Topic: Atheism and debate. (Read 15318 times)

rareairpug · « **Reply #80 on:** November 11, 2005, 11:30:09 AM »

Quote

Exactly so. One would also expect that gods interested in humans and capable of communication would make reasonable efforts to communicate with humans.

I would agree. And you must admit that whether you believe them or not, there are plenty of claims out there that God has attempted to communicate with humans.

Quote

So miracles would be rather common events. If they are not, then we need some kind of reasonable explanation for why we don't see those miracles every day. In fact, this is why Christians have made up the doctrine of "free will"--to explain the unexpected paucity of miracles out there.

Not at all. If a miracle was common---we wouldn't call it a miracle!! That is the entire point. The very definition of miracle assumes it is something that is NOT common.

Quote

Sorry, but I missed the "without using supernatural means" phrase. We seem to be on very different wavelengths. Why would you expect God not to use supernatural means?

This is what you are postulating--a world where the supernatural is impossible to determine. In a world without natural laws, there can be nothing supernatural. Even the word "supernatural" depends on the word "natural." Without natural laws, there would be no way of determining if something was supernatural.

Quote

In principle, a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events. A supernatural event would be a cause that could not be so-generalized.
So, you say that this supernatural being should perform these events (whatever events we are talking about) regularly to provide convincing proof. Then you say that natural laws are based on repeated events. You can't have both. As you say---a supernatural event can't be generalized---or repeated. It wouldn't be SUPERnatural if it was.

Not quite. A reliably repeatable generalization over repeated events is a principle arrived at by abductive reasoning, e.g. a natural law. Supernatural events are those that violate such natural laws. I think that you understand the difference between miracles and non-miracles very well. Your problem is that you are equivocating on the word "natural". In one sense, it refers to an event that has a physical cause. In the other sense, it is just an event that is common or frequent. I do not accept that conflation in the senses of "natural".

I was using your definition of natural. Are you changing your definition? Your words were:"a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." Now you are saying it is something else?

Copernicus · « **Reply #81 on:** November 11, 2005, 08:12:58 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug

...And you must admit that whether you believe them or not, there are plenty of claims out there that God has attempted to communicate with humans.

I certainly do admit that, and I take them as evidence that God either does not exist, or he is a remarkably inept communicator.

Quote

...If a miracle was common---we wouldn't call it a miracle!! That is the entire point. The very definition of miracle assumes it is something that is NOT common.

Absolutely false. There is nothing in the definition of miracles to suggest that they must be rare events. And your concept of a "natural" event as any commonly occurring event is false, as well.

Quote

...Without natural laws, there would be no way of determining if something was supernatural.

Without a concept of "natural", there would be no way to define "supernatural". But concepts are relatively easy to come by. One could still have a concept of natural laws, even if such laws did not work.

Quote

I was using your definition of natural. Are you changing your definition? Your words were:"a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." Now you are saying it is something else?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. You just misunderstood me, and I pointed out the source of your misunderstanding--a confusion in your usage of the word "natural". Reread my response to you on that equivocation.

dark territory · « **Reply #82 on:** November 11, 2005, 08:25:46 PM »

rareairpug · « **Reply #83 on:** November 12, 2005, 12:16:23 AM »

Quote

I certainly do admit that, and I take them as evidence that God either does not exist, or he is a remarkably inept communicator.

What would you consider a sufficient type of communication and why?

Quote

...Without natural laws, there would be no way of determining if something was supernatural.

Without a concept of "natural", there would be no way to define "supernatural". But concepts are relatively easy to come by. One could still have a concept of natural laws, even if such laws did not work.

You'll have to explain that one to me. How are you going to have a concept of natural laws if natural laws don't exist? And what would be the point of that anyways? Having a concept of natural laws still doesn't allow for the supernatural to occur if the natural laws don't actually exist.

Quote

I was using your definition of natural. Are you changing your definition? Your words were:"a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." Now you are saying it is something else?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. You just misunderstood me, and I pointed out the source of your misunderstanding--a confusion in your usage of the word "natural". Reread my response to you on that equivocation.

