Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism isn't a belief?
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 316 of 329 (238591)
08-30-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Physrho
08-30-2005 12:35 PM


Re: I think it's both
I agree in your belief that there is really nothing material that does not come from a spiritual basis.
Not quite what I meant but close enough.
I just think that what exists simply exists, spiritual, natural, whatever. It is all just part of the same thing. Science has traditionally started in at one end of the spectrum while religion has started at the other. It is inevitable that they are going to meet in the middle at some point. If I am right then science will just keep moving on till it encompasses everything.
I guess that what I am trying to say is that in my philosophy, God (if he indeed exists) is just as natural as a lump of rock. He will eventually become every bit as quantifiable as any other part of the natural universe. If he created the universe then he used science to do it, science unimaginably beyond the meagre knowledge that we have now granted, but science all the same.
Supernatural is just stuff that we don't understand yet and in the short sighted fashion that is typically human, we have erected barriers of our own making and called one side natural and the other side supernatural. Take them away and it is all natural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Physrho, posted 08-30-2005 12:35 PM Physrho has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 12:53 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 328 by Physrho, posted 08-31-2005 1:30 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 317 of 329 (238592)
08-30-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 12:48 PM


Re: I think it's both
PurpleYouko writes:
Supernatural is just stuff that we don't understand yet and in the short sighted fashion that is typically human, we have erected barriers of our own making and called one side natural and the other side supernatural. Take them away and it is all natural.
Saying "Take them all away and it's all supernatural" would be a jump of exactly the same distance, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 12:48 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 1:56 PM LauraG has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 318 of 329 (238617)
08-30-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by LauraG
08-30-2005 12:53 PM


Re: I think it's both
Saying "Take them all away and it's all supernatural" would be a jump of exactly the same distance, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't say so, since we typically designate those things that we can measure and understand as "natural".
As science progresses, we find ourselves able to measure more and more things that at one time were thought to be supernatural. The percieved barrier moves.
Right now it has already been moved a long way from where it was a couple of hundred years ago. Nobody knows how far it can move into what has always been the bastion of the supernatural. If it moves all the way then everything that was previously supernatural is now natural.
Natural just means understood after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 12:53 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 2:11 PM PurpleYouko has replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 319 of 329 (238620)
08-30-2005 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 1:56 PM


Re: I think it's both
PurpleYouko writes:
I wouldn't say so, since we typically designate those things that we can measure and understand as "natural".
As science progresses, we find ourselves able to measure more and more things that at one time were thought to be supernatural. The percieved barrier moves.
Right now it has already been moved a long way from where it was a couple of hundred years ago. Nobody knows how far it can move into what has always been the bastion of the supernatural. If it moves all the way then everything that was previously supernatural is now natural.
Natural just means understood after all.
I agree with the basic premise. Everything, due to ignorance, was once in the realm of the supernatural and, as science progressed, natural explanations were found. Why would we assume that, in spite of never having found any all-powerful god in the natural explanations, we will in the future?
It just doesn't follow that we'd find in nature something not subject to the same set of limitations that everything else is subject to and, if it is bound, then by definition, it's not god. In other words, a "natural god" is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 1:56 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 2:29 PM LauraG has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 320 of 329 (238624)
08-30-2005 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by LauraG
08-30-2005 2:11 PM


Re: I think it's both
It just doesn't follow that we'd find in nature something not subject to the same set of limitations that everything else is subject to and, if it is bound, then by definition, it's not god. In other words, a "natural god" is impossible.
But then who defined God in the first place? I will grant you that the Christian God (as defined by man) is not possible on purely logical grounds.
And again, who defined these limitations? Man did. Maybe there aren't any limitations on God or on us.
It is quite possible that our universe exists in a small subsection of some larger, wholly natural, universe. We already theorize a reality that consists of 11 dimensions (M theory) and that allows for any number (possibly infinite) of alternatate, largely self contained universes created when membranes collide.
Let's just imagine that God is just some scientist in one of these other dimensions who happened to be messing about with manipulation of the membranes and figured out how to make two or more collide to create our universe. Now imagine that he has some way to look into our universe like we watch fish in a bowl or microbes under a microscope. Maybe even manipulate stuff now and again.
Would this scenario make him supernatural?
I don't think so. It makes him a scientist who just happens to know a lot more than we do. One day perhaps we too can figure out how it all works and make our own universes. Maybe move outside of our own and actually shake hands with our "Creator" as complete equals.
Science fiction? Maybe, but yesterday's science fiction has an uncanny knack of becoming today's science.
Of course this is all assuming that there ever was a god to begin with. My point all along is that I am unwilling to rule out what has not been proven to be impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 2:11 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 3:37 PM PurpleYouko has replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 321 of 329 (238634)
08-30-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 2:29 PM


