Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
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.

Given how unpleasantly you speak to me I'm not as devastated as you might imagine. I'm quite happy to continue if you can lose the insults, sarcasm and angry tone, they don't make you right, just difficult to talk to.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:
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

"Supernatural" keeps being defined by simply something that can't be investigated by the scientific method, as if the term was created specifically for this instance - not as something that has ever been experienced. This is how the religious try to have their cake and eat it too. They define "supernatural" as something that can't be scientifically investigated, yet have no evidence that this is the case (they just make it up as they go just to evade any logical and reasonable arguments against it (in other words they are incorrigible), AND make scientific claims about how the universe - a natural event - was created.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: 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.

Trajk Logik wrote:

BishBoshMcCosh wrote: 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.

Trajk Logik wrote: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.

I'm not conflating. Everyone does science, just as everyone can do philosophy.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.

Science, as the word is commonly used, implies these things: first, the gathering of knowledge through observation; second, the classification of such knowledge, and through this classification, the elaboration of general ideas or principles. In the familiar definition of Herbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.


Does the Bible mention the word, "Supernatural"? If so, where? "Supernatural" is a modern term created specifically to counter the explanatory power of science.

God is just as likely as any other imaginary entity, especially the God in the Bible, to exist. The theory that "God did it." just exacerbates the problem of "How did the universe and everything in it get here?" If god, in all his infinite complexity doesn't require a designer, then why does the universe?

Trajk Logik wrote:Does the Bible mention the word, "Supernatural"? If so, where? "Supernatural" is a modern term created specifically to counter the explanatory power of science.

Ok, because of how science works, a new word was invented to distinguish between what science can explain, and what it can't. I'm fine with that since it strongly supports exactly what I'm saying to you, that science can't prove or disprove the existence of god.

Trajk Logik wrote: I'm not conflating. Everyone does science, just as everyone can do philosophy.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.

Science, as the word is commonly used, implies these things: first, the gathering of knowledge through observation; second, the classification of such knowledge, and through this classification, the elaboration of general ideas or principles. In the familiar definition of Herbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.

I'm not interested in how words are 'commonly' used, only in what they actually mean. Lay misunderstandings of what words really mean in their source context are not support for anything except further misunderstandings.

Trajk Logik wrote:God is just as likely as any other imaginary entity, especially the God in the Bible, to exist. The theory that "God did it." just exacerbates the problem of "How did the universe and everything in it get here?" If god, in all his infinite complexity doesn't require a designer, then why does the universe?

God doesn't require a designer because there can't be an infinite regress. As a general position, you can't just keep repeating that god is 'imaginary' and expect anyone to accept that as an explanation for why god doesn't exist. You can't prove it .....but..... you shouldn't have to, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim that god exists, you should be asking them for their proof not trying to come up with proof (e.g. that he is imaginary) that god doesn't exist.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:Does the Bible mention the word, "Supernatural"? If so, where? "Supernatural" is a modern term created specifically to counter the explanatory power of science.

Ok, because of how science works, a new word was invented to distinguish between what science can explain, and what it can't. I'm fine with that since it strongly supports exactly what I'm saying to you, that science can't prove or disprove the existence of god.

But what has science been unable to explain? You do understand that learning is a process, right? - and that you can't explain everything right here and now, but science progresses and builds on what lessons were learned before.

God itself has been continually relegated into meaninglessness and nothingness by science. Gods were thought to control the weather, droughts, luck, love, etc. Now we have scientific explanations for these things. It seems to me that the religious just keep coming up with more nonsense just to keep their beliefs from being logically and reasonably explained. Religious beliefs are delusions that enable certain people from losing their sanity when thinking about death and the unfairness in the world. It's simply a coping mechanism. The fact that they are incorrigible is more evidence that they are delusional. Look up the symptoms of having delusions.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: I'm not conflating. Everyone does science, just as everyone can do philosophy.

At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.

Science, as the word is commonly used, implies these things: first, the gathering of knowledge through observation; second, the classification of such knowledge, and through this classification, the elaboration of general ideas or principles. In the familiar definition of Herbert Spencer, science is organized knowledge.

I'm not interested in how words are 'commonly' used, only in what they actually mean. Lay misunderstandings of what words really mean in their source context are not support for anything except further misunderstandings.

LOL. How did you learn what words mean, if not by how you watched them being used by others? You didn't come into this world with an objective understanding of words. You had to learn them, and you learned their meaning by how they were used.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:God is just as likely as any other imaginary entity, especially the God in the Bible, to exist. The theory that "God did it." just exacerbates the problem of "How did the universe and everything in it get here?" If god, in all his infinite complexity doesn't require a designer, then why does the universe?

