The Moral Argument (revamped)

[gaara4158]

Define "measurable," gaara.

In this context, it just means independently observable. I know that some people will make supernatural claims that cannot be independently observed, but the same can be said for natural claims, and that’s the problem. What’s the actual difference? It seems to me that any actual difference should be demonstrable, but any difference that’s demonstrable would have to manifest in ways that are identical to the ways natural things manifest, in which case we could never tell the difference.

 

[gaara4158]

I gave all the information you needed. You replied to it over and over again. You simply disagree with it, and I understand that. So that is why I am moving on to proof and will be addressing that from now on, as that is what you are truly after (not getting caught up on a technicality of a definition). So if you wish to further debate this please reply to post 435 The Moral Argument (revamped). If you don't wish to contend my evidences for the supernatural, then we can politely agree to disagree and end this debate.

It’s not a simple disagreement. I reject the very concept of the supernatural as meaningless or incoherent as far as you’ve managed to define it, so moving on to proof, especially of the empirical sort, would be pointless. We don’t just disagree, you don’t understand my position and I don’t understand yours. Until you define the supernatural, that’s how things are going to stay.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In this context, it just means independently observable. I know that some people will make supernatural claims that cannot be independently observed, but the same can be said for natural claims, and that’s the problem. What’s the actual difference? It seems to me that any actual difference should be demonstrable, but any difference that’s demonstrable would have to manifest in ways that are identical to the ways natural things manifest, in which case we could never tell the difference.

Why would we expect God's effects to be "independently observable"? Because we think we read things that take on these conceptual proportions in the Bible? It seems to me that this generic expectation (though not really due to too much fault of our own many times) is predicated upon certain dare a couple of things: 1) relying upon fictional projections about what we think God should be doing rather, and 2) assuming that epistemological problems which involve both human perception and conception don't apply in any case.

And why do we do too often subscribe to these things? Are we programmed to do so by today's culture?

 

[gaara4158]

Why would we expect God's effects to be "independently observable"? Because we think we read things that take on these conceptual proportions this in the Bible? It seems to me that this generic expectation (though not really due to too much fault of our own many times) is predicated upon certain dare a couple of things: 1) relying upon fictional projections about what we think God should be doing rather, and 2) assuming that epistemological problems which involve both human perception and conception don't apply in any case.

And why do we do too often subscribe to these things? Are we programmed to do so by today's culture?

Oh, I agree with your point here. God can do whatever he wants in whatever way he pleases. What I was arguing against is the concept of the supernatural and why there’s nothing we observe or could observe, subjectively or objectively, that would establish any difference between the natural and the supernatural. God can have all the powers you picture him having, I just don’t see any meaningful way to apply the adjective “supernatural” to him. That’s why I’ve been asking for a better definition of “supernatural” than I’ve seen so far.

For example, perhaps supernatural things are those which are exempt from the laws of nature in this universe. A supernatural stone, then, could float in the air unassisted while still having all the same properties, such as mass and density, as a regular stone. But this invokes a paradox. The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive or prohibitive. As soon as such a stone is observed, the laws of nature that would normally say it couldn’t exist would have at least one exception if not be entirely disproved, and then such a stone wouldn’t be in violation of them. So a supernatural stone would cease to be supernatural as soon as it came to exist.

Do you see the problem I’m wrestling with? Maybe you can help.

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s not a simple disagreement. I reject the very concept of the supernatural as meaningless or incoherent as far as you’ve managed to define it, so moving on to proof, especially of the empirical sort, would be pointless. We don’t just disagree, you don’t understand my position and I don’t understand yours. Until you define the supernatural, that’s how things are going to stay.

I have defined it and you have rejected it, so if you wish to proceed please answer my post The Moral Argument (revamped)

until then, it was good debating you and I wish you the best in life.

Maybe when you enter further debates, try being nicer.

