• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A question for atheists and agnostics

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
If you were convinced that God exists, how would your attitude towards miracles (be it the Resurrection of Christ, or other miracles, like Marian apparitions, charismatic gifts, etc) change?
What is my current attitude towards them, and in which way/direction do you feel it could/might change if I were convinced a god existed?

Are you asking: If you´d believe in a God - would you be quicker to ascribe unexplained events to direct divine intervention?

No, I don´t think so.

Or are you asking something else?

I think it would help a meaningful discussion greatly if you´d define the words "miracle" and "God", for purposes of your question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Many things:
- I'd say that the laws of nature are laws about what will happen given that there is no intervention, so a miracle wouldn't really violate them.

And I say, as you can read in my post, that a distinction needs to be made between the subjective laws of nature (= our tentative models obtained through the scientific method) and the objective laws of nature (= the actual rules that we are trying to zero-in on through the scientific method)

The objective laws of nature are a set of rules that govern all of existence. ALL of existence. That means, if something exists BEYOND our observable universe (a multi verse, extra dimensions, parallell universes, gods, whatever), then that something is PART of ALL of existence. And these things are bound by the objective laws of nature (=existence) just like everything else.

- Your naturalistic/empiricist presuppositions are pretty plain here. You blatantly assume theoughout this entire post that only natural/material things can exist, and your only justification of said assumption is that they cannot be empirically demonstrated, ergo empiricism.

Don't strawman me. Instead, try to understand what I am REALLY saying.

- What you said about how if supernatural entities have effects on the natural world, that makes them natural is invalid. When you play a video game, you can effect the video game, but that doesn't make you yourself part of the video game.

I'll assume that the video game is an analogy for our space-time continuum. And you call just this universe "nature". I completely disagree with that. When I talk about "nature", I'm talking about ALL THAT EXISTS. If things exist beyond our universe, then those things are included in ALL THAT EXISTS.

I, as a game hacker, programmer, player or cheater of the game am bound by the rules of the plain of existence I EXIST ON. In the very nature of the video game itself are also rules that allow ME to interfere with that internal world.

Again, if a multi-verse exists, then there are laws that govern how that multi-verse works. The universes that come from it can come with their own set of laws. But they don't make the laws of multi-verse dissappear.

In fact, the laws of the multi-verse will pretty much determine the set of possible universes (each with potentially it's own set of laws) that can come from it.

The same goes for gods or any other thing of which the existence is proposed. If gods exist, then they exist in some way on some plain of existence.

- Your statement that calling something a miracle is an argument from ignorance is simply false. Calling something a miracle is often an inference from the context of the event, along with the impossibility of it happening naturally

There's a misconception hidden in this statement. First, how do you know what is "impossible" if you are not all-knowing?
Secondly, "happening naturally" is an invalid statement.
For example, computers don't happen "naturally". In fact, much of the materials used for its components don't even occur "naturally". Humans create those machines. So there is an intervention to produce an object that does not occur naturally. I guess you will disagree that compuers are "miracles".

Third, I have issues with the word "impossible". If something is impossible, then it is impossible. If a certain thing can happen (like a miracle - however you define it), then that certain thing is BY DEFINITION not impossible. Things that are possible are not impossible.


Take the Resurrection of Jesus for instance. Now, there are those that say that Jesus rose miraculously from the dead, and there are those that say He didn't rise from the dead, but no sane person says that He rse from the dead, but that maybe someday we will habe an explanation of it.

If Jesus got resurected, then he got resurected in some way.
If this was the result of an all-knowing, all-powerfull being, then there are rules that allow for such thing to take place. Then such a thing is not impossible, since it happened - making it possible.

I have no issues with the idea that perhaps we are not able to comprehend HOW it happened. Our brains might physiologically simply not be fit to understand such things. Just like the brain of a chimp is physiologically not fit to comprehend quantum mechanics or newtonian physics. But nevertheless, if it happened then it happened in some way.

If a chimp would have the knowledge we have concerning science, the chimp too could build and deploy a GPS system.
Likewise, if we would have the knowledge that such a deity has, then we too could resurect people.

It happened in some way. The laws of nature / existence ALLOW for it to happen in some way. Just like they ALLOW humans to build non-naturally occuring cars, computers and space shuttles.

Not only are spontaneous resurrections after a night, a day and a night dead completely biologically impossible by natural means

But it didn't happen by natural means. The claim of christianity is not that he spontanously came back to life without intervention.

Just like nobody claims that GPS satellites naturally assemble and get deployed. Somebody is intervening to build these things. Just like in christianity, some deity intervened to resurect a dead human.

