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.
Fair enough, I'll go along with that.Sure, but I'm afraid that when skeptics, atheists, and other outside onlookers hear us "saying" that these models in science are "only models," they're not hearing what we're saying. Unless, of course, some Christians actually DO think that the models have little real efficacy in technological human "doing."
Fair enough, I'll go along with that.
Thanks, I really don't want to go down that path.Yeah, we have learned this the hard way.
The very, very hard way, replete with countless screaming matches and accusations of anti-realism. It's in part the fundamentalists' fault, since they like to point out the same stuff and then use it to bizarrely support their own ideas.
Well, now you’ve captured my interest. I don’t believe in the supernatural either, in part because it seems to be a somewhat incoherent concept and in part because of course I’ve never seen evidence of anything resembling what’s generally referred to as such. But as a theist, I’m very interested to hear how you can believe in a non-supernatural god.Pretty easily. I actually don't believe in the supernatural, but I would define that somewhat differently than you probably would.
Well, now you’ve captured my interest. I don’t believe in the supernatural either, in part because it seems to be a somewhat incoherent concept and in part because of course I’ve never seen evidence of anything resembling what’s generally referred to as such. But as a theist, I’m very interested to hear how you can believe in a non-supernatural god.
Here’s why the label “supernatural” might be incoherent or at least never applicable to anything we can point to. If something “above” or “beyond” the natural exists, it would have to manifest in nature for us to notice it. If it manifests in nature, it should be measurable (even if only theoretically). If it manifests in nature and we can measure it, why label it supernatural?
I promise one day I’ll dive into this Platonism you keep referencing, but for now I’ll sidestep it to mention that I have indeed gone crazy over the question of why anything exists at all. It can be haunting or exhilarating depending on your mood. But if I read you correctly, if nature is a manifestation of God and we are a part of nature, that would make us a part of God, right? This reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s rough definition of God as “transcendent reality.” Insomuch as we are entirely beholden to this reality which has produced us all on its own, I can understand deifying it, but that at best gets us to pantheism, which I’m sympathetic to on particularly starry nights. I just don’t think this qualifies me to say “I believe in God” any more than owning a toy car qualifies me to say “I own a Lamborghini.”Yeah, my feeling is also that "supernatural" is an incoherent concept. This is one of my problems with the term "naturalism," since it seems that it can expand to include phenomena previously considered supernatural if they can be identified and explained. If fairies and ghosts exist, they would have to be in some way natural, not supernatural. The whole dichotomy between natural and supernatural seems artificial to me, so I pretty much just reject it wholesale.
As for theism itself, I'd call my position ontological rather than supernatural. I'd rather go full Neoplatonic and proclaim that God is Beyond Being rather than that he's some sort of supernatural entity, since whatever is meant by "supernatural," it's almost never what I'm thinking of. Where I depart from you is that I don't think God needs to manifest in nature for us to notice him, since I view the existence of nature itself as the manifestation. I'm not sure that would make sense to anyone who's never gone a little bit crazy over the question of why anything at all exists, though.
I promise one day I’ll dive into this Platonism you keep referencing, but for now I’ll sidestep it to mention that I have indeed gone crazy over the question of why anything exists at all. It can be haunting or exhilarating depending on your mood. But if I read you correctly, if nature is a manifestation of God and we are a part of nature, that would make us a part of God, right? This reminds me of Jordan Peterson’s rough definition of God as “transcendent reality.” Insomuch as we are entirely beholden to this reality which has produced us all on its own, I can understand deifying it, but that at best gets us to pantheism, which I’m sympathetic to on particularly starry nights. I just don’t think this qualifies me to say “I believe in God” any more than owning a toy car qualifies me to say “I own a Lamborghini.”
Pretty easily. I actually don't believe in the supernatural, but I would define that somewhat differently than you probably would.
Could you not do this thing where you cut posts up sentence by sentence? Paragraph by paragraph is fine, but unless you actually have substantial commentary to make regarding something very specific, sentence by sentence just says, "I do not want to have a conversation." Usually it results in raising objections that would have been answered if you bothered to first read the whole post in context. Or, you know, asked for clarification.
Define supernatural. Define God.
It seems like you focus mainly on the mythological aspects of theism and then define your position in contrast to that
If you automatically assume that everyone is talking about Zeus tossing down lightning bolts, I imagine it all would look a little crazy.