I won't be replying further to any of your posts because of rudeness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I agree with your point here. God can do whatever he wants in whatever way he pleases. What I was arguing against is the concept of the supernatural and why there’s nothing we observe or could observe, subjectively or objectively, that would establish any difference between the natural and the supernatural. God can have all the powers you picture him having, I just don’t see any meaningful way to apply the adjective “supernatural” to him. That’s why I’ve been asking for a better definition of “supernatural” than I’ve seen so far.

Alright. I see where you're coming from off of your prior discussion with gradyll, and as one who operates within Methodological Naturalism on the scientific side of things, but as an Existential Subjectivist on the other side of things, I too can understand that if God is active in the 'now,' there seems to be essentially no difference empirically between His presence as a Supernatural actor 'now' and Nature as we typically understand it.

For example, perhaps supernatural things are those which are exempt from the laws of nature in this universe. A supernatural stone, then, could float in the air unassisted while still having all the same properties, such as mass and density, as a regular stone. But this invokes a paradox. The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive or prohibitive. As soon as such a stone is observed, the laws of nature that would normally say it couldn’t exist would have at least one exception if not be entirely disproved, and then such a stone wouldn’t be in violation of them. So a supernatural stone would cease to be supernatural as soon as it came to exist.

Do you see the problem I’m wrestling with? Maybe you can help.

Well..........*sigh*

As you already know, I don't hold to an empirical set of expectations when I speak about God. But, let's just focus on one interior conceptual point before we go attempting to apply that concept to our present reality. I think that in order for us to even begin to understand what a 'supernatural' God would have to be like, we'd have to make some minimal demarcation as to what the bare minimum can be for God to be considered a supernatural being. Would you say that your 'stone' analogy should serve as an example of a minimum demarcation by which we could substantively define 'supernatural'?

 

[gaara4158]

Alright. I see where you're coming from off of your prior discussion with gradyll, and as one who operates within Methodological Naturalism on the scientific side of things, but as an Existential Subjectivist on the other side of things, I too can understand that if God is active in the 'now,' there seems to be essentially no difference empirically between His presence as a Supernatural actor 'now' and Nature as we typically understand it.

Well..........*sigh*

As you already know, I don't hold to an empirical set of expectations when I speak about God. But, let's just focus on one interior conceptual point before we go attempting to apply that concept to our present reality. I think that in order for us to even begin to understand what a 'supernatural' God would have to be like, we'd have to make some minimal demarcation as to what the bare minimum can be for God to be considered a supernatural being. Would you say that your 'stone' analogy should serve as an example of a minimum demarcation by which we could substantively define 'supernatural'?

I don’t think departing from an empirical standpoint helps us out of this conundrum, based on my stone example. Even conceptually, if we define the supernatural as whatever the universe prohibits, nothing supernatural can be said to exist in the universe without invoking a contradiction. Sure, that leaves it able to exist outside the universe, but then it becomes tricky to determine whether it could interact with the universe without invoking contradictions.

It should be noted that I’m not arguing that because the supernatural is impossible, God is impossible. I’m just exploring a problem I’ve had with the concept of the supernatural.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think departing from an empirical standpoint helps us out of this conundrum, based on my stone example. Even conceptually, if we define the supernatural as whatever the universe prohibits, nothing supernatural can be said to exist in the universe without invoking a contradiction. Sure, that leaves it able to exist outside the universe, but then it becomes tricky to determine whether it could interact with the universe without invoking contradictions.

It should be noted that I’m not arguing that because the supernatural is impossible, God is impossible. I’m just exploring a problem I’ve had with the concept of the supernatural.

It sounds to me like we need to wrestle with the concept of "Law of Nature" first, here. If, as you said, the laws of nature are descriptive, even if substantively so from our understanding of them today, it seems that this fits in line with Methodological Naturalism, does it not?

