Do you believe in God

[LJoll]

After Tekkengod's thread I decided to see if I coud make a poll that would make it slightly clearer where people stand. I have made it an open poll so we can learn a bit about eachother, as opposed to just the proportions of MAPers that do or do not believe in God.

[|MT|omar]

I don't belive in any gods, i've grown up to only belive in what i can see, feel or hear (if that makes sence)

[Dmitri]

I guess "any form" also means perfection, universal knowledge etc.
If my guess is right, then yes.

Not that kind of God that's sitting on the clouds and shooting lightening on bad people.

[tekkengod]

no of course not, but i'd say i am disgusted by the idea of the christian/catholic/musilum god.

[Shrukin89]

I thought there was really only one God, but that made me change my mind to believe in other God's from different cultures... I didn't know which God to believe in so... Why not believe in all of them? I think it would be better to confess your sins to all of them rather than just one God.

I dunno, God should like appear and say here I am! Believe in me, not the Muslim God, or the Buddist. I am the one you should believe in. Would the real God please stand up? No because God is everywhere, and can't just magically appear.

Gah :bang:

[CosmicFish]

It's still a bit black and white. Strictly speaking I dont' believe in any form of god, so I voted "no". However, there's a vast difference between someone like Tekken with his almost militant atheism (not picking on you mate, you're just the most obvious choice :)) and those like me, who consider that they've not found sufficient evidence for the existence of a God, but prefer to remain open-minded.

[Lord Spooky]

they've not found sufficient evidence for the existence of a God, but prefer to remain open-minded.



My missus made me a believer……… well there’s got to be something to it screaming God the way she does ;)


:D

[LJoll]

It's still a bit black and white. Strictly speaking I dont' believe in any form of god, so I voted "no". However, there's a vast difference between someone like Tekken with his almost militant atheism (not picking on you mate, you're just the most obvious choice :)) and those like me, who consider that they've not found sufficient evidence for the existence of a God, but prefer to remain open-minded.

Although it is a bit black and white, I don't neccesarily think that's a bad thing. Atleast there aren't hundreds of vague options that you kind of fit into. Most people on this site will go into one of the categories and it allows a straight comparison.

[wrydolphin]

It is a much clearer poll and at least the options are related to each other. :D

I do believe in God, but am willing to admit that I don't know or understand everything about him. The way I figure it, all religions are pretty much refering to God, just in a way that reflects their cultures and mores. So, despite the fact that there are many religions, everyone is still talking about the same thing. Just in a way that they understand rather then in absolutes.

[CosmicFish]

Although it is a bit black and white, I don't neccesarily think that's a bad thing. Atleast there aren't hundreds of vague options that you kind of fit into. Most people on this site will go into one of the categories and it allows a straight comparison.
True, and that's why I voted in this one.

My missus made me a believer……… well there’s got to be something to screaming God the way she does
Doesn't it bother you that, literally speaking, she's calling out someone else's name? ;) :p

[robertmap]

Doesn't it bother you that, literally speaking, she's calling out someone else's name? ;) :p


OK so what's the worst name she could call out at that moment then....

Hmmm.....

"Mickey, Mickey, Mickey MOUSE"
or
"Stalin, Stalin, Stalin" (Even I can't figure out why I thought of that...).
or........

All the best.

Robert.

[Lord Spooky]

Doesn't it bother you that, literally speaking, she's calling out someone else's name? ;) :p


Na I see it more as praise :D

[saru1968]

I believe in something, somewhere else, elusive...

:-)

[Lord Spooky]

I believe in something, somewhere else, elusive...

:-)


Your hair? :D :D

[Davey Bones]

Yes, and I think Wry is spot on...

[Lord Spooky]

I have to believe in God now with what’s happened over the last month I don’t have a choice!

[cloudz]

I acknowledge tao as both eternal and creative. Is that the same as 'believe in any form of God' ?

Probably yes. So for the sake of it, yes why not.. Something is right? (either creative, eternal or both) Even if it's just this universe. This universe brought somehow awareness of itself though us - a part of it.

So whatever that something is must be God!! :eek:

...or a definition of it.

[Davey Bones]

Well that's why this is a better poll, zen... there are a lot of people who have views about the divine which may not fit into the J/C/M framework.

[cloudz]

Yes I agree it's a lot better poll than tekkens one, bless him :Angel:

Oh and just wanted to add, without awareness, there can be no concept of it. So as good little children, we should acknowledge at the least that whatever came to pass endowing us with awareness, should be considered as the one and only true God. Whatever it was that did that.. but something definately did!

:D

ha, ha just practicing my preaching. Not bad huh?

[tekkengod]

interesting, here its 17-10 Theists
in mine it was 17-6 Atheists

[LJoll]

interesting, here its 17-10 Theists
in mine it was 17-6 Atheists

Probably because the majority of people that do not believe in a god would class themselves as athiests, whereas is suspect less people that believe in god would consider themselves creationists.

[cloudz]

You can't count all the yes votes here as theists. It is a very particular definition from the dictionary -

belief in the existence of a creator god immanent in the universe but transcending it.

Needless to say it is the transcending creator bit that doesn't agree with me..

God can just mean - the supreme or ultimate reality. It does not require any more embellishment, to remain as god.. How can it ?

So you could have agnostics vote yes here I think, also pantheists..
This is also what puts me off the term atheist of which I used to count myself as. As it seems to exclude any and all conception of god.

When theism/theist is added to the end of pan for example it does not retain its original definition, just the basic premise of god as outlined above can suffice not specifically a transcendental creator god..

Anyway my point is it ain't black and white, that's for sure!

As in atheist/theist, Tekken!!

[Topher]

It's still a bit black and white.
Well it is a black and white issue.

Do you believe in god? Is you say no, your an atheist. Of course, there can be degrees within each option but that's pretty much irrelevant.

[Socrastein]

The laws of noncontradiction and the excluded middle are pretty black and white, rightly so.

The given proposition is "______ believes God exists". This proposition is either true, or it is false. It can't be both, and it can't be anything else. When it comes to the truth of propositions, it's always black and white.

Like Homer said, if you believe, you're a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist. Agnosticism unforunately is often mistaken as a middle ground, but this is misguided.

[CosmicFish]

Well it is a black and white issue.
Ok, I'll concede that asking whether someone believes in God or not is a black and white issue, provided the only permitted answers are "yes" or "no". However . . .

Do you believe in god? Is you say no, your an atheist. Of course, there can be degrees within each option but that's pretty much irrelevant.
I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that makes me an atheist. If your definition of an atheist is "someone who believes there is no God", and your definition of a theist is "someone who believes there is a God", how would you define someone who admits that they don't know whether God exists or not?

Surely such a person doesn't belong at either extreme. Thus there is a grey zone, and depending on how far they're inclined to lean towards one extreme or the other, they will belong either in it's darker or it's lighter shades.

[tekkengod]

I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that makes me an atheist. If your definition of an atheist is "someone who believes there is no God", and your definition of a theist is "someone who believes there is a God", how would you define someone who admits that they don't know whether God exists or not?
yes, it does, that would make you a "non-practicing theist"

someone who isn't sure? Agnostic, fence sitter, neutral, swiss

[cloudz]

yes, it does, that would make you a "non-practicing theist"
Not really understanding you here tekken. Could you clarify please.

'yes it does' what ??

what would make you "a non-practicing theist" ? :confused:

someone who isn't sure? Agnostic, fence sitter, neutral, swiss

And if you are sure there is something at work you can name god (ultimate reality/truth of existence) - but have no way of truly knowing this thing.

It is agnostic but it is hardly neutral or fence sitting or middle ground (as soc has pointed out)- because nobody can prove what the truth is.

Also to define it as 'middle ground' is to accept the linear model of black and white. left/ right, this or that thinking parameters.

Which not everybody accepts/holds to..

We should all sit in a circle and hold hands :D

[Strafio]

I would've liked the option 'sometimes'.
In true agnostic fashion I swing between believing and not believing. :)

Sometimes an idea of God seems relevant, other times not.
Otherwise I think the poll covered the options fairly well.
It basically asked if you believed in a supernatural force or not, neither option implying a red herring like creationism or militant anti-religionism! ;)

[CosmicFish]

yes, it does, that would make you a "non-practicing theist"
"non-practicing theist" :confused: You've baffled me there mate. Do you mean I secretly believe in God but refuse to admit it? I can assure you that's not the case!

Or was it a typo? I could understand a little better if you meant "non-practicing atheist". But then it would raise the question of how does an atheist practise (apart from bashing religion on forums, of course :D)

[PASmith]

I believe that WE have become gods.
If we showed someone, from the time that religions were invented, what we can do today they would declare us gods.
We bring people back from the dead, re-attach severed limbs, shoot fire, live for a long time (in comparison), cure incurable diseases (incurable in their day at least), fly, communicate remotely and we can lay waste to vast areas of land at the push of a button. Even now I'm communicating to many people at once without ever seeing or meeting them. Amazing.
We should realise our own potential as a species and stop giving responsibility for our destiny and conduct to some fictional super-being or beings.

[inthespirit]

I believe that WE have become gods.
If we showed someone, from the time that religions were invented, what we can do today they would declare us gods.
We bring people back from the dead, re-attach severed limbs, shoot fire, live for a long time (in comparison), cure incurable diseases (incurable in their day at least), fly, communicate remotely and we can lay waste to vast areas of land at the push of a button. Even now I'm communicating to many people at once without ever seeing or meeting them. Amazing.
We should realise our own potential as a species and stop giving responsibility for our destiny and conduct to some fictional super-being or beings.