God doesn't require a designer because there can't be an infinite regress. As a general position, you can't just keep repeating that god is 'imaginary' and expect anyone to accept that as an explanation for why god doesn't exist. You can't prove it .....but..... you shouldn't have to, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim that god exists, you should be asking them for their proof not trying to come up with proof (e.g. that he is imaginary) that god doesn't exist.

You didn't answer my question. I asked "...then why does the universe need a designer?" God creates the infinite regress because God is there as a creator of complexity. God itself is complex (the evidence for this comes from an inconsistent account of the properties of God from all believers) and would therefore require a creator. The universe simply exists and always has. No need to make things more complicated and create an infinite regress by imposing a creator of a complex universe.

Trajk Logik wrote: But what has science been unable to explain?

The supernatural, because science can't explain that.

Trajk Logik wrote:You do understand that learning is a process, right? - and that you can't explain everything right here and now, but science progresses and builds on what lessons were learned before.

Yes I do, but science is only one of several methods of 'knowledge acquisition/ways of explaining what we observe' and can only address what falls into it's purview. Do you know anything about Epistemology?

Trajk Logik wrote:
God itself has been continually relegated into meaninglessness and nothingness by science.

No, he hasn't. Things previously attributed to the actions of gods have now been explained without requiring gods, but that's a long way from being "relegated into meaninglessness and nothingness". There are still many deeper and broader questions about life and the universe in which religious theories still play a vital role. That hasn't changed because we now know what causes lightening, or earth quakes.

Trajk Logik wrote: LOL. How did you learn what words mean, if not by how you watched them being used by others? You didn't come into this world with an objective understanding of words. You had to learn them, and you learned their meaning by how they were used.

Yes, but many words are used differently by lay people than they are by experts. E.g. 'Theory' - commonly used as a word for an idea for how something works, but in Science, the word Theory is used very differently, it's the 'accepted explanation for something', not just an idea, an idea is a Hypothesis. So if lay people don't understand what the word 'Science actually' means, I'm not going to use their misunderstanding to support anything I'm saying, I'm going to use the definition used by scientists.

Science cannot 'explain everything' because for something to be scientific it has to meet a number of criteria. Supernatural phenomena don't meet them. http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyo ... Theory.htm. Religion is sustained by 'Faith, and faith is not scientific.

Trajk Logik wrote:You didn't answer my question. I asked "...then why does the universe need a designer?" God creates the infinite regress because God is there as a creator of complexity. God itself is complex (the evidence for this comes from an inconsistent account of the properties of God from all believers) and would therefore require a creator. The universe simply exists and always has. No need to make things more complicated and create an infinite regress by imposing a creator of a complex universe.

Yes I did. If god requires a designer, then the designer of god requires a designer... etc etc going back into infinite regress, but it's logically impossible to have an infinite regress, so there must be a 'first uncaused cause' and that's god. This is all explained in the Cosmological argument which I've mentioned a few times now but I don't think you've taken the time to look it up. You should, it would help.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: But what has science been unable to explain?

The supernatural, because science can't explain that.

There is nothing to explain here.
Psychology and psychiatry pretty well has it all wrapped up tight.

There is nothing outside, above, beyond, or under nature.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:
The supernatural because science cannot explain that

It cannot but does the so called supernatural really exist

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote: But what has science been unable to explain?

The supernatural, because science can't explain that.

This is circular reasoning. In order to break out of the circle you need to explain what observations lend themselves to supernatural explanations and why science could never explain without resorting "because they're supernatural". Good luck with that.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:You do understand that learning is a process, right? - and that you can't explain everything right here and now, but science progresses and builds on what lessons were learned before.

Yes I do, but science is only one of several methods of 'knowledge acquisition/ways of explaining what we observe' and can only address what falls into it's purview. Do you know anything about Epistemology?

As I explained before, all conclusions from all domains of investigations must be able to be integrated into a consistent whole. In other words, I'm seeking an explanation of how the supernatural and natural could be mutually exclusive yet still have a causal relationship between them.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:
God itself has been continually relegated into meaninglessness and nothingness by science.

No, he hasn't. Things previously attributed to the actions of gods have now been explained without requiring gods, but that's a long way from being "relegated into meaninglessness and nothingness". There are still many deeper and broader questions about life and the universe in which religious theories still play a vital role. That hasn't changed because we now know what causes lightening, or earth quakes.

What it is is evidence that what we currently explain as having a supernatural cause doesn't. Science is a process and it takes time for us to learn about ourselves and the world. The religious aren't patient. They want to fill any gap in their knowledge with their god and fail to understand that science is gradually filling these gaps with natural explanations. Be patient.