Your words were: "a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." I don't see how I'm misunderstanding that. Maybe you can try stating it another way. What is a natural law?

Copernicus · « **Reply #84 on:** November 12, 2005, 12:59:19 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug

What would you consider a sufficient type of communication and why?

I take it as a given that God wants people to believe that he exists. At least, your version of God does. Moreover, he has the ability to communicate with anyone and everyone at any time. A sufficient communication for me would be a direct communication to me that he exists--i.e. not mediated through some other human who claims to be receiving private revelations from God. I cannot believe that your God would find it impossible to convince me of his existence if he really wanted to. Since he does not communicate with me, I can only conclude that he does not want me to believe that he exists or (more likely) he does not exist.

Quote

You'll have to explain that one to me. How are you going to have a concept of natural laws if natural laws don't exist? And what would be the point of that anyways? Having a concept of natural laws still doesn't allow for the supernatural to occur if the natural laws don't actually exist.

Rare, I'm afraid that it is you, not me, who has to explain the concept of a supernatural (spiritual) plane of existence that is not subject to physical, natural laws. After all, if God created all natural laws, then there must have been a reality when none existed, correct? This is your belief system, not mine.

Quote

Your words were: "a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." I don't see how I'm misunderstanding that. Maybe you can try stating it another way. What is a natural law?

I explained how you were misunderstanding it. Go back to the post where I talked about your equivocation on the word "natural". If I misrepresented you or misstated your position, please explain how. If not, then please respond to that comment. So far, you seem intent on ignoring it.

rareairpug · « **Reply #85 on:** November 12, 2005, 01:54:58 PM »

Quote

I take it as a given that God wants people to believe that he exists. At least, your version of God does. Moreover, he has the ability to communicate with anyone and everyone at any time. A sufficient communication for me would be a direct communication to me that he exists--i.e. not mediated through some other human who claims to be receiving private revelations from God. I cannot believe that your God would find it impossible to convince me of his existence if he really wanted to. Since he does not communicate with me, I can only conclude that he does not want me to believe that he exists or (more likely) he does not exist.

Well, again, to be fair, there are many many accounts of God making contact with humans. The fact that you choose to reject them is another matter altogether. I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that, but let's not deny the fact that there is evidence of God contacting humans.

Quote

You'll have to explain that one to me. How are you going to have a concept of natural laws if natural laws don't exist? And what would be the point of that anyways? Having a concept of natural laws still doesn't allow for the supernatural to occur if the natural laws don't actually exist.

Rare, I'm afraid that it is you, not me, who has to explain the concept of a supernatural (spiritual) plane of existence that is not subject to physical, natural laws. After all, if God created all natural laws, then there must have been a reality when none existed, correct? This is your belief system, not mine.

Well, actually, I don't believe in a universe without natural laws. You are the one who has been postulating that fact. You asked why God would create a universe with natural laws; I answered that question. You seem to think that if God existed, he would not have created a universe with natural laws. So, I'm asking you to describe what that universe would be like. I have no need to---I'm content with what we have. :)

Quote

Your words were: "a natural law is a reliably predictable generalization over repeated events." I don't see how I'm misunderstanding that. Maybe you can try stating it another way. What is a natural law?

I explained how you were misunderstanding it. Go back to the post where I talked about your equivocation on the word "natural". If I misrepresented you or misstated your position, please explain how. If not, then please respond to that comment. So far, you seem intent on ignoring it.

I didn't have a position to misrepresent. I believe I was asking a question. I don't know how to respond to your comment when I don't know how we are defining "natural" for the purpose of this conversation. Once you give me a definition, then I would be more then happy to respond to any comment you made.

Copernicus · « **Reply #86 on:** November 12, 2005, 09:25:57 PM »

Quote from: rareairpug

Well, again, to be fair, there are many many accounts of God making contact with humans. The fact that you choose to reject them is another matter altogether. I'm not saying that you are wrong to do that, but let's not deny the fact that there is evidence of God contacting humans.