True.. but homo-sapiens have been around for 120,000 years. Supposedly we currently use only 3-4% of our brains. Who is to say that at some point in those 120,000 years humans developed the ability to use higher proportions of their brain, and perhaps could do many of the things you mention just with their mind, yeah sounds a bit far fetched, but hey we have a lot of legend and myths from the past. Who can say for sure these were not reality at some point. So, yeah for sure with some ancient groups we would be considered gods, no doubt. But conversely with other groups we may be considered primitive materialistic beings, who cant use their brains. Either way, its doubtful we’ll ever know.

[Yohan]

interesting, here its 17-10 Theists
in mine it was 17-6 Atheists

Because you worded it in such a way to make it REALLY EASY to pick Athiest. Most people looked at your poll as "creationist or not creationist."

I'd be willing to bet that many people who voted athiest in your poll voted theist in this poll.

Why are you keeping score? :p :p

[Aegis]

Supposedly we currently use only 3-4% of our brains.
Sorry, but I think that's now regarded as the science equivalent of an urban legend... Something that sounds almost plausible, but isn't really true.

I think they worked out a while back that many of the "dormant" parts of the brain are actually used to control subconsious functions of the body.

[tekkengod]

"non-practicing theist" :confused: You've baffled me there mate. Do you mean I secretly believe in God but refuse to admit it? I can assure you that's not the case!

Or was it a typo? I could understand a little better if you meant "non-practicing atheist". But then it would raise the question of how does an atheist practise (apart from bashing religion on forums, of course :D)

oh yeah, that was a typo, if you don't believe in god, but you wanna word it in a "special" way, then you're a "non-practicing atheist" :)

[LJoll]

I don't believe in God, but I don't believe that makes me an atheist. If your definition of an atheist is "someone who believes there is no God", and your definition of a theist is "someone who believes there is a God", how would you define someone who admits that they don't know whether God exists or not?

Hmm. My definition of atheism would be "does not believe in a God" as opposed to "believes that there is no God".

[CosmicFish]

^ LOL at the last two posts!

Zhan, according to your definition, yeah, I'm an atheist then. Can't really argue with that.

Tekken - Whereas I don't totally agree with you, I can see where you're coming from. For someone who's undecided it seems natural to behave like an atheist, if only because being undecided and chosing to behave like a theist raises all sorts of complications.

[FredQ]

Yes,I believe in God.
All the different religions percieve thier God to be the only God,I think it's all the same God,they just see things to be different when things are not different.If God is watching what is going on in the world,he would be disappointed.

PS : I don't believe in any one religion,I believe in God.



Fred

[tekkengod]

If God is watching what is going on in the world,he would be disappointed.
clearly not enough to do anything about it :rolleyes:

[NewLearner]

Two interesting generalizations are that atheists tend to be younger and tend to be male. Likewise, church attendence tends to be more heavily made up of females and older people. Why do you think that those trends might be true?

[cloudz]

The laws of noncontradiction and the excluded middle are pretty black and white, rightly so.

Has anyone said this proposition is both true and false at the same time ? I really fail to see why you have brought up this law here to be honest Socrastein.

Saying that yes you believe in god and no you don’t at the same time is an obvious contradiction. As far as I can tell this is not happening anywhere here. The choices of belief available here is not two fold as in black and white, it is three fold in fact. Even though there is only a yes or no choice in the poll… the choices of belief are : 1.no form of god; 2. a specific god, or 3. a (any) form of) god. Choosing the third one is not a contradiction by clicking yes - you are not choosing the first 2 or the first and third at the same time (which would be a contradiction.

In this poll(proposition) of you click no, you are opting for the first choice. If you pick yes you are choosing either of the last two, whatever the preference may be. Choosing these two at the same time is not a contradiction, Because the middle one can fall under the terms of the third.

But the third does not fall under the terms of the second !
And if you were to be a little clever you might.. well let us have a look shall we?

The given proposition is "______ believes God exists".

No it is not, the proposition here actually is “_______ believes a (any) form of god exists”

It makes a significant difference.

In your first proposition above God is not defined at all, so is open to interpretation. How do you apply the law of noncontradiction if you can have more than one form of god ? there is already some contradiction built into this proposition for the non theist and non atheist due to the theist implications . Where as in the proposition of this thread is any form, so there is no contradiction. So basically I can choose a form that I support. As far as I can tell nobody has done this and contradicted themselves. Ie. Saying that there belief/proposition is both true and false at the same time.

This proposition is either true, or it is false. It can't be both, and it can't be anything else. When it comes to the truth of propositions, it's always black and white.

When I said it is not black and white I was not referring to the proposition of this thread, but to theist/atheist definitions themselves and where they are applicable. And I was not saying that any proposition was/is both true and false at the same time.

The theist definition of god is clear cut and specific and I have outlined it already. You either support that proposition or you don’t. Likewise with the atheist definition is black and white also it seems If you don’t support any conception of God then you are an atheist.

Now you have a third 'person' here that does not support either of these propositions. Their propososition is that they support a (any) form of god, whatever that may be, which they consider as being the ultimate reality of existance.

In the case of such a person it is not a black and white choice of atheist/theist is it?

It is not middle ground either or ‘on the fence’ . Why should it be.
I would say we don’t have a fence with theist and atheist on eitherside. But more of a triangle with each group having a stand alone position.

Like Homer said, if you believe, you're a theist, if you don't, you're an atheist.

This is not correct. Believe what? If you believe in the theist god (transcendental creator) then you are a theist. If you don’t you could be an atheist or a person who believes in another form of god – representating what is the ultimate reality of existence to you. That is in no way black or white. That is just two colors. Where there are actually three.. In this here proposition!

Agnosticism unforunately is often mistaken as a middle ground, but this is misguided.
Yes I think you are correct about this not being middle ground. It is not specific like theist/atheist. So if you believe in a non specific ultimate reality, it is not black and white..


Well it is a black and white issue.

Do you believe in god? Is you say no, your an atheist.

Sorry but you are getting confused with a different question. The question being proposed here is : Do you believe in any form of god?

Now you are most correct to say that if you say no you are an atheist. This is very much a black and white issue. Because atheists do not believe in any form or concept of god as far as I can tell. However If you answer yes to the question being asked here: Do you believe in any form of God – it does NOT make you a theist. Because a theist believes in a specific god, and sometimes with all the trimming to boot.. It also does not make you an atheist.

So what I was referring to when I mentioned the phrase ‘it is not black and white ‘was in regard the yes votes not being a straight pick between theist/atheist & I think I'll very much stand by it thanks.

Of course if you are content with the black and white choice that is atheism, then more power to you. ;)

[LJoll]

Two interesting generalizations are that atheists tend to be younger and tend to be male. Likewise, church attendence tends to be more heavily made up of females and older people. Why do you think that those trends might be true?

The two more obvious reasons for the age difference would be that 1) Religion becomes less important in westen society, so for older people, it may have been a bigger part of their upbringing. 2) As people get older there is more incentive to be reliious, as death may be closer.

The second idea seems a bit crap and I have no idea about the male/female difference.

[cloudz]

Sometimes an idea of God seems relevant, other times not.

Yeah, know what you mean there Strafio.

Otherwise I think the poll covered the options fairly well.


Yep. *bows* for zhan shi. :)

[Topher]

Sorry but you are getting confused with a different question. The question being proposed here is : Do you believe in any form of god?

Now you are most correct to say that if you say no you are an atheist. This is very much a black and white issue. Because atheists do not believe in any form or concept of god as far as I can tell. However If you answer yes to the question being asked here: Do you believe in any form of God – it does NOT make you a theist. Because a theist believes in a specific god, and sometimes with all the trimming to boot.. It also does not make you an atheist.

So what I was referring to when I mentioned the phrase ‘it is not black and white ‘was in regard the yes votes not being a straight pick between theist/atheist & I think I'll very much stand by it thanks.

Of course if you are content with the black and white choice that is atheism, then more power to you. ;)
Notice I didn't mention theist ;)

Do you believe in god? Is you say no, your an atheist.

But it is a black and white issue in 'are you a believer or a non-believer' (i.e an athiest) and that is my point. Diffrent degrees within each position are irrelevant, the point is do you believe or not.

[cloudz]

Notice I didn't mention theist ;)

Do you believe in god? Is you say no, your an atheist.

But it is a black and white issue in 'are you a believer or a non-believer' (i.e an athiest) and that is my point. Diffrent degrees within each position are irrelevant, the point is do you believe or not.


That is a fair point, but I have issues with belief too.. :Angel:

but mileage may vary, I guess that's the 'problem', there are lots of take on the issue. Even for an atheist sometimes.. The question of irrelevence, is also pretty subjective. You can't deny these different degrees, because they will exist for people no matter what.

Where you sit is what you see

[Angelsweet]

I'm Buddhist.

Therefore I do not spend time worrying about whether there is really an omnipotent being out there.
Instead I choose to concern myself with the realities of living and trying to create a more harmonious environment around me.

When I look at the violence in the middle east it has to make you wonder; not so much about the existance of a single God, but whether the jewish/christian/islamic God (because they are the same God) is really in a position to do anything about the suffering.
The "My God's the real God" syndrome is like the "my dad's bigger than your dad", then finding out that you are all brothers with the same father!

[CosmicFish]

The "My God's the real God" syndrome is like the "my dad's bigger than your dad", then finding out that you are all brothers with the same father!
Love it! :)

[Davey Bones]

This would be why I've stopped worrying about "who's God is more real" bs and just accept that there is a more powerful force in the world than us, whether it's Buddha, Allah, Jehova, God, Zeus, or the Tao.

[inthespirit]

I do not spend time worrying about whether there is really an omnipotent being

It saddens me that you don’t worry about me. :D :Angel:

Nice post AngelSweet, I think you got to the heart of the matter.