Clearly, the laws and rules of nature / existence did not make it impossible for this being to do so. Just like the laws and rules of nature / existence did not make it impossible for us to build computers.


Again: if a thing exists, then that thing exists in some way, in some place, in some form. If this thing can then do certain things (like reaching into a space-time continuum or even creating it), then it can do these things in some way. And those actions are then possible by definition.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you were convinced that God exists, how would your attitude towards miracles (be it the Resurrection of Christ, or other miracles, like Marian apparitions, charismatic gifts, etc) change?

Depends on which god(s) you're talking about and why I was convinced that god/ those gods exist. A deist or naturalist pantheist god? No change at all. Another type of non-Christian religion - no change towards the miracles you list but I might or might not accept the miracles attributed to the god(s) I now believe in. The Christian God? Depends on which version of that god as well. There's hardly a uniform opinion among all Christians on that subject even without me converting.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
- Your naturalistic/empiricist presuppositions are pretty plain here. You blatantly assume theoughout this entire post that only natural/material things can exist, and your only justification of said assumption is that they cannot be empirically demonstrated, ergo empiricism.

A Catholic van Tillian. Now I've seen everything.

'Supernatural' does not even have a positive, coherent definition, let alone a workable method by which the glean information about it. It is an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous non-concept with zero explanatory power. As such, there is no reason to even consider it as a plausible explanation for anything.

That is why it is discarded out of hand. Not because I 'presuppose' naturalism.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2014
71
1
✟22,686.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
And I say, as you can read in my post, that a distinction needs to be made between the subjective laws of nature (= our tentative models obtained through the scientific method) and the objective laws of nature (= the actual rules that we are trying to zero-in on through the scientific method)

The objective laws of nature are a set of rules that govern all of existence. ALL of existence. That means, if something exists BEYOND our observable universe (a multi verse, extra dimensions, parallell universes, gods, whatever), then that something is PART of ALL of existence. And these things are bound by the objective laws of nature (=existence) just like everything else.



Don't strawman me. Instead, try to understand what I am REALLY saying.



I'll assume that the video game is an analogy for our space-time continuum. And you call just this universe "nature". I completely disagree with that. When I talk about "nature", I'm talking about ALL THAT EXISTS. If things exist beyond our universe, then those things are included in ALL THAT EXISTS.

I, as a game hacker, programmer, player or cheater of the game am bound by the rules of the plain of existence I EXIST ON. In the very nature of the video game itself are also rules that allow ME to interfere with that internal world.

Again, if a multi-verse exists, then there are laws that govern how that multi-verse works. The universes that come from it can come with their own set of laws. But they don't make the laws of multi-verse dissappear.

In fact, the laws of the multi-verse will pretty much determine the set of possible universes (each with potentially it's own set of laws) that can come from it.

The same goes for gods or any other thing of which the existence is proposed. If gods exist, then they exist in some way on some plain of existence.



There's a misconception hidden in this statement. First, how do you know what is "impossible" if you are not all-knowing?
Secondly, "happening naturally" is an invalid statement.
For example, computers don't happen "naturally". In fact, much of the materials used for its components don't even occur "naturally". Humans create those machines. So there is an intervention to produce an object that does not occur naturally. I guess you will disagree that compuers are "miracles".

Third, I have issues with the word "impossible". If something is impossible, then it is impossible. If a certain thing can happen (like a miracle - however you define it), then that certain thing is BY DEFINITION not impossible. Things that are possible are not impossible.




If Jesus got resurected, then he got resurected in some way.
If this was the result of an all-knowing, all-powerfull being, then there are rules that allow for such thing to take place. Then such a thing is not impossible, since it happened - making it possible.

I have no issues with the idea that perhaps we are not able to comprehend HOW it happened. Our brains might physiologically simply not be fit to understand such things. Just like the brain of a chimp is physiologically not fit to comprehend quantum mechanics or newtonian physics. But nevertheless, if it happened then it happened in some way.

If a chimp would have the knowledge we have concerning science, the chimp too could build and deploy a GPS system.
Likewise, if we would have the knowledge that such a deity has, then we too could resurect people.

It happened in some way. The laws of nature / existence ALLOW for it to happen in some way. Just like they ALLOW humans to build non-naturally occuring cars, computers and space shuttles.



But it didn't happen by natural means. The claim of christianity is not that he spontanously came back to life without intervention.

Just like nobody claims that GPS satellites naturally assemble and get deployed. Somebody is intervening to build these things. Just like in christianity, some deity intervened to resurect a dead human.

