I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural. It is not a logical truth afaik.
Upvote
0
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.
I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural. It is not a logical truth afaik.This is how Ignosticism works. It's not that I'm onto another method, it's the same method for the same overall concept. Being Ignostic towards certain things makes sense if there's an obvious lack of understanding for the terminology. But you clearly understand the concept of "evolution", and I assure you I'm genuinely perplexed by the concept of "supernatural".
Depends entirely on the definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Are ghosts supernatural? They emit light, they alter temperature, they can move objects... are they not natural things?I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural. It is not a logical truth afaik.
Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for any statements to the contrary to be true.Depends entirely on the definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural'.
Perhaps, but this is similar to the ignostic's position: the term is so loosely applied that to inherently be sceptical of the supernatural to the point of disbelief is quite rational, in my opinion.Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for things to be otherwise.
True, but again, we can concretely define 'alien'. Can we concretely define 'supernatural'? If we can't, it's an invalid concept to which all people should rationally be a-supernaturalists (â le a-theists).I might want to say "Alien life does not exist, because I define it to be a nonexistent thing, as no life is alien to its habitat" but that would just be silly word games.
I reckon that one can be ignostic about pretty much anything. All one has to do is to keep on asking for clarifications of terminology, branching on forever, and then argue that this implies the original term is meaningless. Anyone prepared to argue that "evolution" is actually a meaningful term, and I'll play at being ignostic?
...particularly when some things are cultural or unnatural.I thing you will have to prove that all that exists is natural.
What is a "logical truth"?It is not a logical truth afaik.
And that´s why some people don´t claim "the supernatural doesn´t exist" but instead ask those who operate with the term "supernatural" to be clear as to how they distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural", a process in which they are not only asking for the definition of "supernatural" but also of the contrasted "natural" that the person is using. That´s exactly what ignosticism is about - if I understand it correctly.Ok if all things are by definition nartural then it is a logical truth that there cannot be any supernatural things, but I think when people say that the supernatural does not exist they are meant to be refering to an alleged contingent and synthetic truth about the world rather than merely affirming a particular linguistic convention which makes it logically impossible, a priori, for any statements to the contrary to be true.
I have to side with you here as I still see "ignosticism" as merely being obtuse and pretending you don't understand the question to claim you have no stance on it.
I don't know about that. I do know the more I examine something the more I find that I don't know about it. So, taking a single stance on a subject is surely to limit and deceive yourself. You have to look at it from all spaciotemporal angles, or at least as many as possible.I have to side with you here as I still see "ignosticism" as merely being obtuse and pretending you don't understand the question to claim you have no stance on it.
You can also just pretend to understand the question. And then go and plug in a "Yes" as a 'answer', that is as good as a "No", or a "Cancel", or ... "42".
I don't know about that. I do know the more I examine something the more I find that I don't know about it. So, taking a single stance on a subject is surely to limit and deceive yourself. You have to look at it from all spaciotemporal angles, or at least as many as possible.
To stubbornly that maintain one point of view is completely correct is ... idolatry(?)
I gave instances of when the question could be comprehensible but you rejected my definition as incomplete, "not better than the rest," or simply wrong, meaning that you must already feel like you know or have some idea as to what the correct, complete, or best definition is.
Hmmm, looks to me like you are appealing to my ideas. Fine.
Let's just say that I have the idea that "God is inherently incomprehensible." So, if you have something that is comprehensible the only conclusion is that it can't be God.
I think that there is a serious weakness in your train of thought.
As I've stated before, if you do have a definition, then there should be no excuse in understanding the question.
Link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771/#post56213114Strong Atheist/Ignostic here.
I do realize that there is a multitude of different concepts of "Gods", but not any of them will do. For instance, a "philosophical" concept of God, i.e. something that is very basic and very diluted, does not cut it. Neither am I out for metaphors, or flowery language in general.
What I am out for when considering the existence of God, though, if looked at in plain daylight, will be contradictory (and very hazy at that). So no qualms about saying "There is no God. Now cry me an agnostic river."
I understand that you're trying really hard to appear neutral but the reality is that makes you appear evasive. As GrowingSmaller said, you seem to take apart a question endlessly to avoid having to answer it. It's disappointing but, so far, this is how I feel the discussion has gone:
Person A: Do you believe in God?
Ignostic: What is "god?"
Person A: It's XYZ.
Ignostic: That's incomplete/wrong/inconsistent with the rest of humanity's definition of "god."