What’s amusing is that at the centre of all Judeo-Christian-Islamic frameworks is the idea of one God. So if they all agree that there is one God, what’s the problem. Moreover the three even share some disciples/apostles.

I think the problem lies in the interpretation of each framework and the lack of self investigation. This is even more bizarre as another main Judeo-Christian-Islamic tenet is to know thyself.

However, there are several sects in each of their respective religions which have strong meditative traditions. Not surprisingly, the majority of these practitioners are very open minded, humble, tolerant and wise.

I think religions which declare knowing thyself as main principle should really consider how one would go about achieving this, instead of ramming tons of religious scripture down peoples throats. Furthermore in my experience the dogma, without self study results mostly in warped interpretation. Or in other words self study, or more precisely study of the self is required in order to understand the true meaning of any spiritual/religious text, but don’t take my word for it.

[Angelsweet]

Absolutely!

"to know others, we must first know ourselves" is common most religions, yet it is rarely practiced.

I have many christian relatives, and to be honest I don't like the way they pass the responsibilities of the world onto their God, rather than taking responsibility themselves.

The endless seperation between the 3 main monotheist religions is IMO more to do with control than to do with doctrine.
Just as the many seperations within Christiandom are to do with who is in charge.

Funnily enough it is just like the martails arts in that respect.
With people breaking away so as to elevate themselves to a higher percevied level.

[Socrastein]

Zendog

In my post God is certainly open to interpretation. I didn't say "Judeo-Christian God" or "Zeus, God of thunder", I simply said "God". Without a specific definition, it's no different than saying "______ believes in any form of a god". I don't see how you could have gotten so hung up on this. Define God however you want, pick any of the gods out there. Everyone has their own personal idea of what God is or would be. The point here is, whatever your conception of God, either you believe it exists or you don't. No middle ground.

You're only drawing a third option through sheer vagueness of terms, betraying your confused notion of logic and the nature of propositional truth.

[cloudz]

Zendog

In my post God is certainly open to interpretation. I didn't say "Judeo-Christian God" or "Zeus, God of thunder", I simply said "God". Without a specific definition, it's no different than saying "______ believes in any form of a god". I don't see how you could have gotten so hung up on this.

Yes think I certainly laboured the point somewhat.. But anyway, if you think the above then why say it is b/w and even bring up that 'law' to back it up.
I didn't see the application. And if we are talking about belief and or faith then certainly logic is kind of a mute point..


Define God however you want, pick any of the gods out there. Everyone has their own personal idea of what God is or would be. The point here is, whatever your conception of God, either you believe it exists or you don't. No middle ground.

I do take some exception also to the use of the word belief here too all the time in these matters. I can acknowledge something here, without getting caught in fixed beliefs about it. It is just concepts and ideas to me. Not a reality. I may acknowledge and support, but not necessarily believe. You could say It doesn't make much sense to me to do so. There is no need.


You're only drawing a third option through sheer vagueness of terms, betraying your confused notion of logic and the nature of propositional truth.

No I do see a third option, but perhaps didn't/don't articulate it here very well at all. If you don' think there is or can be one then fine..

I don't find logic to be a good academic subject for me at all, I find it mostly contrived and I suppose it does confuse me somewhat.. And always get fed up with it fairly quickly when reading about it. But still I think what you proposed confused me more..

There is no law outside the mind

And what truth are we exactly talking about here anyway being proposed? As far as I can see, there isn't one.

Regards

[karate princess]

i dont believe in God, but i do believe that there is something out there...

[cloudz]

Socrastein,


If I define God as the universe and everything in it and however it came to be. . Then why is it a question of I either believe in God or I don't ?

The universe is. It is like you asking do you believe in the universe or not.

"______ believes god exists".

Would an atheist still say no to this question now? According to you the definition shouldn't make any difference.. Would that be according to logic also? Anyway I think this basically explains my 'hang up'

Of course I have absolutely no idea about things logical, that is why I ask.

[CKava]

Zendog I have a feeling socrastein is going to suggest that you use the words "the universe and everything in it and however it came to be" if thats what you mean by God since God already carries with it the implication of a supernatural being. If you take away such implications then what are you left with? Maybe something but I doubt the term God covers it.

You already raised the problem of letting everyone define a word subjectively in your last post... If you define God as the universe then then ask an atheist if he agrees with you that your version of God exists then in reality you are asking him if the universe exists but you have just changed the label to God.

[cloudz]

Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown. Whatever this unknown ingredient is. You cannot say you don't believe in it. The universe is the evidence. And whatever makes it so (ultimate reality) is God.

Its not like I have to believe that I exist, and I exist on a planet in a universe.
I have no idea why or how this is so. My own creation (i did not always exist) is certainly down to this universe (my creator).

I can describe the universe as a natural being
Its conception as supernatural. Simply because I have no reliable knowledge regard this.

[Topher]

I don't find logic to be a good academic subject for me at all, I find it mostly contrived and I suppose it does confuse me somewhat.
What confuses you about it?

Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown.
No, it is not supernatural. There is no reason to suggest it is. It’s simply unknown. And there is no reason to assume it will always be unknown. The supernatural however is not defined as what we don’t know, its defined as what we cannot know, its contra nature.

For example, thunder/lightning was not supernatural before we developed knowledge of it. It was always natural. Same as electricity etc.

[Llamageddon]

I said yes because I believe in a 'higher power', but what that is I haven't a clue...

[prowla]

i dont believe in God, but i do believe that there is something out there...Actually, that is god - the name is just the label that we give it (he/she/it's not really an old man with a grey beard - that was just an invention).
Me - I've no idea, but I find it hard to believe that there's nothing after death or before life.

(But I also believe there's a tiny man inside my telly who runs around like billyo painting and repainting the picture on the screen to create the illusion of a moving picture, so what would I know? :) )

[CKava]

Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown. Whatever this unknown ingredient is. You cannot say you don't believe in it. The universe is the evidence. And whatever makes it so (ultimate reality) is God.
Isn't what your arguing an advanced version of equating God to ignorance i.e. we don't know exactly why the universe exists now (though there are theories) therefore we will never know so its better to just say whatever caused it must be God and have done with it. Wasn't the exact same argument advanced for the origin of the earth not so long ago? Why not just admit we don't know why the universe exists right now rather than just filing the issue away forever under the label 'God'.

As for the continued re-labelling of the universe again your redefining a common term- 'being' which tends to be a term used towards lifeforms or hypothetical entities that act like lifeforms i.e. spirits, gods to refer to the toality of existence. How is the totality of existence a 'being' anymore than it is a 'God' UNLESS you redefine the terms to mean this?

Outside that argument you simply repeated the argument that if I believe the universe exists I must believe in God because you have defined the universe or its reason for existence as God. This is still not a valid argument. Your just redefining terms!

I believe in the existence of the universe and I also believe that the notion of anything outside of our universe is presently inconceivable to us and as such I refuse to accept your claim for a supernatural cause- unknown, yes- supernatural, no. Also, your talking about the universe having a beginning and a reason yet all of these concepts only make sense in our universe and so your argument runs into a paradox i.e. to argue that the universe must have a CAUSE/REASON assumes causality operates outside the universe and to assume there must have been something BEFORE requires the concept of time which again requires our universe. Point being that these really don't solve the problem of the existence of the universe as if you are going to allow for a CAUSELESS 'something' then why not let it be the observable natural universe around us rather than a non-observable supernatural God. WHy does your God not a God to make it?

[Socrastein]

if we are talking about belief and or faith then certainly logic is kind of a mute point..

Logic is never a moot point. Logic is the linguistic framework within which things either make sense or do not make sense. There is no such thing as "outside logic" or "God's logic" as opposed to "man's logic". Logic tells us what propositions make sense (A square has 4 sides) and what propositions do not make sense (A square-circle is a polygon with four equal sides and four right angles, every point being equidistance from the center).

The most basic axioms of logic, such as the law of identity, law of noncontradiction, law of excluded middle, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. are all very simple 'duh' statements. I don't think you are confused so much as merely uninformed.

CKava addressed all the other points I was going to make brilliantly.

[cloudz]

What confuses you about it?


No, it is not supernatural. There is no reason to suggest it is. It’s simply unknown. And there is no reason to assume it will always be unknown. The supernatural however is not defined as what we don’t know, its defined as what we cannot know, its contra nature.

For example, thunder/lightning was not supernatural before we developed knowledge of it. It was always natural. Same as electricity etc.

Thanks for the example, that's why I said 'it will always be unknown'

sounds a lot like ''what we cannot know', wouldn't you say?

There is no reason to assume it will ever be known. If you have one then please enlighten us Homer.

[cloudz]

Logic is never a moot point. Logic is the linguistic framework within which things either make sense or do not make sense. There is no such thing as "outside logic" or "God's logic" as opposed to "man's logic". Logic tells us what propositions make sense (A square has 4 sides) and what propositions do not make sense (A square-circle is a polygon with four equal sides and four right angles, every point being equidistance from the center).

Logic is moot regards experience. Not all emotion/ feeling / experience can be put in a neat and logical linguistic framework for you. Ever heard of the tao for example ?

A person does not understand the tao or zen (a blend of tao/buddhism)through logic. Like other religious experience It is one of unity. With all things known and unknown. because i do not know everything regard the universe and its conception, does not mean that I stop thinking of everything as whole and united. The reason a person would think this way is if they had experienced it. Nothing to do with logic in linguistics.. this may well be a barrier actually..

The most basic axioms of logic, such as the law of identity, law of noncontradiction, law of excluded middle, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. are all very simple 'duh' statements. I don't think you are confused so much as merely uninformed.



well indeed.. :)

I always found it to be mostly stating the obvious, so don't ascribe it value in the same sense you are, and through my own choice remain uninformed.. i still fail to see why you brought the subject of logic into this discussion or how you used it correctly either in a helpful or meaningful way.