Wouldn't fact be that if we're dealing with a God who is Autonomous from own own human wills and intellects, then we can specifically define the exacting parameters of what the notion of supernatural would entail, that in addition to the regular expectations of the natural we have in merely descriptive terms, we could have room to possible, although not necessarily, observe effects of supernatural events that are:

1) One time events that will not be repeated.
2) Imperceptible nudges within Nature that we'll not be able to gauge in "the moment."
3) Possible phenomena, such as Jesus supposedly worked, that are clearly out of the usual parameters for what we currently understand about the laws of nature.

My point is, the term Supernatural is ambiguous and without God telling us exactly what the parameters are for measuring such manifestations, we're at a loss as to what to look for ............ or when to look for it.

So, in essence, and if I do in fact understand you correctly, I think you're right about there not being any clearly decipherable mechanism or measurement by which to 'detect' God, unless He decides to enable a manifestation which we can individually, even if not corporately, deem as something distinctly "uber" from the norm. The point at which I stick here is with your implication that this will always result in a clear contradiction in all supernatural cases, 1, 2 and 3 that I've listed above.

For instance, let's say that the Big Bang was indeed ... done by God. How would we know? It's a one time event, and due to this fact as it pertains singularly to deep space and time, we can't discern that it came from God, although in the hypothetical instance I'm referring, He did it. And hence, we would not say that in that instance the supernatural event was a contradiction.

 

[createdtoworship]

 

[gaara4158]

It sounds to me like we need to wrestle with the concept of "Law of Nature" first, here. If, as you said, the laws of nature are descriptive, even if substantively so from our understanding of them today, it seems that this fits in line with Methodological Naturalism, does it not?

Wouldn't fact be that if we're dealing with a God who is Autonomous from own own human wills and intellects, then we can specifically define the exacting parameters of what the notion of supernatural would entail, that in addition to the regular expectations of the natural we have in merely descriptive terms, we could have room to possible, although not necessarily, observe effects of supernatural events that are:

1) One time events that will not be repeated.
2) Imperceptible nudges within Nature that we'll not be able to gauge in "the moment."
3) Possible phenomena, such as Jesus supposedly worked, that are clearly out of the usual parameters for what we currently understand about the laws of nature.

My point is, the term Supernatural is ambiguous and without God telling us exactly what the parameters are for measuring such manifestations, we're at a loss as to what to look for ............ or when to look for it.

So, in essence, and if I do in fact understand you correctly, I think you're right about there not being any clearly decipherable mechanism or measurement by which to 'detect' God, unless He decides to enable a manifestation which we can individually, even if not corporately, deem as something distinctly "uber" from the norm. The point at which I stick here is with your implication that this will always result in a clear contradiction in all supernatural cases, 1, 2 and 3 that I've listed above.

For instance, let's say that the Big Bang was indeed ... done by God. How would we know? It's a one time event, and due to this fact as it pertains singularly to deep space and time, we can't discern that it came from God, although in the hypothetical instance I'm referring, He did it. And hence, we would not say that in that instance the supernatural event was a contradiction.

I think you’ve grasped my position pretty well, but as for our sticking point, I’m not sure you’ve solved it. Is it not possible for singular events such as those in cases 1, 2, and 3 to have natural causes? If so, it’s not clear what makes those cases supernatural. If not, then we run into the contradiction again: if it happens, it’s not prohibited, and if it’s not prohibited it’s natural.
But you seem to be working under an additional premise, and it might actually work: anything done by God is supernatural. We could avoid the contradictions that way, and now the only problem would be our inability to determine empirically what really was done by God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you’ve grasped my position pretty well, but as for our sticking point, I’m not sure you’ve solved it. Is it not possible for singular events such as those in cases 1, 2, and 3 to have natural causes? If so, it’s not clear what makes those cases supernatural. If not, then we run into the contradiction again: if it happens, it’s not prohibited, and if it’s not prohibited it’s natural.