Clearly, the laws and rules of nature / existence did not make it impossible for this being to do so. Just like the laws and rules of nature / existence did not make it impossible for us to build computers.


Again: if a thing exists, then that thing exists in some way, in some place, in some form. If this thing can then do certain things (like reaching into a space-time continuum or even creating it), then it can do these things in some way. And those actions are then possible by definition.
I'm going to respond to many of your major points. I'm not gong to respond to everything, because a lot of your post is just stating your opinion, and quite frankly I don't have the time.
- "Naturally impossible" is not "impossible." Learn the difference.
- Your analogy of GPSs actually supports my case. Laws of nature talk about what will happen under certain conditions, which include that no intervention happens.
- I can know that something is impossible by natural means by comparing it to what is possible by natural means. Now, you could say that I can't know it's naturally impossible, because I can't say I'm 100% sure it's naturally impossible, but by that standard of knowledge, there isn't that much we do know.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2014
71
1
✟22,686.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
A Catholic van Tillian. Now I've seen everything.

'Supernatural' does not even have a positive, coherent definition, let alone a workable method by which the glean information about it. It is an ontologically and epistemologically vacuous non-concept with zero explanatory power. As such, there is no reason to even consider it as a plausible explanation for anything.

That is why it is discarded out of hand. Not because I 'presuppose' naturalism.
Huh? I'm not a presuppositionalist, in fact the reason why I am critiquing his blatant circular reasoning is the same reason I critique presups' blatant circular reasoning.
And defining the supernatural is pretty darn easy. That which is outside of the natural.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Huh? I'm not a presuppositionalist, in fact the reason why I am critiquing his blatant circular reasoning is the same reason I critique presups' blatant circular reasoning.
And defining the supernatural is pretty darn easy. That which is outside of the natural.

And how exactly is that definition useful?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Huh? I'm not a presuppositionalist,

You sure sound like one.

defining the supernatural is pretty darn easy. That which is outside of the natural.

Firstly, that's not a positive definition.

Secondly, it answers absolutely nothing.

What exactly does it mean to be 'outside nature'?

By what method is information about things 'outside nature' reliably gleaned?

How are things 'outside nature' reliably differentiated from imaginary things?

How are things 'outside nature' reliably differentiated from unknown natural phenomena?

By what mechanism does something 'outside nature' causally integrate with nature?

If things 'outside nature' can causally integrate with nature, why not just expand your definition of 'nature' to include those things?

That will do for a start.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2014
71
1
✟22,686.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You sure sound like one.



Firstly, that's not a positive definition.

Secondly, it answers absolutely nothing.

What exactly does it mean to be 'outside nature'?

By what method is information about things 'outside nature' reliably gleaned?

How are things 'outside nature' reliably differentiated from imaginary things?

How are things 'outside nature' reliably differentiated from unknown natural phenomena?

By what mechanism does something 'outside nature' causally integrate with nature?

If things 'outside nature' can causally integrate with nature, why not just expand your definition of 'nature' to include those things?

That will do for a start.
- Who cares if it's not a positive definition? Extra-terrestrial means outside of planet Earth, and that's not a positive definition, but it's still a definition.
- The fact that you can't empirically obtain knowledge about supernatural agents (which is what I think a lot of these questions are meant to demonstrate), is only a problem if you 're an empiricist.
- I am what you would call an idealist, so the interaction problem isn't a problem with my view, because both the natural and supernatural would be the same fundamental substance, so it is possible for them to interact, even though you might not be able to empirically show how.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
- Who cares if it's not a positive definition? Extra-terrestrial means outside of planet Earth, and that's not a positive definition, but it's still a definition.
- The fact that you can't empirically obtain knowledge about supernatural agents (which is what I think a lot of these questions are meant to demonstrate), is only a problem if you 're an empiricist.
- I am what you would call an idealist, so the interaction problem isn't a problem with my view, because both the natural and supernatural would be the same fundamental substance, so it is possible for them to interact, even though you might not be able to empirically show how.

If you can't show things to interact, there is no basis to think they do. Especially if you have working models which don't require the interaction.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
- Who cares if it's not a positive definition? Extra-terrestrial means outside of planet Earth, and that's not a positive definition, but it's still a definition.

That's because there is an established universe of discourse with 'extra-terrestrial' - things not on Earth, and everything else, which is a massive category of things.

There is no such universe of discourse with 'supernatural'. There is no indication that 'things not in nature' is a meaningful category at all.