If people do have a religious experience and are happy with what it is and what it means to them. It is not a case of having to believe it. It is something that happens. Like the rain. You know you are feeling wet.

So a person could feel unity or divinity - call it what you will, it adds up to the same.

Religion, belief, faith etc. Religious practice in the zen sense for example is working with the barriers that arise to this unity (which is considered reality)
The barriers are not physical. Broken down the barriers reveal the true self..

Religion, belief, faith etc
Just words/ labels. How we define these makes no difference to the experience.

Regards it they (linguistics) are moot! :)

So if linguistics are moot regards this experience then so is logic it would seem.

[cloudz]

... If you define God as the universe then then ask an atheist if he agrees with you that your version of God exists then in reality you are asking him if the universe exists but you have just changed the label to God.

Which/whos reality are you speaking of ?

I find this a tad interesting. We have to remember that words, there meanings and definitions change with the times and the people using them. The term God and Gods have been around for a very, very long time. And have represented one thing or another.

When I say universe today in 2006 it carries a remarkably different knowledge with it than any conception or use of the words in times past.

So who is to say that before athiests came along (or defined themselves as such), the label universe and god may not have meant or implied vastly different things to many people. So perhaps it is not I who have changed the label of the universe to God here. But atheist have changed the label of God to the universe.. at some stage.

According to when the universe became more properly/better defined and understood. Certainly if God can be defined as a higher power, then the universe and its order is certainly a higher power than the order of little ol' me.

[CKava]

Which/whos reality are you speaking of ?
The term in reality is an expression meaning 'in actual fact' it was not meant to be a philosophical statement so please replace 'in reality' with 'in actual fact' if it makes things easier.

When I say universe today in 2006 it carries a remarkably different knowledge with it than any conception or use of the words in times past.
Hate to disagree but I have a feeling the word universe if it was even in use before probably contained similiar connotations to what it does now. The sun for example is now known to be a massive ball of hydrogen yet when people refer to the sun whether they know that or not they are still refering to the same thing. Might be interesting to look up when the term universe came into use and see what it reffered to originally because I have a feeling its not going to be unrelated to what the term is used to refer to today.

So who is to say that before athiests came along (or defined themselves as such), the label universe and god may not have meant or implied vastly different things to many people. So perhaps it is not I who have changed the label of the universe to God here. But atheist have changed the label of God to the universe.. at some stage.
I'm not arguing that definitions don't change over time but I am arguing that to have no agreed definition for a term makes discussion pointless. See your attempt to suggest atheists believe in God because you have defined the universe as God as one example. For the purpose of this poll interpreting God as the universe is a bit pointless as the original poster clearly did not intend to ask the question... do you believe in the universe? If he had intended that he would have said that. The word God is not interchangeable with the word universe in any useful sense. Also, atheists have not changed the word God to mean universe the only person so far who has done that is you ;).

According to when the universe became more properly/better defined and understood. Certainly if God can be defined as a higher power, then the universe and its order is certainly a higher power than the order of little ol' me.
If your going to label powerful forces acting on you as God then I guess you should also be calling gravity a God as well.

The fact is (note: I did not say 'in reality') that as can be seen the terms 'the universe', 'existence', 'forces' etc. all seem to fit a lot better for the phenomena you are describing than the word God with its supernatural connotations. It wasnt atheists changing the definition of the word that made it apply to supernatural entities thats actually what the word was used for and means! Look:

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Now I don't know about you but to me that seems to make it pretty clear to me what the word God refers to and I don't see it mentioning anything about the word referring to the universe either.

[cloudz]

Isn't what your arguing an advanced version of equating God to ignorance i.e. we don't know exactly why the universe exists now (though there are theories) therefore we will never know so its better to just say whatever caused it must be God and have done with it. Wasn't the exact same argument advanced for the origin of the earth not so long ago? Why not just admit we don't know why the universe exists right now rather than just filing the issue away forever under the label 'God'.


I see no reason why not to do both if necessary.. and i cannot think of a better or worse label than 'god' to file it under. Sure I have my own preferences for terms. But I am doing my best here to leave those out of this as we are discussing ' any form of God' . If God is here and now in everything (an idea which I support) then it is all and any form(s) regardless.. that can be conceived here and now through awareness.

As for the continued re-labelling of the universe again your redefining a common term- 'being' which tends to be a term used towards lifeforms or hypothetical entities that act like lifeforms i.e. spirits, gods to refer to the toality of existence. How is the totality of existence a 'being' anymore than it is a 'God' UNLESS you redefine the terms to mean this?

Well consider that I can use it as a metaphor. As it is probably better than re defining terms for my own sake or making up some new one for such purposes. Using such tools as metaphor or analog here I think is acceptable.

Outside that argument you simply repeated the argument that if I believe the universe exists I must believe in God because you have defined the universe or its reason for existence as God. This is still not a valid argument. Your just redefining terms!

Does it matter what terms i use really?

Can i use mind? Can I use void? Can I use Tao instead?

Sure. It is not that I am using dictionary definitions of these terms, but established 'theories' and concepts that existed before the concept/ definition of atheism came forth. Some terms such as the ones cited including God can surely be used metaphorically to describe something being.. They are really just big metaphors. Just because some people decided they knew with certainty what they were or represented specifically - does not make it so.

I have no problem considering the idea of the universe as being alive or an 'alive being'. Should we consider the Universe as something which is dead ?

Maybe one day it will die. I do not honestly know. But I also do not know if other universes are are being born either. I also don't know if they just exist without beginning & without cause other than themselves. Or whether etc etc.

I have done plenty of speculating and considered differing points of view. In my point of view now, none of the possibilities change anything fundemental regards God/Tao/Void/Mind etc. If a person accepts the unity of the whole and that their 'first cause' regardless of any other is this existance/universe. I have found that it doesn't matter which of these terms i use - I simply understand them as a term (perhaps with slightly diff flavour) that describe the whole or what is the ultimate reality or perhaps in the case of Mind a slightly different way of thinking about it on the surface (but essentially the same) Again the same could be said of God. On the surface of things it would seem it is not the same as Tao - but essentially it is. But I am sure you have heard this POV before CKava.

I believe in the existence of the universe and I also believe that the notion of anything outside of our universe is presently inconceivable to us and as such I refuse to accept your claim for a supernatural cause- unknown, yes- supernatural, no.

Well I am personally not a fan of the term supernatural either, but attempted to use it as I assumed it was correct to. I don't want to have a prejudice here against terms. I would prefer natural - regardless of can or can't know it (all). But if that is the correct meaning then what can I do about it. I have also perhaps a prejudice/preference against the term theist or theism. But again i am doing my best to suspend this in an attempt to understand certain things better..

When regarding the definition of the term theism given earlier, I would prefer to not consider such specific terms in reflecting accurately the ideas people have about any form of God as their ultimate reality regards to our very existance. If you/we are going to stick to black and white definitions for atheist/theist then a grey area is inevitable.. I would venture that it is the black and white which is manufactured by our inherent polarity reflected in our use of languge. Then this 'grey area' is just as legitimate regards how our mind knows and understands the concept of God..

So I will repeat my view that you can subscribe to this in three ways. one of the two polarities that seems to have been set up over time or choose the grey area regards God, this I think the majority of people regardless of leanings to a pole will always consider to remain grey..(undefined) It is my personal view that atheism originally took up the polar view against and as a reaction to what was then the widely held theistic ideal at that place and time (a specific defined monotheistic God seperate from this universe/existence). This theistic ideal was certainly not a grey area, it was specific and falls down in my view because of this. Maybe atheists at the time and perhaps at any time don't find value in this kind of grey area understanding and how it can underpin the unity of all things under one heaven.. I use 'heaven' mataphorically (I think) :Angel:

..Or at the least in our natural minds awareness, of itself and its 'creator'. ;)
redefining terms, using scientific terms, or updating their meaning with science does not change any 'ultimate reality'. What is is, and that's it, whether it is god or the universe under my or your terms does not make a blind bit of difference to anything. The religious experience and the concept of God that has existed and arises from same same will not suddenly disappear. I think there is cause for it's existence within our awareness. It will not suddenly stop helping or enriching people lives because it can be explained with 'new improved' terms such as the universe for example. One of my own teachers sometimes refers to 'the universe' But i know he means slightly more than just the universe in a sterile scientific sense - In scientific terms you could site determination. Maybe we can term this The universes 'program' . How about Gods plan ? Boil it down and it must be all the same!

So i suggest to people forget the barriers. Forget the black and white fed to you. the this or that. the religious vs. the scientific. etc. etc

It is all one and the same. I mean that in every sense imaginable.

Also, your talking about the universe having a beginning and a reason yet all of these concepts only make sense in our universe and so your argument runs into a paradox i.e. to argue that the universe must have a CAUSE/REASON assumes causality operates outside the universe and to assume there must have been something BEFORE requires the concept of time which again requires our universe. Point being that these really don't solve the problem of the existence of the universe as if you are going to allow for a CAUSELESS 'something' then why not let it be the observable natural universe around us rather than a non-observable supernatural God. WHy does your God not a God to make it?

Dude i really did no such thing here. I have not talked about beginnings or a seperate external being/CAUSE at all. If I say the universe is God then it needs no cause other than itself - and by all means let it be eternal.. I have tried to keep away from these specifics because I am arguing for 'any form of God' as 'opposed' to a specific one or no concept of it at all. I have given in part some concept of something as - ' any form' - because i had to provide something to discuss on..

i would imagine that yourself and a few others would by now know something regards some of my preferred terms and ideas regards such things. Of course i am sure i could provide some links to past threads if need be. Anyway what you are ascribing to my 'argument' here is not really the case.

