Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

[Trajk Logik]

Impossible. The claims of those who actually believe in a supernatural realm also make claims about how the natural and supernatural realm are related and how one can effect the other. God (the supernatural) made the natural world. Cause and effect exist between them.

All conclusions from every domain of investigation must be integrated into a consistent whole. If you don't do this you can never arrive at an objective truth

'Natural' and 'Supernatural' are mutually exclusive, by definition. Some phenomena claimed as supernatural could be explained as being Natural, sure, but not god.

The fact is that God, if it exists, must be part of nature. Its actions are one of cause and effect. It possesses a goal and then acts on it. It's actions can have a direct effect on the natural world. So either everything is natural, or everything is supernatural. This dichotomy of natural vs. supernatural is a reflection of the nonsense of dualism.

This statement suggests that you don't understand the nature of god as believed by Christians/Muslims etc. He is not of the Natural world. It's a fundamental part of their belief system. Therefore, science can never prove nor disprove anything about god.

I understand their claims perfectly as I made those claims myself being a former Christian. Now I'm an atheist because I came to realize that these claims and the definitions are inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say the supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive and then also make claims about how a supernatural entity made the natural world. If God doesn't need a maker, then why does the universe need one?

[BishBoshMcCosh]

'Natural' and 'Supernatural' are mutually exclusive, by definition. Some phenomena claimed as supernatural could be explained as being Natural, sure, but not god.
.

And of course if it is not part of nature, it is part of the imagination.

You really need to read the Ontological argument. Also, I'm not sure how you're using the word 'imagination' From the context I'd guess you mean 'not real' but that's not what the word means:

Imagination - "action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses"

Just because something isn't present to the senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Hobbes' Choice]

'Natural' and 'Supernatural' are mutually exclusive, by definition. Some phenomena claimed as supernatural could be explained as being Natural, sure, but not god.
.

And of course if it is not part of nature, it is part of the imagination.

You really need to read the Ontological argument. .

You really need to learn how to be less arrogant, and patronising.

If you think patronising is a good argumentative technique: I've seen the Ontological Argument, the Teleological argument, and plenty more crackpot ideas, when you were still sucking your mum's tit, boy!!

The ontological argument does not refute, nor does it even begin to address my comment.

I dod not claim ideas do not exist, far from it, I claimed them to be art of the imagination. That would be the metaphysical constructions all present in the realm of ideas, but not material reality beyond their cerebral structures which enable the anticipated interpretation by the mind.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

I understand their claims perfectly as I made those claims myself being a former Christian. Now I'm an atheist because I came to realize that these claims and the definitions are inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say the supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive and then also make claims about how a supernatural entity made the natural world. If God doesn't need a maker, then why does the universe need one?

Well that's the thing with god, all bets are off. In his sole and unique case, yes it's perfectly possible that a supernatural being created the natural world, because..... god.

Inconsistency is explained away by what I call the 'unknowable nature of god defence, with a little bit of 'mysterious ways' thrown in. We can't win this one.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

I've seen the Ontological Argument, the Teleological argument, and plenty more crackpot ideas

Those 'crackpot ideas' have stood for many hundreds of years without effective counters.

The ontological argument does not refute, nor does it even begin to address my comment.

You've consistently mentioned 'imagination' as if it discounts and logically explains away ideas of god, but it doesn't. Not only that, but there exists the Ontological argument which 'proves' the existence of god precisely because of what we can imagine.

Your 'imagination' criticism doesn't seem to be doing the work that you think it is.

I dod not claim ideas do not exist, far from it, I claimed them to be art of the imagination. That would be the metaphysical constructions all present in the realm of ideas, but not material reality beyond their cerebral structures which enable the anticipated interpretation by the mind.

This doesn't prove that god doesn't exist and it sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say :p

[surreptitious57]

The claims of those who actually believe in a supernatural realm also make claims about how the natural and supernatural realm are
related and how one can effect the other. God (the supernatural) made the natural world. Cause and effect exist between them

They do for those that are making the claim but if it cannot be tested to determine its actual validity then it is non scientific
Since science only investigates natural phenomena and so anything beyond that like the supernatural cannot be investigated
And those that believe in the supernatural do so from a position of faith for which precisely no evidence or proof is required

[Trajk Logik]

Just because something isn't present to the senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You can say that for anything, including flying, purple-polka-dotted people eaters. Anything that exists only in the mind and not out in the natural world, has an equal chance of existing. I could say that the purple-polka-dotted people eater is Meganatural, as opposed to Supernatural in order to evade any scientific investigations about it, yet still claim that it exists and made the universe, and it has just as much validity as the existence of some supernatural entity.

[Trajk Logik]

I understand their claims perfectly as I made those claims myself being a former Christian. Now I'm an atheist because I came to realize that these claims and the definitions are inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say the supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive and then also make claims about how a supernatural entity made the natural world. If God doesn't need a maker, then why does the universe need one?