- The fact that you can't empirically obtain knowledge about supernatural agents (which is what I think a lot of these questions are meant to demonstrate), is only a problem if you 're an empiricist.

I didn't say a single word about empiricism. You've bereaved yourself of the privilege of utilizing empiricism as your epistemology. To appeal to it would be an internal contradiction.

Your problem is not merely that you haven't demonstrated the 'supernatural' empirically. Your problem is that you have no epistemology to speak of.

- I am what you would call an idealist, so the interaction problem isn't a problem with my view, because both the natural and supernatural would be the same fundamental substance, so it is possible for them to interact, even though you might not be able to empirically show how.

If 'supernature' is ontologically identical to nature, then the term is superfluous.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
- "Naturally impossible" is not "impossible." Learn the difference.

Then explain the difference.

Are computers "naturally impossible"? If not, why not?

- Your analogy of GPSs actually supports my case. Laws of nature talk about what will happen under certain conditions, which include that no intervention happens.

Really? So GPS systems are supernatural?

- I can know that something is impossible by natural means by comparing it to what is possible by natural means. Now, you could say that I can't know it's naturally impossible, because I can't say I'm 100% sure it's naturally impossible, but by that standard of knowledge, there isn't that much we do know.

So, are computers "naturally impossible"?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
- Who cares if it's not a positive definition?

People who value substance over useless nonsense.

Extra-terrestrial means outside of planet Earth, and that's not a positive definition, but it's still a definition.

Actually, extra-terrestrial means from places in the universe other then planet earth. Like Mars, Venus or even other solar systems.
Can you give examples of places "outside of existence"?
This is why your defintion is useless. Because it doesn't mean anything.

- The fact that you can't empirically obtain knowledge about supernatural agents (which is what I think a lot of these questions are meant to demonstrate), is only a problem if you 're an empiricist.

No. It is a problem when you value being justified in your beliefs.

- I am what you would call an idealist, so the interaction problem isn't a problem with my view, because both the natural and supernatural would be the same fundamental substance, so it is possible for them to interact, even though you might not be able to empirically show how.

The word "supernatural" is a meaningless word.
When we talk about the laws of nature, we mean the laws/rules that govern everything that exists. If gods exist, then they exist in some way on some plain of existence. And they couldn't have created "existence", since that would have existence existing before existence existing. It makes no sense.

Gods, if they exist, are bound by the laws of existence just like any other thing that exists.

But until you can actually demonstrate such existence, the whole discussion is an exercise in futility and wasting of energy.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I maintain that every attempt that has ever been made to define 'supernatural' has rendered the concept meaningless, superfluous or demonstrably non-existent. I am convinced it is nothing but a vacuous buzzword designed to shelter concepts like gods, angels, miracles, demons, ghosts, souls, magic and 'psychic' power from scrutiny. I don't know that believers consciously use it in this way, but for all appearances, that is its only function.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2014
71
1
✟22,686.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Then explain the difference.

Are computers "naturally impossible"? If not, why not?



Really? So GPS systems are supernatural?



So, are computers "naturally impossible"?
Well, computers/GPSs would be naturally impossible in the sense that the laws of nature alone could not make them. So to use the video game analogy, our minds would be like somebody playing with an avatar loaded up in the video game doing things in it, and God would be like the ultimate remote controller.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 11, 2014
71
1
✟22,686.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
People who value substance over useless nonsense.



Actually, extra-terrestrial means from places in the universe other then planet earth. Like Mars, Venus or even other solar systems.
Can you give examples of places "outside of existence"?
This is why your defintion is useless. Because it doesn't mean anything.
More question-begging, I see?



No. It is a problem when you value being justified in your beliefs.
...And when you're also an empiricist


The word "supernatural" is a meaningless word.
When we talk about the laws of nature, we mean the laws/rules that govern everything that exists. If gods exist, then they exist in some way on some plain of existence. And they couldn't have created "existence", since that would have existence existing before existence existing. It makes no sense.


Gods, if they exist, are bound by the laws of existence just like any other thing that exists.
More question-begging, I see?

But until you can actually demonstrate such existence, the whole discussion is an exercise in futility and wasting of energy.
You mean empirically? If not, there are plenty of arguments whose conclusion is that something which would be supernatural exists (but I won't make the mistake of following the red herrings of talking abojt the specific ones again.) If so, then... more question-begging, I see?

I have to admit, if the people on this thread and on this subforum are going to keep using blatant circular reasoning like this, I'm going to lose my patience. Perhaps this subtitle of this subforum should be "A forum for atheists to blatantly assume their philosophy and epistemology".
 
Upvote 0