I certainly apologize if i have in any way been misleading CKava.

I am not here to persuade or dissuade anyone on there beliefs or ideas. Just to give my point of view regards what 'any form of God' could mean or how it could be interperated in some ways. Not all, and not specifically my own. I have done that more than enough in the past. And I think have come to the end of that particular road of specualting for answers. I keep an open mind as always, but am happy with a certain understanding I have reached. And sincerely wish others the same no matter what they label it.. ;)

I would maintain that for a lot pf people this represents neither atheism or theism specifically. But a third way namely (or a few names) - non- denomenatiotional/ agnostic / esoteric/ mystic/ zen / taoist / hermetic/ sophist etc... Do the labels matter? Well not to me. OK maybe sometimes they do.. :Angel:

Practice is ongoing !

Sermon is over \\ :D

[cloudz]

If your going to label powerful forces acting on you as God then I guess you should also be calling gravity a God as well.

Well certainly I think gravity is a creation of the universe in one sense. So not a God. But part of it..


The fact is (note: I did not say 'in reality') that as can be seen the terms 'the universe', 'existence', 'forces' etc. all seem to fit a lot better for the phenomena you are describing than the word God with its supernatural connotations. It wasnt atheists changing the definition of the word that made it apply to supernatural entities thats actually what the word was used for and means! Look:

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Now I don't know about you but to me that seems to make it pretty clear to me what the word God refers to and I don't see it mentioning anything about the word referring to the universe either.

Well when i looked it up the other day the first line said : ultimate or supreme reality. So I went with that.
Then it went on to have a list of stuff similar to the above ,but i didn't really read it through properly. As I have mentioned it is going into specifics regarding what God is/isn't, I am more interested in ascertaining what can pass for 'any form of' God.. So maybe i should look for another word such as Tao or Nature perhaps. How much difference do you think that that makes. I would say that in effect after all things said and done it doesn't make much difference to many people today.. because many of us have resigned most of the above to the dustbin of times past.. or bygone thinking.. or however you want to say it.

[tekkengod]

Well certainly I think gravity is a creation of the universe in one sense. So not a God. But part of it.

so i guess you could say gravitiy is just "intelligent falling"?

oh, would you please word that to say "gravity is a part of god" in your next post so i can quote it in my sig and laugh at you? seriously, say it....come on.....

[cloudz]

so i guess you could say gravitiy is just "intelligent falling"?

oh, would you please word that to say "gravity is a part of god" in your next post so i can quote it in my sig and laugh at you? seriously, say it....come on.....


On second thought. If grappling can have a god. Mars can have a god of war. So yeah a god of gravity too. The theists have their external one. Just the universe is feeling a bit left out. Being a unitarian universalist last time I checked my beliefs properly, I demand a God!!.

Will that do ?

[tekkengod]

no no, come on say it "gravity is an act of god" say it!!! or atleast "gravity is a part of god" say it!!

[Topher]

Why not just admit we don't know why the universe exists right now rather than just filing the issue away forever under the label 'God'.
They essentially are admitting they don’t know… in a form that is more palatable to them! They just don’t know it ;)

Saying "godidit" is the admission that you don't know.

Also, your talking about the universe having a beginning and a reason yet all of these concepts only make sense in our universe and so your argument runs into a paradox i.e. to argue that the universe must have a CAUSE/REASON assumes causality operates outside the universe and to assume there must have been something BEFORE requires the concept of time which again requires our universe.
Precisely.

A good question to ask: How long did it take god to create time?! :p :D

[Topher]

There is no such thing as "outside logic"
True, except when we must say that god is ‘outside logic.’ We must say this because an omnipotent god would be responsible for the parameters of logic in the first place! If god was bound to the parameters of logic (and therefore not responsible for them), we would then have to ask: who created them… god’s older brother? Whoever did would be god, and the ‘god’ argued as being bound to logic, would not be omnipotent, or a god!

Either way, saying god is ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ of logic makes no sense at all to us, which is precisely the point – a god necessarily makes no sense.

[Topher]

Thanks for the example, that's why I said 'it will always be unknown'
My example showed that something has always been natural, despite knowledge about it only being fairly recentish.

Thunder/lighting did not become natural when we began to understand it. It was something that was always natural, despite our original lack of knowledge of it.

So your statement “it will always be unknown” makes no sense here.

My example was in response to this:
!Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown.

Correct, we do not know about the origins of the universe, and if we don’t know something all we can say it that we don’t know. To declare anything else is an error.

So with that in mind, we cannot follow with “it’s the supernatural part”. To do so merely begs the question and argues from ignorance.

And, the fact we lack knowledge does not mean what we lack knowledge of is supernatural. It just means we lack knowledge of it. Lack of knowledge =/= supernatural.

[cloudz]

no no, come on say it "gravity is an act of god" say it!!! or atleast "gravity is a part of god" say it!!


umm gravity is an act of the universe, and it made you in its image !

[cloudz]

My example showed that something has always been natural, despite knowledge about it only being fairly recentish.

Thunder/lighting did not become natural when we began to understand it. It was something that was always natural, despite our original lack of knowledge of it.

So your statement “it will always be unknown” makes no sense here.

My example was in response to this:
!Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown.

Correct, we do not know about the origins of the universe, and if we don’t know something all we can say it that we don’t know. To declare anything else is an error.

So with that in mind, we cannot follow with “it’s the supernatural part”. To do so merely begs the question and argues from ignorance.

And, the fact we lack knowledge does not mean what we lack knowledge of is supernatural. It just means we lack knowledge of it. Lack of knowledge =/= supernatural.

Oh ok I think this issue over the word supernatural is getting a bit clearer for me now. umm maybe.. :)

I do accept (all) things as natural.. Your examples of thunder and lightning are not really the examples I'm thinking of. What is it that we can differentiate as supernatural (if anything) for a certain purpose or manner of speaking. If there can be an observed phenomenon like thunder or even people experiencing wierd stuff. Then sure there are explanations to be had, and I can term them natural. Certainly if we are talking about things we can directly experience or investigate. Ok so there will be things that we can speculate about based on scientific investigation and maybe indirect experience..

The best example in the context of this discussion is cosmology i guess. Things like multiverses/parallel universes. When speaking about what is unknown. There are two ways to figure what unknown is pertaining to. One is stuff we can speculate arising from what we do know. And that which is out of/beyond our awareness or scope. As long as we have no idea about these then they are 'nowhereville' . Not to be termed natural or supernatural. Or you can figure it is refering to theory and speculation that can't be confirmed either way as true or false. If something is true or real or a fact. Then sure it is natural..

I mean to be honest your examples seem odd, because we experience thunder and lightning directly through sight/sound. So they can be said to be a fact. So if something can be observed directly, then regardless of any explanation it can be said to be natural or naturally occuring, simply because it can be observed to actually happen/exist.

I don't think they are in the same context as examples we could bring up regards cosmology. These examples may always remain a possibility (parallel universes & the like)

I'm just looking for a context (if there is one), that the word could be used 'today' without treading on too many toes..

So I would certainly agree that with your example it would always be incorrect to view thunder/lightning as supernatural. Wheras once through a lack of knowledge people would have surely speculated that it was an act of God for example hence making it supernatural. So it is not the thing itself (which is real) that is the supernatural part, but what it is being attributed to by the mind that is percieving it happening. The way it is happening is being percievd through lack of knowledge about how.

But to reiterate once more I agree that it is natural whether we know h this how or not.

Where I think it may be ok to term something 'supernatural' is when there can be no direct experience or investigation now or with any foresight. Not to things we can see as occuring like the act of lightning - but things we speculate about like areas of cosmology.

So something like the multiverse idea may be a possibility, but as of now and in my opinion ever we cannot confirm eitherway if this occurs or not. It could only be deemed natural if we could get this confirmation. But the idea or perception of them is known to us. So I guess I am asking is it ok to say this area can be termed supernatural.

Now it has been said, and I think I may agree somewhat.. that the multiverse idea is but a hairs breadth away from the external God speculation.

Is it still arguing from ignorance, or the fair assumption that some things will always be speculative. I think to say otherwise can be said to be presumptuous.

Also not that 'it begs the question'. Just putting it in a kind of 'halfwayhouse' between natural (because it may be if only it is first confirmed to even exist)
and non-existant.

So I can understand why speculating about an external God and its theory/concept may be termed 'supernatural'. I don't know really.. Is this understanding wrong/incorrect ?

Its not like terming something supernatural automatically makes it something non natural. Just that something is lacking somewhere regards it (I suppose the foreseeable ability to gain confirmation of whatever it is happening).

What do you think, would that be ok ?

[Johnno]

True, except when we must say that god is ‘outside logic.’ We must say this because an omnipotent god would be responsible for the parameters of logic in the first place! If god was bound to the parameters of logic (and therefore not responsible for them), we would then have to ask: who created them… god’s older brother? Whoever did would be god, and the ‘god’ argued as being bound to logic, would not be omnipotent, or a god!

Either way, saying god is ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ of logic makes no sense at all to us, which is precisely the point – a god necessarily makes no sense.Arguing for or against the existance of God is ultimately futile, since if there is/was a deity who is/was capable of creating the world and the universe and everything (or even just, say, 82% of it) then he/she/it would necessarily be way beyond our minds' capabilities to understand him/her/it.

Not that it isn't fun to try! But at the end of the day it's just mental masturbation really. Playing with words and ideas that express ideas beyond our comprehension.

[cloudz]

Originally Posted by CKava
Also, your talking about the universe having a beginning and a reason yet all of these concepts only make sense in our universe and so your argument runs into a paradox i.e. to argue that the universe must have a CAUSE/REASON assumes causality operates outside the universe and to assume there must have been something BEFORE requires the concept of time which again requires our universe.

