistic explanation of how the big bang occured, or for what whatever was there (energy, matter) before the big bang came into existence? If such things are allowed to have existed forever, or came into existance by themself, why do the same things for the notion of god(s) seem so troubling? Do you think what led up to the big bang is supernatural?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

11th October 2006, 10:55 PM	#51
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi Apparently you strongly believe so because you replied. How on Earth can you possibly make that conclusion???
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

12th October 2006, 09:21 AM	#52
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi If god(s) exist, would your worldview consider them to be natural objects? If a god existed, then yes, it would have to be natural. Anything else? Marc
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L

12th October 2006, 10:19 AM	#53
Piggy Unlicensed street skeptic Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ralph's side of the island Posts: 15,248	Originally Posted by Marc L If a god existed, then yes, it would have to be natural. Anything else? Yes. Would it also be smooth and creamy and chock full of essential vitamins and minerals?
	__________________ . How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?

12th October 2006, 11:22 AM	#54
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900	Originally Posted by Mercutio Agreeing that a thread is "interesting" in no way means we all agree on why. That's the thing about "interesting"; it expresses an attitude while managing to be content-free. We could all disagree about the content, but find the discussion "interesting". Or we could all agree and find it deadly dull. Or do you think that "interesting" is an opinion with content? If so, why? Getting all to agree (or, actually, temporarilly pretend to) is a goal if you are engaged in collaboration.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900

12th October 2006, 11:32 AM	#55
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	Originally Posted by Piggy Yes. Would it also be smooth and creamy and chock full of essential vitamins and minerals? The fake god's not necessarily good for you, so what makes you think the real one would be? Marc
Marc L Thread Killer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,743	__________________ Yes I am out of my mind, and it'll be so much more fun once you join me---Mrs. L