I'm sure you're right that I haven't solved it, but then again, I'm of the persuasion that this venture of looking for a clearly discernible criterion by which to measure the 'supernatural' acts of God is essentially an unsolvable one. As for the singular events such as those in cases 1 - 3 being of a natural cause, I'm thinking that #1 and #2 could very well, for all intensive purposes, look like merely natural occurrences. As for #3, I don't think these kinds of supernatural instances could be chalked up to natural causes in all cases, especially if we were indeed there to witness the supernatural phenomenon, such as would be the case if we were one of the direct and socially entangled observers of Jesus' ministry.

However, despite what I've just said above, let's notice too that even in the Bible, there are various kinds of epistemic confusions evident in how different people thought they should identify and classify even the 'supernatural' acts of Jesus (or those associated in the narratives involving Moses). And if we find these variances in human perception even within the New Testament writings, why should we be surprised that not everything that God will do will be readily discernible to us in its ontological totality, even if the phenomenon in question is one that we can be privy to in the present moment?

Hence, even though our respective evaluations about the essence of the supernatural are similar, I'm going to assert that from my perspective what you see as "contradicting" is probably better seen as "ambiguous," for want of a better term. And this epistemological and ontological "ambiguity" will likely bleed over into our understandings about how morality manifests in our world if God is somehow present in the moral make-up of humanity.

But that's my take on it. Feel free to disagree ...

But you seem to be working under an additional premise, and it might actually work: anything done by God is supernatural. We could avoid the contradictions that way, and now the only problem would be our inability to determine empirically what really was done by God.

... yes, I'd say you've got the gist of my position on this stuff. But, again, feel free to press the issue on these specifics if you think you need to, or if it seems I'm still missing something. Maybe I am.

 

[createdtoworship]

(insult 1) Ok, you're all over the place now, and you're approaching woo woo territory. I would caution you to use more stringent definitions in your arguments.

(name calling, #2) And now you're throwing quantum physics and a spiritual realm into this? This adds to my suspicion that you're doing a Deepak Chopra with a bunch of terms no one understands and hoping it sticks.

you mention that you never told me to read a philosophy book and that I mistook you for another poster. As it is rude to tell someone they need to study more, because they are not intelligent in a debate. Here is a post where you do mention it.

...We really would be better off reading a philosophy book at that point.

Here you cop an attitude at appeal to authority, I am the only one you disagreed with as far as posts, so you were basically saying my posts are painful for you to read.

It's painful to watch this unfold, so I'll try to clear this up. It is a fallacious appeal to authority when you quote someone who is an authority...

This is just some of the posts where you were rude, belittling, and using ad hominems, and name calling.

 

[gaara4158]

Hence, even though our respective evaluations about the essence of the supernatural are similar, I'm going to assert that from my perspective what you see as "contradicting" is probably better seen as "ambiguous," for want of a better term. And this epistemological and ontological "ambiguity" will likely bleed over into our understandings about how morality manifests in our world if God is somehow present in the moral make-up of humanity.

I think we agree on the epistemically ambiguous nature of supernatural events, but ontologically I still think the idea of a supernatural event happening inside the universe is contradictory, simply as a matter of definition (per the one I originally provided). Now, if we were to go by the definition that supernatural events are anything that God directly causes, then the contradictions are avoided and we rely more on our respective worldviews than empirical evidence to determine whether an event was supernatural or not.

 

[gaara4158]

you mention that you never told me to read a philosophy book and that I mistook you for another poster. As it is rude to tell someone they need to study more, because they are not intelligent in a debate. Here is a post where you do mention it.

Here you cop an attitude at appeal to authority, I am the only one you disagreed with as far as posts, so you were basically saying my posts are painful for you to read.


This is just some of the posts where you were rude, belittling, and using ad hominems, and name calling.

This is all very subjective, and I can see why it might not be fun to be at the receiving end of these comments, but I think you're assuming some intent that truly wasn't there. It's difficult to discern tone well via text, and we're all guilty of reading comments with which we disagree in unflattering voices. But I will contend that none of this is what you say it is, and here's why.