Precisely.

A good question to ask: How long did it take god to create time?!

Oh you guys!! :)

Even though no one was actually talking about any of this.. (but where you sit is what you see..)

I think the answer to your question Homer is no time at all!!

The concept of time only requires our universe because number one requirement above all others it requires our mind/awareness. The concept of time does not exist anywhere in our universe as a real observable or natural thing occuring (without us). It only occurs through us. So to say it would be needed anywhere else for any reason doesn't even stack up at all..

It is only 'needed' by us!

To say otherwise might even make it supernatural ! :eek: :D

[cloudz]

True, except when we must say that god is ‘outside logic.’ We must say this because an omnipotent god would be responsible for the parameters of logic in the first place! If god was bound to the parameters of logic (and therefore not responsible for them), we would then have to ask: who created them… god’s older brother? Whoever did would be god, and the ‘god’ argued as being bound to logic, would not be omnipotent, or a god!

Either way, saying god is ‘beyond’ or ‘outside’ of logic makes no sense at all to us, which is precisely the point – a god necessarily makes no sense.

Well I think you have to factor in the concept of infinity.. Sooner or later our logic would come about.

So do you think the multiverse idea is not logical ?

I don't agree to any form of omnipotent God. But surely there is possible an external force that is similar or different to the 'forces' we experience here.

Also a possibility that one of them came about and is greater than the others. So could have interfered.

This is just pure speculation by the way. So don't get your knickers in a twist people!

[CKava]

Ok, but none of us know how the universe came to be, or why it is how it is. This is the supernatural part. It always will be the unknown. Whatever this unknown ingredient is. You cannot say you don't believe in it. The universe is the evidence. And whatever makes it so (ultimate reality) is God.
Sorry I haven't got round to replying properly to your posts zd but this is why I said you were talking about the universe having a CAUSE and also assuming the existence of TIME.

If you look at your abocve post you say quite clearly that 'the supernatural part' which you label as 'God' is whatever made the universe 'came to be' and made it 'how it is'. You also suggest by using the phrase 'came to be' and talking about something 'making' the universe that there was something that existed prior to the universe which is responsible for its existence. My point again is that this solves no problems as you are no left with something unknown and unobserved which you have labelled as 'God' and allowed to be without a cause despite your clear asseration that the universe MUST have one since it exists.

GEt back in more detail when I have the time...

[Easternstorm]

Anyone read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail ? Some pretty good theories in that.
When I was a kid we had an RE teacher with some excellent theories. He believed that Religionwas like a wheel. All these spokes going from an outer rim to a Central Hub.
The idea is that the outer Rim is where we all are. Walking around looking for a path.

The Hub is God, or Heaven or Nirvana (not the band, that would be bad).

All of us must choose a path and make our way to the hub (call it what you like).

Whatever happens, we all choose our own path but end up at the Hub (Heaven, Valhalla, Nirvana, Pearl Jam whatever).


Yes I believe in A God, but I don't think he's looking out for us.

Hear about the Dyslexic Agnostic ? Denied the existance of Dog.

Bit like the Dyslexic Devil worshipper that sold his soul to Santa.

I'll say sorry now to anyone that is Dyslexic. Sorry.

[Topher]

What is it that we can differentiate as supernatural (if anything) for a certain purpose or manner of speaking.
I have no clue what the supernatural IS. It is defined as ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ nature, hence we can only talk of it in negatives, and all we can state is it is not natural.

I don’t even believe the supernatural exists. You see, if we can know and understand something, it would be natural. So by definition, supernatural is unknowable incoherent and incomprehensible. So to then argue for supernatural ‘acts’ is by definition irrational. It’s arguing from ignorance. To argue for natural acts with supernatural ‘causes’ begs the question.

The best example in the context of this discussion is cosmology i guess. Things like multiverses/parallel universes. When speaking about what is unknown. There are two ways to figure what unknown is pertaining to. One is stuff we can speculate arising from what we do know. And that which is out of/beyond our awareness or scope. As long as we have no idea about these then they are 'nowhereville' . Not to be termed natural or supernatural. Or you can figure it is refering to theory and speculation that can't be confirmed either way as true or false.
Of course, however there is a difference between theoretical science (which it still based on the scientific method, logic, critical analysis) and irrational naked assertions.

There is no issue with postulating ideas/theories, but there is a problem in believing these ideas to be truth, fact and reality.

I mean to be honest your examples seem odd, because we experience thunder and lightning directly through sight/sound. So they can be said to be a fact.
You miss the point. Of course they are fact. The point is to illustrate the claims they were supernatural, or of supernatural origin, as was once believed. The fact people believed that did not make it supernatural. They were always natural, people just lack knowledge of them, so they made up explanations.

So it is not the thing itself (which is real) that is the supernatural part, but what it is being attributed to by the mind that is percieving it happening. The way it is happening is being percievd through lack of knowledge about how.
Right. But remember, their belief/desire of it supernaturalism, does not make it supernatural.

Where I think it may be ok to term something 'supernatural' is when there can be no direct experience or investigation now or with any foresight.
It’s a fine line. My view is that ‘supernatural’ was simply a word created to talk of things which people desire to talk about, but cannot because we don’t even know if such things exist. It is essentially an alternative to saying/admitting “I don’t know” for those people too attached to their desires/emotions to admit they simply cannot know. However saying ‘supernatural’ and ‘I don’t know’ are especially the same thing – they are the declaration that you do not know.

The problem lies in believing whatever you call supernatural to be fact, truth, and reality, because for it to be any of those things, it would be natural, and if its natural, the term “supernatural” is irrelevant.

Not to things we can see as occuring like the act of lightning - but things we speculate about like areas of cosmology.
It would still be irrational. When you don’t know something, just be honest with yourself and say you don’t know. Just say: “I don’t know, but I hypothesize…etc”

It is arguing from ignorance and in many cases, begging the question to assume supernaturalism.

So something like the multiverse idea may be a possibility, but as of now and in my opinion ever we cannot confirm eitherway if this occurs or not.
Correct

It could only be deemed natural if we could get this confirmation.
No. If it exists, it would be natural, by definition. Our knowledge of it has no bearing on this. We do lack knowledge to call it reality, but I can say right now that if it exists, it would be natural. How can I say that? Well, because it would exist! To be natural is to exist.

But the idea or perception of them is known to us. So I guess I am asking is it ok to say this area can be termed supernatural.
Nope, it isn’t. It would be irrational. Under know circumstances can something be termed “supernatural” and be rational/logical.

Our lack of knowledge doesn’t affect something’s naturalism or ‘supernaturalism.’ If we lack knowledge we cannot assert any truth claims about this something. But as I stated above: if this something exists, is real, reality, it would be natural.

Is it still arguing from ignorance, or the fair assumption that some things will always be speculative. I think to say otherwise can be said to be presumptuous.
One will ways argue from ignorance, if you argue from a position of ignorance. So any argument for god is by definition an argument from ignorance. Note that hypothesizing is not arguing a claim and hence nor arguing from ignorance. Hypothesizing from a position of ignorance is fine, as long as you’re critical, logical and open minded in them, and also not violating known science.

Its not like terming something supernatural automatically makes it something non natural.
Yes, it does.

The word means “above/beyond nature.”

And for those who argue it is just another ‘type’ of ‘nature,’ answer this: why bother with the word at all if it is just nature? Why not just call it nature if that is what it is?

And to our knowledge the nature we exist in is nature… the only nature… so it also begs the question and argues from ignorance if one argues for another ‘type’ of nature.

[Topher]

Arguing for or against the existance of God is ultimately futile,
I agree.

And I should point out, I not arguing against the ‘existence’ of god.

I argue against the rationally, logicality, coherency and comprehensibility of a ‘god,’ explaining exactly why, by using the claims of the theists. It just take them to their logical conclusion.

since if there is/was a deity who is/was capable of creating the world and the universe and everything (or even just, say, 82% of it) then he/she/it would necessarily be way beyond our minds' capabilities to understand him/her/it.
Precisely.

[cloudz]

Sorry I haven't got round to replying properly to your posts zd but this is why I said you were talking about the universe having a CAUSE and also assuming the existence of TIME.

If you look at your abocve post you say quite clearly that 'the supernatural part' which you label as 'God' is whatever made the universe 'came to be' and made it 'how it is'. You also suggest by using the phrase 'came to be' and talking about something 'making' the universe that there was something that existed prior to the universe which is responsible for its existence. My point again is that this solves no problems as you are no left with something unknown and unobserved which you have labelled as 'God' and allowed to be without a cause despite your clear asseration that the universe MUST have one since it exists.

GEt back in more detail when I have the time...

When I say 'whatever it may be' I also include the universe being its own cause (if we can call it that). Sorry that's wasn't clear. An inherent set of parameters or whatever. That's why i went on to talk about the universe being 'God'. And we chatted about that.. For it to be 'as it is' Then it at least needs certain parameters to exist so. This is what i generally mean if i infer cause. As you say they could just be like that. 'just because' and nothing more.. So 'whatever' could be internal or external. In the sense of 'just because'/internal reasons there are elements of why this way and not that way . so you could say there are still unknown/unknowable elements for us.

Also I had a thought recently that if our universe doesn't need an outside cause. Then neither would something that existed external to it - if such a thing did exist.

I think my trying to use the term supernatural may have confused things, but Homer is helping me out with that.. :Angel:

* EDIT: If there is anything I would say MUST have it would be conditions. whatever they may be.. But I'm struggling to see how far away condition(s) are from cause..