This is not true. If you insist the other side has a burden of proof, then you have a burden of proof concerning your positive claim that your opponent has the burden of proof.
Anyway, it's not like there aren't problems with the intelligibility of reality if you assume that theism or something like it is not true. Why does the universe appear to function according to regular laws? Because SCIENCE
Well, science observes but doesn't really explain why it's the case that the world works this way instead of a different way. Why does causality seem to hold? If I toss a rock at a window, why doesn't it sometimes turn into a bouquet of flowers? DON'T ASK QUESTIONS. Alright atheists, some of you are really echoing the religious fundamentalists now, but hey, I suppose I already knew that.
And until we find out, the only proper answer is "i don't know".
First you make some stuff up about atheists and then you attack atheism based on those made up things.
I can only shrug my shoulders and walk away. Nothing interesting to see here.
I'm not attacking atheism. I just think it's weird how some atheists seem to think that nobody is entitled to have questions that they themselves don't have.
If you don't look at the world through a lens that presupposes atheism, you're doing it wrong. Anyway, bye!
I have no problem with questions. I do have a problem with vacuous naked assertions masquerading as 'answers'.
Disbelief is the default position. I don't grant from the outset the existence of faeries, dragons, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns etc. For what reason should I make an exception for gods?
I disbelieve this.
In that case, I hope you go after materialists and naturalists and not just theists. Lots of naked assertions and dogmatism in those waters too.
This is very narcissistic, given that my concern was the way certain atheists treat theists, not what the atheists themselves ought to believe. You do not need to make an exception for anything you do not want to.
No I don't, because they're not comparable. At all.
Ok. So I take it that you see no problem in acknowledging that disbelief is - or at least, should be - the default position.
Yeah? Eliminative materialists insisting that the mind doesn't really exist, because you can't describe subjectivity scientifically, and anything that can't be described scientifically must be illusory? You don't see that as at all comparable?
I don't acknowledge that at all. Followed faithfully, that would lead us into fullblown Gorgias level sophistry where you disbelieve literally everything and end up ultimately denying that anything exists at all. As a default position, that's pure lunacy. Though the idea that there could even be a default position seems psychologically naive.
Nope. I don't agree with those positions, but they are at least based on a coherent ontology and epistemology. Theism has neither of those.
No. All it means is you withhold belief in something or set of things until sufficient reason for belief is gleaned. The criteria will vary depending on the subject and the individual, but it's hardly a 'naive' position. You do it all the time, every single day. So do I. So does everyone.
If you're going to make a claim like that, you really ought to support it. Just proclaiming that something is incoherent is a bit of a vacuous naked assertion, after all.
It would be naive to think that there's no underlying network of beliefs that changes from person to person and from culture to culture and that would determine what the default positions were and what qualified as sufficient reason to accept them.
If atheism is your default position, you're perfectly entitled to your own epistemology. If you're going to argue that it ought to be everyone's default position, then you need to do a considerably better job of supporting that than you have so far.
No, that is not my obligation. It's the obligation of people who claim they do have a coherent ontology and epistemology to present it. Comparatively few theists seem to even try.
Again, I argue that disbelief is or at least ought to be the default position on everything, in lieu of reasons for believing. There is nothing special about 'gods' or atheism. The word 'atheist' only exists as a means of differentiating oneself from the status quo on god belief. If belief in leprechauns was the status quo, I would have to identify as an aleprechaunist, for the exact same reason.
Historically, many have. There's a ton of systematic theology out there that rationally presents theistic concepts.
If you are going to call it incoherent, it very much is your obligation to explain why.
As long as you are not making claims concerning what constitutes an appropriate reason to believe, I don't have a problem with your view, except that it becomes somewhat meaningless. Even a fideist who believes that faith is irreconcilable with reason and ought to be privileged above it is going to have a reason for belief: pure, unadulterated irrationalism.
I don't know why you're randomly talking about leprechauns.
Obviously if you were going to say that everyone's default position on leprechauns should be that they didn't exist, you would need to support that claim too. If someone's culture included belief in leprechauns, they would have a culturally informed reason to believe in them. Perhaps from our perspective they would not have a good reason, but it would be our responsibility to make that argument.
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?