Well that's the thing with god, all bets are off. In his sole and unique case, yes it's perfectly possible that a supernatural being created the natural world, because..... god.

Inconsistency is explained away by what I call the 'unknowable nature of god defence, with a little bit of 'mysterious ways' thrown in. We can't win this one.

Exactly! It's unknowable! If it's unknowable, then how can anyone make any claims about it in the first place, like that it's supernatural? What does supernatural mean anyway?

[Trajk Logik]

The claims of those who actually believe in a supernatural realm also make claims about how the natural and supernatural realm are
related and how one can effect the other. God (the supernatural) made the natural world. Cause and effect exist between them

They do for those that are making the claim but if it cannot be tested to determine its actual validity then it is non scientific
Since science only investigates natural phenomena and so anything beyond that like the supernatural cannot be investigated
And those that believe in the supernatural do so from a position of faith for which precisely no evidence or proof is required

Which is just the Christian tactic to evade scientific and logical inquiry.

The religious have no problem using reason and logic when it comes to solving problems in their lives and in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual, but throw all that logic and reason out the window when it comes to solving the problem of how humans came to exist.

[surreptitious57]

What does supernatural mean anyway?

That which can not be investigated by the scientific method
That which is non physical or has no physical cause or origin

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Which is just the Christian tactic to evade scientific and logical inquiry.

The religious have no problem using reason and logic when it comes to solving problems in their lives and in determining the guilt or innocence of an individual, but throw all that logic and reason out the window when it comes to solving the problem of how humans came to exist.

Now you're conflating 'science' and 'reason and logic' when they can be used completely independently of each other. The application of the scientific method requires logic and reason, but reason and logic does not require a scientific approach. Science is not another word for reason and logic, it's a very specific methodology for the acquisition of knowledge.

Science cannot be applied to the question of god's existence, it's that simple.

Exactly! It's unknowable! If it's unknowable, then how can anyone make any claims about it in the first place, like that it's supernatural? What does supernatural mean anyway?

Because...... The Bible. I'm being serious.

You can say that for anything, including flying, purple-polka-dotted people eaters. Anything that exists only in the mind and not out in the natural world, has an equal chance of existing. I could say that the purple-polka-dotted people eater is Meganatural, as opposed to Supernatural in order to evade any scientific investigations about it, yet still claim that it exists and made the universe, and it has just as much validity as the existence of some supernatural entity.

Not everything has an equal chance of existing. Some things are more likely than others. See the Cosmological argument from Contingency for why god is more likely than not.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I've seen the Ontological Argument, the Teleological argument, and plenty more crackpot ideas

Those 'crackpot ideas' have stood for many hundreds of years without effective counters.

The ontological argument does not refute, nor does it even begin to address my comment.

You've consistently mentioned 'imagination' as if it discounts and logically explains away ideas of god, but it doesn't. Not only that, but there exists the Ontological argument which 'proves' the existence of god precisely because of what we can imagine.

Your 'imagination' criticism doesn't seem to be doing the work that you think it is.

I dod not claim ideas do not exist, far from it, I claimed them to be art of the imagination. That would be the metaphysical constructions all present in the realm of ideas, but not material reality beyond their cerebral structures which enable the anticipated interpretation by the mind.

This doesn't prove that god doesn't exist and it sounds like something Deepak Chopra would say :p

I don't give a rat's kidney for Chopra. And so what it does not prove a negative. Big deal.
You've not even begun to understand what I was saying.
Since you are mired in dead and never effective arguments by log dead delusionists, I doubt you are worth taking the time over to explain what was actually a completely uncontestable observation.
Your loss.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Just because something isn't present to the senses doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You can say that for anything, including flying, purple-polka-dotted people eaters. Anything that exists only in the mind and not out in the natural world, has an equal chance of existing. I could say that the purple-polka-dotted people eater is Meganatural, as opposed to Supernatural in order to evade any scientific investigations about it, yet still claim that it exists and made the universe, and it has just as much validity as the existence of some supernatural entity.

No, you can say that for stuff not present to the senses, such as your wank mag under the dirty crusty socks under your bed. But since you have responded without addressing the context of the remark it's not necessary to respond seriously to your comment.

[Terrapin Station]

I understand their claims perfectly as I made those claims myself being a former Christian. Now I'm an atheist because I came to realize that these claims and the definitions are inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say the supernatural and natural are mutually exclusive and then also make claims about how a supernatural entity made the natural world. If God doesn't need a maker, then why does the universe need one?

Well that's the thing with god, all bets are off. In his sole and unique case, yes it's perfectly possible that a supernatural being created the natural world, because..... god.

Inconsistency is explained away by what I call the 'unknowable nature of god defence, with a little bit of 'mysterious ways' thrown in. We can't win this one.

I don't consider winning to amount to getting other people to agree with me. Winning amounts to being right.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

I don't consider winning to amount to getting other people to agree with me. Winning amounts to being right.

Me too, but since there's no way to overcome that argument, no one 'wins' in the 'mysterious ways' conversation. It's just a figure of speech.