Re: I think it's both
PurpleYouko writes:
But then who defined God in the first place? I will grant you that the Christian God (as defined by man) is not possible on purely logical grounds.
...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance.
PurpleYouko writes:
And again, who defined these limitations? Man did. Maybe there aren't any limitations on God or on us.
The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural.
PurpleYouko writes:
It is quite possible that our universe exists in a small subsection of some larger, wholly natural, universe. We already theorize a reality that consists of 11 dimensions (M theory) and that allows for any number (possibly infinite) of alternatate, largely self contained universes created when membranes collide.
Let's just imagine that God is just some scientist in one of these other dimensions who happened to be messing about with manipulation of the membranes and figured out how to make two or more collide to create our universe. Now imagine that he has some way to look into our universe like we watch fish in a bowl or microbes under a microscope. Maybe even manipulate stuff now and again.
You're free to imagine anything or draw up any conjecture. You run into problems when you have to prove what you imagine to be true, specially if you concede this interdimensional guy in a lab coat can manipulate stuff in contravention of the natural every now and then.
PurpleYouko writes:
Would this scenario make him supernatural?
You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away.
PurpleYouko writes:
I don't think so. It makes him a scientist who just happens to know a lot more than we do. One day perhaps we too can figure out how it all works and make our own universes. Maybe move outside of our own and actually shake hands with our "Creator" as complete equals."
...and maybe one day we'll figure out how Santa Claus delivers all those presents in one night and shake hands with him too.
PurpleYouko writes:
Science fiction? Maybe, but yesterday's science fiction has an uncanny knack of becoming today's science.
Sure, if you work from science and then speculate, not the other way around.
PurpleYouko writes:
Of course this is all assuming that there ever was a god to begin with. My point all along is that I am unwilling to rule out what has not been proven to be impossible.
What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 2:29 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 4:10 PM LauraG has replied
 Message 326 by purpledawn, posted 08-30-2005 6:26 PM LauraG has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 322 of 329 (238641)
08-30-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by LauraG
08-30-2005 3:37 PM


Re: I think it's both
...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance.
They certainly have but not all gods have been defined as all-powerful and all-knowing etc. plenty (like the norse gods) have been fallable.
The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural.
I prefer to assume that there are no natural limitations on god or man. If I assume that there are then I go into the investigation of the universe(s) with preconcieved notions of limits and that is not conducive to unbiased research.
You're free to imagine anything or draw up any conjecture. You run into problems when you have to prove what you imagine to be true, specially if you concede this interdimensional guy in a lab coat can manipulate stuff in contravention of the natural every now and then.
Except that I don't contend that the guy in the lab coat can manipulte stuff in contravention of the natural. I contend that if he exists then he does everything entirely within the natural.
You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away.
Yup.
...and maybe one day we'll figure out how Santa Claus delivers all those presents in one night and shake hands with him too.
Now that would be cool. I wonder how he travels so far in 24 hours?
Sure, if you work from science and then speculate, not the other way around.
And what other way is there? If you want to make advances you can't go in believing that it is impossible to do so. You have to challenge what is "known" and push back the boundaries by finding new ways to do things. Leading scientists do this all the time. I am sure Jules Verne had a damn good idea that we would reach the moon one day even though his contemporaries thought him nothing but a dreamer.
What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible?
To my knowledge there is no way to prove something is impossible unless that something is logically self defeating.
I see no more evidence for the non-existence of God than I do for the existence of God so while I am almost certain that the "natural" can explain everything, I am not willing to assert that there is no god. Doing so would be an act of faith (in his non-existence) and I don't do faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 3:37 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 4:37 PM PurpleYouko has replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 329 (238642)
08-30-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 4:10 PM