The first comment you mention, in which I said you were all over the place and approaching woo-woo territory, was not meant as an insult. It was a candid comparison of your argument to woo-woo. Woo-woo refers to unconventional beliefs that have no scientific basis, and that's where you were headed when trying to intermingle spirituality and quantum physics as one in your argument defending your concept of the supernatural.

The second quoted comment, the supposed name-calling, was again not an insult, but a candid comparison. Deepak Chopra is notorious for speaking of quantum physics and spirituality as interconnected in a way that is deeply unscientific and often unintelligible. Your move appeared similar. I never called you a name. I wasn't calling you Deepak Chopra, I was saying your argument was similar to his. You can take issue with that, in which case you could accuse me of a strawman fallacy, but this was in no way an ad hominem as you claimed.

Yes, I did write down the words "philosophy textbook," at some point, but it was in the context of explaining to you why it is not helpful to paste entire arguments lifted from someplace else in conversations here. Someone else can do the same thing in response, and if that's what goes on here, we truly are better off reading a philosophy textbook because it would contain all the same information plus commentary critiquing both sides, with references. I never called you unintelligent nor did I tell you to study more. Everyone could benefit from studying more, but I did not personally instruct you to do so. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

When I said it was painful to watch that unfold, it wasn't just because of what you were saying. It was because none of you seemed to be able to agree upon what exactly an appeal to authority was and why it was fallacious. I didn't even know who was guilty at the time, I just saw a whole page of back-and-forth arguing about who had committed it and who hadn't. So I helped. I was not copping an attitude.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had about my attitude. I'm on friendly terms with most users here, atheist and theist alike, and I'd hate to have to count you as an exception.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we agree on the epistemically ambiguous nature of supernatural events, but ontologically I still think the idea of a supernatural event happening inside the universe is contradictory, simply as a matter of definition (per the one I originally provided). Now, if we were to go by the definition that supernatural events are anything that God directly causes, then the contradictions are avoided and we rely more on our respective worldviews than empirical evidence to determine whether an event was supernatural or not.

Maybe I'm close to being brain dead at the moment, but I'm not clear on what you precisely mean by "contradiction" in reference to a supernatural event that may take place 'inside' the universe (as oppposed to 'outside' of it?). How is this a contradiction? I get that you're inferring that descriptive laws of nature don't prohibit the supernatural, but if I'm simply inferring that we'll ONLY be able to discern the supernatural under the most unique of subjective circumstances, those circumstances that are typically not prone to science, then I'm not sure where there's a foul up in my logic here. [e.g. ... let's say that you're hypothetically deaf, but I pray to Jesus for you to be healed and 'viola,' you begin to hear a whole lot of stuff. This is what I'm referring to by a uniquely situated circumstance---it would be a present moment supernatural event inside the universe as we know it, but it would be unrepeatable, and it would be unlike, let's say, the Big Bang, an earlier and impersonal supernatural event]. But, again, I may be missing something.

Maybe for me to grasp what you're getting at, I'd have to understand your 'worldview' in contrast to mine, gaara. What is your "worldview," by the way? I'm not sure I actually have one, at least not one that is more than speculative.

 

[gaara4158]

Maybe I'm close to being brain dead at the moment, but I'm not clear on what you precisely mean by "contradiction" in reference to a supernatural event that may take place 'inside' the universe (as oppposed to 'outside' of it?). How is this a contradiction? I get that you're inferring that descriptive laws of nature don't prohibit the supernatural, but if I'm simply inferring that we'll ONLY be able to discern the supernatural under the most unique of subjective circumstances, those circumstances that are typically not prone to science, then I'm not sure where there's a foul up in my logic here. [e.g. ... let's say that you're hypothetically deaf, but I pray to Jesus for you to be healed and 'viola,' you begin to hear a whole lot of stuff. This is what I'm inferring to by a uniquely situation circumstance---it would be a present moment supernatural event inside the universe as we know it, but it would be unrepeatable]. But, again, I may be missing something.