Person A: But do you believe in God defined as XYZ?
Ignostic: Why should I accept this definition? How is this better than other definitions? This is a metaphor. Theologians wouldn't agree. Et cetera, et cetera...
Now, to put this into a more realistic setting, this is usually how the discussion could go with me, if I were to take a bit of a long way to answer:
Person A: Do you believe in God?
Me: What is "god?"
Person A: It's the supernatural being who created the universe.
Me: Seeing as I don't know of any evidence of this being and anything that exists would be natural, as in "of nature" by definition, no I don't believe in this "god" as you defined it.
I think we're speaking WAY past each other here. You're speaking of your beliefs and being a strong atheist and I have no clue how that's relevant to what you quoted from me.That it fantastic news. Here let me repeat my first post to the "Ignosticism" thread:
Link: http://www.christianforums.com/t7516771/#post56213114
Looks like I am right all along.
Not to sound as a total jerk here, but you do realize that there is an equivocation in your response to person A?
Person A obviously takes "supernatural" in the sense that something is (a) not natural, but (b) still can exist. And you just go and re-define "supernatural" it to (a) not natural, and (b) cannot exist.
If it makes you happy, I guess.
I think we're speaking WAY past each other here.
You're speaking of your beliefs and being a strong atheist and I have no clue how that's relevant to what you quoted from me.
That's sort of the point. I answered the question as *I* best understood it.
If the person thinks I'm mistaken, he can try to correct me.
However, despite all this the fact remains that the question is meaningful and most importantly comprehensible and answerable.
Perhaps, but this is similar to the ignostic's position: the term is so loosely applied that to inherently be sceptical of the supernatural to the point of disbelief is quite rational, in my opinion.I have repeatedluy given my definition, is that not exact enough. The word "set" has many meanings, but that does not mean we do not use the word, does it? It seems to meayour setting out to give theistic terminology special treatement.
I guess neither, until they are evaluated.If I say I have a new theory on plate tectonics, and you say you have a new theory on how whale music amplifies crystal healing, which is more credible?
What is a concrete definition. Never heard of one.True, but again, we can concretely define 'alien'.
I am getting all conclusion and no edification here,Can we concretely define 'supernatural'? If we can't, it's an invalid concept to which all people should rationally be a-supernaturalists (â le a-theists)..
A logical truth IRC is something true by definition, like a triangle having 3 sides. A logical truth is true in all possible worlds, and our knowledge of them derives from semantics rather than observation....particularly when some things are cultural or unnatural.
What is a "logical truth"?
How to distinguish experientially, I take the question to be? Not quite sure. Maybe if yo see a "ghost", and are not regarded as insane, then that could be a supernatural experience. I think that the catholic church has a set of criteria that must be met for a visionary experience to be validated. Sanity, morality, religosity IIRC are the main points of analysis.And that´s why some people don´t claim "the supernatural doesn´t exist" but instead ask those who operate with the term "supernatural" to be clear as to how they distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural", a process in which they are not only asking for the definition of "supernatural" but also of the contrasted "natural" that the person is using. That´s exactly what ignosticism is about - if I understand it correctly.
I wasn't aware you had. Could you give it again, or cite the post in which you did?I have repeatedluy given my definition, is that not exact enough.
Not really. Atheists and sceptics make the same mistakes; Gould used fallacious semantics with NOMA, for example.The word "set" has many meanings, but that does not mean we do not use the word, does it? It seems to meayour setting out to give theistic terminology special treatement.
Really? You wouldn't be more sceptical about the whale music than plate tectonics?I guess neither, until they are evaluated.
A definition based on other accepted definitions.What is a concrete definition. Never heard of one.
If 'supernatural' is semantically null, or if it denotes a logically incoherent concept, then no rational person should believe in the supernatural.I am getting all conclusion and no edification here,.
The supernatural is (at least) a subset of the non-natural.I wasn't aware you had. Could you give it again, or cite the post in which you did?
Ok.Not really. Atheists and sceptics make the same mistakes; Gould used fallacious semantics with NOMA, for example.
What if your theory is that plate tectonics is caused by smurfs meddling in the Earth's core, and that whale music simply enhances the placebo effect?Really? You wouldn't be more sceptical about the whale music than plate tectonics?
Ok. Ty.A definition based on other accepted definitions.
Sounds fine to me.If 'supernatural' is semantically null, or if it denotes a logically incoherent concept, then no rational person should believe in the supernatural.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?