Can you be good without God?

[Albion]

Great. So how do you define the supernatural? And how do we go about distinguishing a supernatural cause from a natural one we don't understand yet?

I assume that a natural one that we don't understand yet would be ruled out by any Atheist, too, since that is essentially the basis on which they rule out or refuse to contemplate anything supernatural.

 

[bhsmte]

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.

God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

Prove it.

 

[The Cadet]

I assume that a natural one that we don't understand yet would be ruled out by any Atheist, too, since that is essentially the basis on which they rule out or refuse to contemplate anything supernatural.

How do you think scientific advancement works? We find natural causes we don't understand yet all the time, and then proceed to try to understand them. But heck, let's make it even easier. How do you distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause? Case in point:

Now, we know there's a possible natural cause for this: random heat distribution causing a browning pattern that appears, superficially, to resemble a face, combined with humanity's natural pattern-finding reflexes. Alternatively, I'm sure each of us can easily think of at least one (and indeed, I could probably list off a few dozen before getting bored) hypothetical supernatural explanation for how this came to be. So how do we go about determining what the actual cause was?

 

[Albion]

How do you think scientific advancement works? We find natural causes we don't understand yet all the time, and then proceed to try to understand them. But heck, let's make it even easier. How do you distinguish between a supernatural cause and a natural cause? Case in point:

Now, we know there's a possible natural cause for this: random heat distribution causing a browning pattern that appears, superficially, to resemble a face, combined with humanity's natural pattern-finding reflexes. Alternatively, I'm sure each of us can easily think of at least one (and indeed, I could probably list off a few dozen before getting bored) hypothetical supernatural explanation for how this came to be. So how do we go about determining what the actual cause was?

That would be yours to answer no less than mine, right?

 

[The Cadet]

That would be yours to answer no less than mine, right?

Not really. I'm not convinced that the supernatural exists, or that there's even really a coherent definition thereof that allows it to be distinguished from "things we don't know yet". Without those things, it's not really possible to have a discussion about the supernatural. You haven't provided such a definition, so I'm trying to work from the colloquial examples often offered and go from there. But I don't see how we could ever conclusively establish something to be or not be supernatural in origin - even things where we can directly observe a natural origin.

 

[Albion]

Not really. I'm not convinced that the supernatural exists, or that there's even really a coherent definition thereof that allows it to be distinguished from "things we don't know yet".

My point is that if one is serious about such an investigation he can't just take a pass on the possible evidence, or some of it, either because "I don't believe in that stuff" OR, in your case, because you're not "convinced" that it exists. The point of research, and certainly of discussing the findings, is to address it and find out before you are convinced one way or the other.

You haven't provided such a definition

Well, neither have you, yet you're supposed to be looking into the same question as I am expected to be doing--along with anyone else here who may have the will to join in.

so I'm trying to work from the colloquial examples often offered and go from there. But I don't see how we could ever conclusively establish something to be or not be supernatural in origin - even things where we can directly observe a natural origin.

Perhaps admitting that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural component would be a start.

 

[The Cadet]

My point is that if one is serious about such an investigation he can't just take a pass on the possible evidence, or some of it, either because "I don't believe in that stuff" OR, in your case, because you're not "convinced" that it exists. The point of research, and certainly of discussing the findings, is to address it and find out before you are convinced one way or the other.

I'm not taking a pass on any proposed evidence; no evidence has yet been proposed. We're still discussing definitions.

Well, neither have you, yet you're supposed to be looking into the same question as I am expected to be doing--along with anyone else here who may have the will to join in.

You're the one proposing that the supernatural exists. I don't know whether it exists or not. I don't even know if it's possible, because I don't know what the word means to you. I don't really have a coherent or useful definition handy. The definition I most commonly hear usually goes along the lines of "Cause outside of nature", and the examples I most typically hear basically boil down to "things doing things in nature with means we do not understand"; for example, magic. So already the concept is unclear. You seem to think the supernatural exists. Please define the term. Stop dancing around the issue and just give a straight answer.

Perhaps admitting that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural component would be a start.

Define supernatural. I can't tell you if it's a possibility or not until the term is defined.

 

[Albion]

You're the one proposing that the supernatural exists. I don't know whether it exists or not.

I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.

Stop dancing around the issue and just give a straight answer.

Now, now. Is that they way you want this exchange to go?

Define supernatural. I can't tell you if it's a possibility or not until the term is defined.

Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?

 

[SteveB28]

I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.


Now, now. Is that they way you want this exchange to go?


Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?

That is an intellectually dishonest response. YOU propose that there is such a thing as the 'supernatural'. It is therefore incumbent upon YOU to define it and to provide evidence for it.

The rest of us wait.