Maybe for me to grasp what you're getting at, I'd have to understand your 'worldview' in contrast to mine, gaara. What is your "worldview," by the way? I'm not sure I actually have one, at least not one that is more than speculative.

I'm worried I may have used a few five-dollar words incorrectly if I'm causing this much confusion
What I'm getting at is that my original definition of the supernatural, being "that which cannot happen in this universe," could never be used to describe anything that happens in the universe, because that would be saying "Something that can't happen, happened." Either it can or it can't, and if it does then by definition it must have been possible. You're focusing on our inability to discern what's supernatural and what isn't when faced with a singular observation, and while I agree that that's an issue when we use your preferred definition of "anything God does," it's a moot point when we use the one I offered.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is all very subjective, and I can see why it might not be fun to be at the receiving end of these comments, but I think you're assuming some intent that truly wasn't there. It's difficult to discern tone well via text, and we're all guilty of reading comments with which we disagree in unflattering voices. But I will contend that none of this is what you say it is, and here's why.

The first comment you mention, in which I said you were all over the place and approaching woo-woo territory, was not meant as an insult. It was a candid comparison of your argument to woo-woo. Woo-woo refers to unconventional beliefs that have no scientific basis, and that's where you were headed when trying to intermingle spirituality and quantum physics as one in your argument defending your concept of the supernatural.

The second quoted comment, the supposed name-calling, was again not an insult, but a candid comparison. Deepak Chopra is notorious for speaking of quantum physics and spirituality as interconnected in a way that is deeply unscientific and often unintelligible. Your move appeared similar. I never called you a name. I wasn't calling you Deepak Chopra, I was saying your argument was similar to his. You can take issue with that, in which case you could accuse me of a strawman fallacy, but this was in no way an ad hominem as you claimed.

Yes, I did write down the words "philosophy textbook," at some point, but it was in the context of explaining to you why it is not helpful to paste entire arguments lifted from someplace else in conversations here. Someone else can do the same thing in response, and if that's what goes on here, we truly are better off reading a philosophy textbook because it would contain all the same information plus commentary critiquing both sides, with references. I never called you unintelligent nor did I tell you to study more. Everyone could benefit from studying more, but I did not personally instruct you to do so. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

When I said it was painful to watch that unfold, it wasn't just because of what you were saying. It was because none of you seemed to be able to agree upon what exactly an appeal to authority was and why it was fallacious. I didn't even know who was guilty at the time, I just saw a whole page of back-and-forth arguing about who had committed it and who hadn't. So I helped. I was not copping an attitude.

I hope this clears up any confusion you had about my attitude. I'm on friendly terms with most users here, atheist and theist alike, and I'd hate to have to count you as an exception.

excuses are what we say when we don't want to do something, you don't want to debate nicely that much is apparent.

 

[Tinker Grey]

excuses are what we say when we don't want to do something, you don't want to debate nicely that much is apparent.

He was being perfectly reasonable. You are not.

 

[gaara4158]

excuses are what we say when we don't want to do something, you don't want to debate nicely that much is apparent.

I've explained myself thoroughly, and I now consider this matter closed. If you don't have anything further to say pertaining to the original thread topic, please don't quote me.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've explained myself thoroughly, and I now consider this matter closed. If you don't have anything further to say pertaining to the original thread topic, please don't quote me.

Well, I have exposed what I feel are the posts that were meant to belittle, insult and flame. But I can also see that you realize your mistake to a point and I don't feel the need to rub it in. If you wish to further debate the moral case for Gods existence please let me know. I would like a reply to this post regarding evidence for the spiritual realm. The Moral Argument (revamped), as a sign of good faith that we are ready to move on.