Re: I think it's both
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance.
They certainly have but not all gods have been defined as all-powerful and all-knowing etc. plenty (like the norse gods) have been fallable.
So all supernatural beings but the one that fits your definition have been disproved. Is it your definition that makes your supernatural being so special?
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural.
I prefer to assume that there are no natural limitations on god or man. If I assume that there are then I go into the investigation of the universe(s) with preconcieved notions of limits and that is not conducive to unbiased research.
No natural limitations on man. I think that can be discounted without much effort. Limits are not preconcieved notions. If they were, you could will yourself to fly.
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
You're free to imagine anything or draw up any conjecture. You run into problems when you have to prove what you imagine to be true, specially if you concede this interdimensional guy in a lab coat can manipulate stuff in contravention of the natural every now and then.
Except that I don't contend that the guy in the lab coat can manipulte stuff in contravention of the natural. I contend that if he exists then he does everything entirely within the natural.
...so what would the manipulations be? Wouldn't this make your guy in the lab coat superfluous?
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away.
Yup.
...and what do you achieve in renaming him?
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
Sure, if you work from science and then speculate, not the other way around.
And what other way is there? If you want to make advances you can't go in believing that it is impossible to do so. You have to challenge what is "known" and push back the boundaries by finding new ways to do things. Leading scientists do this all the time. I am sure Jules Verne had a damn good idea that we would reach the moon one day even though his contemporaries thought him nothing but a dreamer.
You can't challenge the unknown with the supernatural. None of Verne's writings assumed anything outside the realm of the natural, thus making them possible. He worked from science and speculated. The opposite isn't science-fiction. It's just fiction.
PurpleYouko writes:
LauraG writes:
What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible?
To my knowledge there is no way to prove something is impossible unless that something is logically self defeating.
...and a god isn't?
PurpleYouko writes:
I see no more evidence for the non-existence of God than I do for the existence of God so while I am almost certain that the "natural" can explain everything, I am not willing to assert that there is no god. Doing so would be an act of faith (in his non-existence) and I don't do faith.
So your answer is you won't take anything as evidence. ... and we're back on topic with the whole "faith that god doesn't exist" line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 4:10 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 4:50 PM LauraG has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 324 of 329 (238644)
08-30-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by LauraG
08-30-2005 4:37 PM


Re: I think it's both
So all supernatural beings but the one that fits your definition have been disproved. Is it your definition that makes your supernatural being so special?
Hmmm? Haven't I just said that there aren't any supernatural beings because the whole concept of supernatural is meaningless? And what exactly do you mean by MY supernatural being. I claim no being whatsoever.
No natural limitations on man. I think that can be discounted without much effort. Limits are not preconcieved notions. If they were, you could will yourself to fly.
Only if you knew how to. I could will myself to speak Japanese but it would actually take many years before I could do it. If ever (I am crap at languages)
...so what would the manipulations be? Wouldn't this make your guy in the lab coat superfluous?
Course it would. That is rather the whole point here. He is just one of a whole race of highly advanced scientists. Just the way that we might one day be.
...and what do you achieve in renaming him?
I didn't name him or rename him. I just gave you an example of something that we (at our present level of technology) could not distinguish from a God, yet which would fit wholly into the "Natural".
You can't challenge the unknown with the supernatural. None of Verne's writings assumed anything outside the realm of the natural, thus making them possible. He worked from science and speculated. The opposite isn't science-fiction. It's just fiction.
Read my lips. "I do not believe in the supernatural". To me everything is natural. I have stated this before and I will do so again as many times as it takes.
...and a god isn't?
Define God and I'll let you know.
So your answer is you won't take anything as evidence. ... and we're back on topic with the whole "faith that god doesn't exist" line.
So show me your evidence then. You can't provide it any more than Iano could provide any that God does exist. It simply isn't available

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 4:37 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 5:22 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 329 (238648)
08-30-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 4:50 PM


Re: I think it's both
PurpleYouko writes:
Hmmm? Haven't I just said that there aren't any supernatural beings because the whole concept of supernatural is meaningless? And what exactly do you mean by MY supernatural being. I claim no being whatsoever.
LauraG writes:
You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away.
PurpleYouko writes:
Yup.
Yes you do.
PurpleYouko writes:
Only if you knew how to. I could will myself to speak Japanese but it would actually take many years before I could do it. If ever (I am crap at languages)]
No, you couldn't will yourself to learn Japanese. You could want to learn Japanese and study towards that goal. Please tell me you see the difference between learning Japanese and willing yourself to fly in terms of natural limits.
PurpleYouko writes:
Course it would. That is rather the whole point here. He is just one of a whole race of highly advanced scientists. Just the way that we might one day be.
So... your guy in a lab coat is superfluous and you think we'll reach the same level when we advance enough. Grand.
PurpleYouko writes:
I didn't name him or rename him. I just gave you an example of something that we (at our present level of technology) could not distinguish from a God, yet which would fit wholly into the "Natural".
Sure. You've offered conjecture and nothing more.
PurpleYouko writes:
Read my lips. "I do not believe in the supernatural". To me everything is natural. I have stated this before and I will do so again as many times as it takes.
Read my lips. "You are trying to equate the unknown with the supernatural".
PurpleYouko writes:
Define God and I'll let you know.
PurpleYouko writes:
So show me your evidence then. You can't provide it any more than Iano could provide any that God does exist. It simply isn't available.
...so why infer from no evidence the existence of god? Since when did the burden of proof shift?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 4:50 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 326 of 329 (238655)
08-30-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by LauraG
08-30-2005 3:37 PM