 

[Albion]

That is an intellectually dishonest response.

Well, I see that you're not interested in participating. That's all right.

 

[The Cadet]

I'm proposing that we here not exclude anything merely because (as was suggested to me early in the thread) the other person isn't interested in that stuff.

I'm not aware that anyone did that.

Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?

I don't have a definition for it. I have yet to find any definition of "supernatural" that is coherent and sensible. But that's okay, because I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't think it's a useful term, and most of the things people label "supernatural" are things I don't believe exist. I'm not the one proposing that it's a thing. I'm not the one asking for a discussion on it. If you want to discuss something, it's on you to ensure that the subject is well-defined.

Or, alternatively, if you really can't be bothered, I will define it as such:

Supernatural: of and pertaining to things that don't exist. ex: "The Faerie Queen is a supernatural entity, because she's not real."

Not a useful definition, but at least a coherent one, with a clear method of determining the difference between the natural and the supernatural. Plus, when I think of things typically labeled "supernatural", my first response is, "Oh, you mean that thing that doesn't exist?"

 

[SteveB28]

Well, I see that you're not interested in participating. That's all right.

Because someone disagrees with you, they aren't interested in participating!? What a close-minded attitude.

 

[Locutus]

Then why have you held back on giving us your definition of it? You are going to be a participant, no less than I or anyone else who chooses to join in, right?

Pardon the intrusion. I've been watching this exchange, and found myself slightly gobsmacked at the above.

If you're trying to sell something (anything), it's a good idea if you have some information about the item, and an even better idea to avoid asking your mark to explain it in your stead.

 

[Locutus]

That's why my point is that 'intentions' matter. We cannot know *why* someone would choose to remain idle while a rape occurs. Until we know, we cannot judge.

I take it you don't judge people, then? At all, ever? Even for the most horrific of evils (watching a child being raped and not intervening)? You satisfy yourself that the person who did such a thing may have good reasons for doing so, therefore it's not your place to discredit him/her?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I take it you don't judge people, then? At all, ever? Even for the most horrific of evils (watching a child being raped and not intervening)? You satisfy yourself that the person who did such a thing may have good reasons for doing so, therefore it's not your place to discredit him/her?

This is Correct, I do not judge people, or discredit anyone, ever.

But I never said it satisfies me that anyone would ever have a "good" reason to witness a child being raped, only to remain idle and do nothing to stop it.

 

[Albion]

Because someone disagrees with you, they aren't interested in participating!? What a close-minded attitude.

You've gotta address the issue if you want to debate, that's all.

 

[Albion]

I don't have a definition for it. I have yet to find any definition of "supernatural" that is coherent and sensible. But that's okay, because I don't believe in the supernatural.

How can you investigate or discuss this issue if you've already ruled out looking at part of the possible factors (and, BTW, one of the most commonly suggested ones)? I apologize if it seems to you that I have been coy about definitions, etc, but to begin a discussion about the cause or meaning of anything while holding one intellectual hand behind your back doesn't make sense to me.

Any normal dictionary definition of the supernatural is probably all right with me, but, obviously, not "something that doesn't exist." That's like beginning an investigation into beach erosion and starting off by saying that air and wind won't be considered since they obviously do not exist. After all, you can't see them and you can't feel them, so they won't be considered, only water and foot traffic.

And, to be sure, I wouldn't think a discussion on something like the designated topic here that ruled out anything other than the supernatural would be worth having, either.

 

[Albion]

Pardon the intrusion. I've been watching this exchange, and found myself slightly gobsmacked at the above.

If you're trying to sell something (anything), it's a good idea if you have some information about the item, and an even better idea to avoid asking your mark to explain it in your stead.

I understand where you're coming from, but I am not selling the supernatural. What "I am" is reluctant to launch into a deeper discussion on this matter and beginning by taking one of the leading answers off the table only because other participants say, "Oh, but I won't discuss that since I don't believe in it."

I can define supernatural as well as anyone else who owns a dictionary, but I needed to know if my producing a definition would facilitate anything...or if, having done so, the reply would still be "We won't consider that as a possibility, only the ideas we already lean towards."

 

[quatona]

I've picked supernatural. Who among us is unafraid to discuss that possibility ALONG WITH purely natural explanations?

On what grounds could this possibility be discussed?

 

[Albion]

I am not supposing that discussing this kind of topic will produce a firm and final answer. What I do know is that it's pointless to even start into such a discussion by immediately ruling out of consideration the most commonly-given answer to the question and, worse than that, ridiculing the idea of it being included. But since others don't see it that way, I'm willing to live with having pointed out the problem and, consequently, I suggest that you all go ahead and "have at it" in your own way. I'll just read whatever is posted.