I you read MUST into my post (which it seems you have) then that is how i'd see it more or less.. I think. Often as well i think when we consider cause we think it synonymous with purpose. Or that way of looking at it is inherent perhaps in some way. but that's not my intention if I'm infering causes in this context.

I do realize that the way I term/write stuff can be ambiguous sometimes. I do apologize for that. But it is due mostly because i don't like to take too fixed a position on these things. So what I write can often be read in different ways.

Hope you understand..

**edit Also CKava not clear how that passage assumes TIME really.. ?
Can see tha cause bit though..(see above)

Regards zd

[Johnno]

I agree.

And I should point out, I not arguing against the ‘existence’ of god.

I argue against the rationally, logicality, coherency and comprehensibility of a ‘god,’ explaining exactly why, by using the claims of the theists. It just take them to their logical conclusion.So you are not an atheist then, but an agnostic, and simply disagree with many theists' explanations of the nature of God?

[cloudz]

CKava,

Hi again, also was thinking when considering possible external cause. Shouldn't we at the least allow for facilitating conditions..

For anything to happen or merely be, wouldn't it require such. not in the sense of a first cause or anything like that. Just certain conditions, whatever they may be. Otherwise it's like saying it could be or arise no matter what. Even 'no-conditions' is a condition. If that makes any sense.. :bang:

:D

[NewLearner]

I agree.

And I should point out, I not arguing against the ‘existence’ of god.

I argue against the rationally, logicality, coherency and comprehensibility of a ‘god,’ explaining exactly why, by using the claims of the theists. It just take them to their logical conclusion.


Precisely.

Homer, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, would it be a limitation on His power to say that God couldn't make himself able to be experienced?

[Topher]

So you are not an atheist then, but an agnostic, and simply disagree with many theists' explanations of the nature of God?
No. This is a common misconception of the definition of the word.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism are the positions of KNOWLEDGE.

Atheism/Theism are the positions of BELIEF.

You need to pick both a position regarding knowledge of god, and a position regarding belief of god. There is no such thing as a person who is not either an atheist or theist.

Regarding belief/non-belief in God:
Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in God

Knowledge of God:
Gnosticism = We can have knowledge of god
Weak Agnosticism = We don’t know of god existence, but may gain knowledge in the future.
Strong Agnosticism = We don’t and never can know of god’s existence. It’s impossible by definition.

I’m an atheist and a strong agnostic.

An atheist is not necessarily someone who argues against the existence of god, although many do.

[Johnno]

No. This is a common misconception of the definition of the word.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism are the positions of KNOWLEDGE.

Atheism/Theism are the positions of BELIEF.

You need to pick both a position regarding knowledge of god, and a position regarding belief of god. There is no such thing as a person who is not either an atheist or theist.

Regarding belief/non-belief in God:
Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in God

Knowledge of God:
Gnosticism = We can have knowledge of god
Weak Agnosticism = We don’t know of god existence, but may gain knowledge in the future.
Strong Agnosticism = We don’t and never can know of god’s existence. It’s impossible by definition.

I’m an atheist and a strong agnostic.

An atheist is not necessarily someone who argues against the existence of god, although many do.I'm afraid these definitions are incorrect.

An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist.

An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a God exists.

[LJoll]

I'm afraid these definitions are incorrect.

An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist.

An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a God exists.

I tihnk there are different definitions accepted.

[Johnno]

I tihnk there are different definitions accepted.
I accept the ones in the dictionary. ;)

[NewLearner]

I'm afraid these definitions are incorrect.

An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist.

An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a God exists.

Johnno, Homer often comes up with definitions different than the dictionary and then tries to tell everyone that we are mistaken for using the definitions you have known all your life and are in the dictionary.

[cloudz]

Yes, it does.

The word means “above/beyond nature.”

And for those who argue it is just another ‘type’ of ‘nature,’ answer this: why bother with the word at all if it is just nature? Why not just call it nature if that is what it is?

And to our knowledge the nature we exist in is nature… the only nature… so it also begs the question and argues from ignorance if one argues for another ‘type’ of nature.

Good post Homer. But I think I'm going to respectfully disagree with the above a little bit.

And for those who argue it is just another ‘type’ of ‘nature,’ answer this: why bother with the word at all if it is just nature? Why not just call it nature if that is what it is?

because we only know our standard, experience and direct investigation of what we know and feel to be : nature.

It would be nature sure.. but not as we know it. Super ? yeah why not. Is that so bad??

There is a differentiation, even if it is just speculative. When it stops being speculative we can drop the super if you like :)

And to our knowledge the nature we exist in is nature… the only nature… so it also begs the question and argues from ignorance if one argues for another ‘type’ of nature

Here you say 'argue' - I say speculate!

If course it's from ignorance, otherwise it wouldn't be speculation anymore.

So if the word means 'above beyond nature'

Then why not ' above /beyond the nature we recognise'

And yes i recognise that it is just an assumption that there is such a nature. Like assuming aliens. An alien nature, a supernatural nature.

Rather than above/beyond - we can just assume different.

So supernatural = assumption of difference to the standard of nature we recognise.

So if we assume another universe with different laws of physics for example, it can be said to be supernatural to us (our standard)

Once we know the standard, I would agree with you - no point bothering with the super bit. It can be incorporated into the nature we know and understand.

[cloudz]

You need to pick both a position regarding knowledge of god, and a position regarding belief of god. There is no such thing as a person who is not either an atheist or theist.

I soooo disagree with you here, on all counts, I don't know were to start. Most of it has been said already. need //!!!??? wtf? I need water to drink and air to breathe.. things like that..

I like johnnos definitions! - I think i can start and finish right there. ;)
They leave limbo room, and if there's no room to limbo.. well somethings fishy!

[LJoll]

I accept the ones in the dictionary. ;)

The definition in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary is: disbelief in the existance of a god or gods.

One definition of desbelief is: lack of faith.

That goes along with what Homer said as far as i can tell.


Part of a wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Atheism_as_absence_of_theism

At the end of the day it doens't matter what you call it, but when I talk of atheism in terms of myself I mean in a sense of lack of belief.


Refusing to use it in that context that looks like an attempt to appear open-minded regardless of what you actually believe. You either believe in god of don't.

Agnostic is described as: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existance of nature of God. As Homer said, that is a statement on knowledge not belief.

[dturtleman]

i haven't seen a post on this thread yet, where anyone expresses a belief in a personal God, who created everything, who is intimately involved with the universe, and who inspired us with ideas of right and wrong, and holds us responsible for our acts. is there anybody out there who believes in a personal God, or does everyone have some fluffy, misty, cloud-like kind of god, that you can define and control. Last time I checked, there was a God, and we're not him.

[WatchfulAbyss]

i haven't seen a post on this thread yet, where anyone expresses a belief in a personal God, who created everything, who is intimately involved with the universe, and who inspired us with ideas of right and wrong, and holds us responsible for our acts. is there anybody out there who believes in a personal God, or does everyone have some fluffy, misty, cloud-like kind of god, that you can define and control.

Hmmmm........
What do you mean, I really don't understand, who is actually saying they control god?


Last time I checked, there was a God, and we're not him.


Please tell me where it was that you last checked, this could actually clear alot up for me aswell as alot of others on here.

[tekkengod]

i haven't seen a post on this thread yet, where anyone expresses a belief in a personal God, who created everything, who is intimately involved with the universe, and who inspired us with ideas of right and wrong, and holds us responsible for our acts. is there anybody out there who believes in a personal God, or does everyone have some fluffy, misty, cloud-like kind of god, that you can define and control. Last time I checked, there was a God, and we're not him.

last time i checked, that wasn't much in the way of evidence there buddy...

[Topher]

I'm afraid these definitions are incorrect.

An atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist.

An agnostic is someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a God exists.
You are incorrect. This is a common error (which I’ll explain later)

An atheist is someone who merely lacks a belief in god. We can call these atheist ‘weak atheists.’ Someone who states god does not exist would be termed a ‘strong atheist.’

Your defintion of agnostic is pretty much what i said.

Regarding belief/non-belief in God:
Theism = Belief in god
Atheism = Lack of belief in God

Knowledge of God:
Gnosticism = We can have knowledge of god
Weak Agnosticism = We don’t know of god existence, but may gain knowledge in the future.
Strong Agnosticism = We don’t and never can know of god’s existence. It’s impossible by definition.

With this in mind, we can have the following variations…

Strong theism = Belief in god and belief we can ‘know’ ‘him’ (i.e. theism and gnosticism.)

Weak theism (also called agnostic theism, also possibly negative theism) = Belief in god and belief we cannot ‘know’ ‘him’ (i.e. theism and strong or weak agnosticism)

Weak atheism = Lack of belief in god (i.e atheism and weak/strong agnosticism)

Strong atheism = Maintains that god does not exist (i.e atheism and weak/strong agnosticism)

So all people hold a position in theism or atheism AND gnosticism or agnosticism.

Do you believe in god? If you say no, then you’re an atheist, by definition. The ‘level’ (if we can call it that) of your atheism may vary, but you an atheist nevertheless.

To declare yourself as an agnostic only states your position regarding knowledge - that we cannot know of god. It does not state your stance on belief.


I accept the ones in the dictionary.
The dictionary should not be referred to exclusively, especially in philosophy discussions. The dictionary often picks up on colloquial, and often incorrect uses of words. The common definition of Agnostic as being ‘middle ground’ is incorrect.

Agnosticism is regarding knowledge of god, specifically, that we cannot have any.

I can give you a very good example of a mis-definition of a word:

Does pantheism have anything to do with pantheon or polytheism?

Only the etymology. In Greek pan means all, theos means god, while poly means many.

POLYTHEISM is belief in many gods.

The PANTHEON (=all gods) is the collection of classical deities like Zeus, Hera and so on, or a building in which they are worshipped.