Personification
quote:
...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance.
God is a personification of the universe. As the universe of man expands, so does a god's domain.
quote:
The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural.
Since the gods reside in mankind's imagination, they are only limited by man's imagination.
quote:
What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible?
Since we are dealing with imagination, no matter what we imagine is appropriate evidence, man's imagination will change the rules. All we can do is take the evidence presented to us individually and decide whether we consider it to be true or not.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by LauraG, posted 08-30-2005 3:37 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by LauraG, posted 08-31-2005 12:39 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 329 by AdminPhat, posted 08-31-2005 6:35 AM purpledawn has not replied

LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 329 (238765)
08-31-2005 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by purpledawn
08-30-2005 6:26 PM


Re: Personification
purpledawn writes:
God is a personification of the universe. As the universe of man expands, so does a god's domain.
I guess that's as valid a position as the christian god is, but I disagree on two counts. One, god is usually understood to be outside the realm of the natural, thus outside the universe. Two, I take the sentence "the universe of man" to mean man's understanding of the universe, and as such, I think it's safe to say that, as the universe of man expands, god's domain, understood as the unknown, shrinks... or I could be a long way off what you were trying to say.
purpledawn writes:
Since the gods reside in mankind's imagination, they are only limited by man's imagination.
I like that.
purpledawn writes:
Since we are dealing with imagination, no matter what we imagine is appropriate evidence, man's imagination will change the rules. All we can do is take the evidence presented to us individually and decide whether we consider it to be true or not.
...nor does it matter what it is that you're trying to prove, in the realm of imagination, there will always be a way to move the goalposts and keep the dream going.
As far as a personal decision on the validity of evidence, well, that's the beauty of evidence. Evidence by nature must be objective. Once determined to be evidence, no personal decision is needed for it to be valid. It's when people discount evidence to favor the subjective that blind faith becomes necessary, and we know what kind of trouble that can lead to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by purpledawn, posted 08-30-2005 6:26 PM purpledawn has not replied

Physrho
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 329 (238781)
08-31-2005 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by PurpleYouko
08-30-2005 12:48 PM


Re: I think it's both
Purple-
I'm not saying that there is a separation from spiritual to non spiritual. I am saying the nature of the two are different. This is because One is creator,and one is the fruit of the other. I believe that all things natural are connected to a unifying source. And when I say a unifying source, I mean a solid explanation for all things. I believe science is seeking to discover the source. When I say supernatural, I mean one who is the creator and of course outside of physical laws. I say this only because, believe it or not, the laws of physics had an origin. The fact is that there seems to be an inherant order to the workings of the universe. And now scientifically, there is no doubt a oneness, a prelude to a unified theory to this order of all things that we can physically sense. Basically, there is only one explanation and truth to why it's all here. Science knows and understands this, and has created it's own faiths in order to have it all make sense.
In the words of The Nuclear Physicist, Gerald Schroeder :"We humans like to label things, wrap our minds around a concept, to define and package it; in essense to limit it so that the concept finds harmony within our human definition of logic. But how does someone label or even think about that which is not part of our physical world? Confining the metaphysical to a physical description totally misses the "meta" aspect." (1) I will now attempt to explain biblically why my faith carries weight.
The Bible's definition of Who God Is can be summed in a few words: 1.He is One: (Deut.6:4) says The Lord Our God is One Lord. John 1:3, says that all things were made by him. And Hebrews 1:3 says that all things are upheld by the Word of his Power. I think this means that every thing in existance is actually held in existance by his word. The very reason we see nothing and boggle at why nothing is the basis of all matter is because we are not looking at a thing at all, we are looking at the Power of his Word, the "expression of an idea" that we cannot explain. And his word is in fact invisible.
2. He is Invisible: The Bible says(paraphrased) God is Invisible (Col.1:15). This explains why we cannot find him. This is why non-believers will not give him the credit; they can't see him. They would rather assume we popped out of nowhere from nothing and propogate a religion claiming that it must be true. Even if there is no proof for the assumption (i.e. God is not possible).
3. He is Eternal: (Deut 33:27), 2 Co.4:18 tells us that the things which we can see are in fact temporal, meaning they will not last forever. It also tells us that the things which are not seen (invisible, metaphysical, faith required) are in fact eternal. In short, the God of the Bible, (Jew, Christain, Muslim) is this one unified thing that ties all and holds all together. Scientists won't deny that there is a unified theory, simply because we inherantly know that only one unifying truth exists. If the God of the Bible claims to be who he says he is and can do what he says he can do, then it perfectly aligns with the unity of all things and the mysterious, invisible non-thing which is at the root of all things.
This message has been edited by Physrho, 08-31-2005 01:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-30-2005 12:48 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 329 (238861)
08-31-2005 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by purpledawn
08-30-2005 6:26 PM


Gotta close down
This is a great topic, and the only reason that I have to close it down is because it is well over 300 posts.
By all means start a new thread along these same lines of thought.
Thanks everyone for your input!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by purpledawn, posted 08-30-2005 6:26 PM purpledawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024