Then I suppose it would be fair of you to admit that many, if not all, of those contacts have been mistaken claims or even outright deceptions. Certainly contacts from gods that you do not believe in must have been false. Right? What kind of a god would want people to believe in him, but require that people only have knowledge of him via reports from people who could easily be seen as mistaken or deceptive?

Quote

Well, actually, I don't believe in a universe without natural laws. You are the one who has been postulating that fact. You asked why God would create a universe with natural laws; I answered that question. You seem to think that if God existed, he would not have created a universe with natural laws. So, I'm asking you to describe what that universe would be like. I have no need to---I'm content with what we have. :)

No, I said that it isn't clear why he would want to create a universe of natural laws. After all, his spiritual reality had none. Right? Are there any natural laws that govern heaven?

Quote

I didn't have a position to misrepresent. I believe I was asking a question. I don't know how to respond to your comment when I don't know how we are defining "natural" for the purpose of this conversation. Once you give me a definition, then I would be more then happy to respond to any comment you made.

In fact, we have used "natural" in two different senses. One is the sense of "natural" in philosophical naturalism, which ascribes physical causes to physical events. The other is "natural" in the sense of "occurs commonly". I have not used the term natural to mean "occurs commonly", but that is precisely what you accuse me of. So my criticism of your argument is that it depends on an equivocation. Response?

dark territory · « **Reply #87 on:** November 14, 2005, 03:34:29 AM »

doedoe · « **Reply #88 on:** November 14, 2005, 09:52:14 AM »

I propose that there are no such 'supernatural' laws; but only natural laws of physics that only a suprene God knows and that man has yet to discover. After all, look at the discoveries of the last 30 years.
I don't think that his methods are as 'majical' as they are so far advanced that it seems to be majic.
The vision discribed in the book of Ezekial could be built using today's technology.
God is not hocus pokus. He's real, logical, wise, and available if a person desides to look for Him.
The wizards of old were folks who came across and handed down the knowledge of chemical reactions and other natural sciences. Majic isn't majic. It's unexplainable science.

dark territory · « **Reply #89 on:** November 19, 2005, 02:14:46 AM »

doedoe · « **Reply #90 on:** November 21, 2005, 09:23:32 AM »

Quote from: dark territory

I think this topic should be moved to the DA section now that I see there is one.
I didn't mean to be boring. Actually, I find the universe to be very interesting. The whole universe is based on the spinning atom. the larger the body gets, the more that spin becomes a factor. Energy is produced in the form of heat, electricity, and neuclear.
On earth, all natural energy is produced by the spinning of something.
I see our galaxy as being very much like a hurricane. And I am of the opinion that a black hole is produced in the same way as the eye of a hurricane. Whereas, rather than circulating winds, gravity is the driving forse.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #91 on:** November 26, 2005, 10:54:56 AM »

*interesting*

dark territory · « **Reply #92 on:** December 03, 2005, 12:03:23 AM »

doedoe · « **Reply #93 on:** December 05, 2005, 11:34:37 AM »

Well yeah fine I have heard about blackholes, I have heard all this stuff. But when you talk of black holes, well how do you know they are out there. Maybe it isn't a black hole at all, maybe it's some kind of dark matter or some thing more then we fully understand? It sounds to me like you have made a statement of faith...

I mean yeah sure we think we know where there maybe such a thing, maybe. But we have no proof of such thing. We think it may exist from what we have just begun to understand. Like I said

Quote

It sounds to me like you have made a statement of faith

Faith, is there such a thing in the natural? Is it or isn't it there?[/quote]
Maybe the world ain't round. All you know is what's in front of your nose, and you rarely believe that. Or maybe you're just confrontational.
Sometimes you can believe something because there are witnesses. Of course an educated astronomer would obviously be a boob anyway. Why would anyone believe such a dork?

dark territory · « **Reply #94 on:** December 05, 2005, 11:46:06 PM »

Author Topic: Atheism and debate. (Read 15318 times)