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:

Trajk Logik wrote:You didn't answer my question. I asked "...then why does the universe need a designer?" God creates the infinite regress because God is there as a creator of complexity. God itself is complex (the evidence for this comes from an inconsistent account of the properties of God from all believers) and would therefore require a creator. The universe simply exists and always has. No need to make things more complicated and create an infinite regress by imposing a creator of a complex universe.

Yes I did. If god requires a designer, then the designer of god requires a designer... etc etc going back into infinite regress, but it's logically impossible to have an infinite regress, so there must be a 'first uncaused cause' and that's god. This is all explained in the Cosmological argument which I've mentioned a few times now but I don't think you've taken the time to look it up. You should, it would help.

You still didn't answer the question. You keep answering the question of why god doesn't need a designer. I'm heading you off and asking why the universe needs a designer. According to your own argument here, if the universe requires a designer, then the designer requires a designer.

I think I've shown well enough that you refuse to be intellectually honest. I'm done here.

Trajk Logik wrote:But what has science been unable to explain? .

Can science explain why people believe in God?

Or does it require a supernatural leap of faith?

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:...there must be a 'first uncaused cause' and that's god. This is all explained in the Cosmological argument...

The problem with the cosmological argument is that its initial premise, "there must be a'first uncaused cause'", is unsound. While it might seem plausible, it is not logically necessary; it is an assumption. There is no argument that can prove it is the case, that doesn't appeal to other dubious premises. How do you answer the question 'Why must there be an uncaused cause?'

uwot wrote:

BishBoshMcCosh wrote:...there must be a 'first uncaused cause' and that's god. This is all explained in the Cosmological argument...

The problem with the cosmological argument is that its initial premise, "there must be a'first uncaused cause'", is unsound. While it might seem plausible, it is not logically necessary; it is an assumption. There is no argument that can prove it is the case, that doesn't appeal to other dubious premises. How do you answer the question 'Why must there be an uncaused cause?'

Agreed.
The reason for this assertion is the notion that nothing comes from nothing. So there must be a first uncaused cause? NO!
Simply if that is the justification then where did the first cause come from.

It is not even seemingly plausible, nor logical.

Dup post.

Trajk Logik wrote: This is circular reasoning. In order to break out of the circle you need to explain what observations lend themselves to supernatural explanations and why science could never explain without resorting "because they're supernatural". Good luck with that.

No, it's not Circular, my conclusion isn't contained within a premise. I'm simply saying that by definition, something that only deals with the natural, can't deal with the supernatural. It's your misunderstanding of what science is that's the problem.

1) Science deals with the Natural through Methodological Naturalism.
2) God, by definition, is supernatural.
----
C1) Science cannot 'deal' with god.

That is logically valid and definitely not Begging the question.

Trajk Logik wrote: As I explained before, all conclusions from all domains of investigations must be able to be integrated into a consistent whole. In other words, I'm seeking an explanation of how the supernatural and natural could be mutually exclusive yet still have a causal relationship between them.

Well, to borrow your words "Good luck with that.". To achieve that on the subject of Science and religion you will have to redefine the characteristics of a god that you don't even think exists. Tricky.

Trajk Logik wrote:What it is is evidence that what we currently explain as having a supernatural cause doesn't. Science is a process and it takes time for us to learn about ourselves and the world. The religious aren't patient. They want to fill any gap in their knowledge with their god and fail to understand that science is gradually filling these gaps with natural explanations. Be patient.

No. This is just an assumption by you and you're using Inductive logic (somethings have been explained therefore all can be explained) which isn't logically valid. Your assertion that 'The religious aren't patient' is nonsense, a waste of words.

Trajk Logik wrote:
I think I've shown well enough that you refuse to be intellectually honest. I'm done here.

Up to you but I have answered that question multiple times. The problem is that you don't understand the answer (or what 'intellectually honest' means apparently). Notice that posters have subsequently addressed my answer where you have simply ignored it. My guess is that you never read the argument and so still have no idea what it is you're disagreeing with.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Agreed.
The reason for this assertion is the notion that nothing comes from nothing. So there must be a first uncaused cause? NO!
Simply if that is the justification then where did the first cause come from.

It is not even seemingly plausible, nor logical.

You're kinda missing the point here. The first cause was uncaused, it didn't 'come' from anywhere. That's possible because the first cause is God. You can disagree but nothing you said in your post actually disproves that. Simply saying something is 'illogical' doesn't make it so, you have to show why it is and you haven't.