PANTHEIST (all=god) is a term coined in 1705 by John Toland, for someone who believes that there is only only eternal being - the Universe. On this basis in 1732 the Christian apologist Daniel Waterland used the noun "PANTHEISM" for the first time, condemning the belief as "scandalously bad . . . scarce differing from . . . Atheism."

Very confusingly, many dictionaries give an alternative definition of pantheism as "belief in all the gods." However, this use is based on a nineteenth century misunderstanding. Pantheism was first recorded in this erroneous sense in 1837 - one hudred and five years after its first use in the original sense - by Sir Francis Palgrave. Palgrave wrote: "The great proportion of the Tartar tribes professed a singular species of Pantheism, respecting all creeds, attached to none." Probably Palgrave had heard the word pantheism and confused it with the word "pantheon" - a temple erected to all the Gods. Other people repeated his mistake, and their usage was recorded in the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (published between 1884 and 1928).

It's important to note that this second "meaning" has nothing at all to do with the original meaning, with which it is incompatible and contradictory. It's also useful to note that "belief in all the gods" is not the same as "POLYTHEISM" which means belief in many gods. Polytheism usually means belief in the several gods of a particular national culture. Pantheism in its second sense means belief in all the gods of all nations. This second meaning of pantheism is never used today in books on religion or philosophy. It only persists in dictionaries because it crept into the OED, the mother of all dictionaries, consulted by every new dictionary-compiler. And it only crept into the OED because of a mistaken use of the word! Hopefully bolder dictionary compilers will soon begin to omit the second meaning, which is never used by anyone familiar with the first, original meaning.

Often, words can be erroneously used, and if the mistake is repeated enough to become common usage, it will probably enter the dictionary in its incorrect form.

So if we don’t use the incorrect usage of the word agnosticism, whose should we use?

How about the person who ‘invented’ the word!

His name is Thomas Henry Huxley (]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley)

Agnosticism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) is distinct from, but compatible with, atheism. It is also compatible with theism. This is because agnosticism is a view about knowledge concerning God, whereas theism and atheism are beliefs (or lack thereof) concerning God. For example, it is possible to believe in God but to believe that knowledge about God is not obtainable.

Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. This often stems from the distinction (or lack thereof) between the words "belief" and "knowledge". Some consider them to be the same. (E.g.: "I believe god exists" = "I know god exists" = "I affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'"). Others consider them to be different (E.g.: "I believe god exists" can still mean "I don't know if god exists" or "I cannot affirm the truth-value of the statement 'god exists'").

I trust this clears up your error?

[Topher]

because we only know our standard, experience and direct investigation of what we know and feel to be : nature.
Correct, we can only understand nature, and for that very reason, when talking of ‘things’ not apart of it, it becomes necessarily meaningless and incoherent. When doing this one would be begging the question. And to argue that something beyond nature having a nature would be, in addition to a contradiction, would be committing the fallacies of arguing from ignorance and stealing the concept

It would be nature sure.. but not as we know it.
If we cannot know it, then we cannot say it is nature? This commits the fallacies I stated above.

To our knowledge, the nature we exist in is the only nature. One cannot argue or talk about anything else (i.e. ‘another nature’ or ‘beyond nature’) and expect to make any sense, and not commit fallacies.

Super ? yeah why not. Is that so bad??
Yes, it’s an error.

I should clarify… ‘supernatural’ is not a ‘super nature’ (i.e. a ‘better’ or ‘superior’ nature).

You see, the term supernatural was coined in Latin, when Latin was the prominent language, and in Latin, “super” is defined as ‘exceeding,’ ‘beyond’ or ‘above,’ so the term ‘supernatural’ (super- ‘exceeding’ or ‘beyond’ + nature) was created to refer to ‘things’ quite literally beyond nature, which obviously to us is necessarily irrational and incoherent.

So supernatural is contra nature, the antithesis of nature.

So if the word means 'above beyond nature'

Then why not ' above /beyond the nature we recognise'
Because it assumes there is another nature, which begs the questions and steals the concept.

Once we know the standard, I would agree with you - no point bothering with the super bit. It can be incorporated into the nature we know and understand.
Well, by its very definition, we cannot know of its ‘standard.’ If we could, it would always have been natural. Something is not supernatural, which then becomes natural when we understand it. Our understanding of lack of does not affect it supernatural or natural ‘status.’

The paradox of the supernatural, if such a ‘place’/’thing‘ ‘exists’ is we can never know of it, because if we know of it, it is natural. It is impossible by definition to know of anything supernatural.

I soooo disagree with you here, on all counts, I don't know were to start. Most of it has been said already. need //!!!??? wtf? I need water to drink and air to breathe.. things like that..
The point is many people don’t realise that the position on knowledge and belief are separate. Hence many just call themselves agnostic. This, in my view, is merely to avoid answering the question. Declaring yourself agnostic doesn’t say anything on your belief.

Belief often follows from knowledge, however one can believe something, but not declare knowledge on what they believe. So on issues regarding god, one should state their position on both knowledge and belief.

They leave limbo room, and if there's no room to limbo.. well somethings fishy!
Well, the issue is pretty much black and white. Do you believe in god? If you say no, you’re an atheist. Of course, there are variations within that, but you’re still an atheist nonetheless.

[Socrastein]

The paradox of the supernatural, if such a ‘place’/’thing‘ ‘exists’ is we can never know of it, because if we know of it, it is natural. It is impossible by definition to know of anything supernatural.

Which ties into the problem of interaction between the physical and the supernatural. By definition, they are completely seperate realms - there is nothing physical about the supernatural world, and there is nothing supernatural about the physical world; if there were, then they would be the same realm. And if things from the two realms can interact in any way whatsoever, then they are not actually of seperate realms.

So the question is, can you throw a softball at the Gross National Product of the US?

Of course not, because they're too completely seperate things that have their own completely seperate beings. Softballs exist as natural, physical objects, whereas the US GNP is a mental object, an abstract concept that exists only in the sentient experience of humans. It is completely nonsensical to speak of one interacting with the other.

Just as it is completely nonsensical to speak of metaphysical, supernatural beings interacting with physical, natural beings. It's incoherent.

[cloudz]

Just some thoughts really..

Homer, would you say a pantheist as you describe it above (all=god) is a theist then?

all=god does not imply an omnipotent god or any of the other definition Ckava gave for example. In effect it is mostly the same as saying universe = god or god=everything.. So is this person (pantheist) an atheist or a theist under your definition of those two?

Also you use the word knowledge in regard gnosticism. What is this kind of knowledge? What type ?

Can anybody learn or discover such knowledge ?
Does it come from a book or something, and is it the same knowledge that an agnostic refers to ?
Or do they just disagree about the same knowledge base ?

You accept belief or non belief are based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. So why seperate them. Or is it that there are 2 types of knowledge being used, and being put to work. One being the knowledge of faith. You either feel faith (know it) in something greater than yourself or you don't.

How is it possible to know something and not believe it?

But you see knowing this faith (for want of a better word) is not the same as being a theist. It is only theist when you specify your ultimate reality - and everything comes about/is controlled from this thing ( i think). But you cannot name it if your are not sure or don't know exactly what that is (dfinitively). You may have an idea, but it seems this idea may have been around a long time.. So most likely you would just say it is everything. Maybe everything and no-thing at once. It may not be something you know or don't know, but something you feel it to be through accumalated experience - tantamount to knowledge. It can add up to belief in a manner of speaking, but could well be described as how someone feels about it.

I am sure though the same person could easily believe that a tree was made of wood. Mostly because he can agree with most anybody what wood is. (unless maybe if they are a porn star)


There is no such thing as a person who is not either an atheist or theist.

Ok, can they be both? And when you say theist, do you mean 'any form'.
ie. whatever they choose to make their 'ultimate reality' ? i mean it could be the christian God, or something else.. maybe Ronald Mcdonald.

A pantheist is very different from a Islamic or Christian theist. But according to you they must either both be the same theist, or that the pantheist is an atheist really ?


Was also wondering is it possible for someone to be atheist - gnostic to some degree ? Is it a contradiction?

Apologies for all the questioning, but it seems you are the right man to ask about this stuff.

Originally Posted by zendog
It would be nature sure.. but not as we know it.

If we cannot know it, then we cannot say it is nature? This commits the fallacies I stated above.

What does a beetle know about human nature.? Its know nothing because it is not in its nature to. So you could say our nature is supernatural in relation to the beetle. You could even say it is above and beyond it.
Also is everything that humans do natural or part of nature ?
Is it in nature to fire a rocket at the moon ? Or to create TV ?
Is this supernatural maybe. Also the way these things came to be is certanly through a interaction of the creative mind (mental realm) with the physical/ natural world. Hey presto cars, skyscrapers, rocketships etc. I bet they would be 'above and beyond nature' to those old Romans who concieved of the term 'supernatural'.

Likewise the stuff we may be up to in a thousand years may be supernatural ( above/beyond (different) to the standard of nature) like certain genetic manipulations - maybe this is happening on a small scale already. Yeah - we've all seen those mutant tomatoes havn't we ?

Also if we consider another dimension.. if such things exist. It may be natural for them to do so. But could we ever understand or know them. If we never understood them, but verified they were there. We could say they were natural but their very nature was supernatural - beyond our understanding. Like human nature is beyond the understanding of a mouse or somesuch. he may see us there.

So the question is, can you throw a softball at the Gross National Product of the US?

yea sure, but you'd probably miss, perhaps you should try throwing the GNP at the softball. :)

[Johnno]

The dictionary should not be referred to exclusively, especially in philosophy discussions. The dictionary often picks up on colloquial, and often incorrect uses of words.So every time you want to check the definition of a word you spend a few hours researching it? :confused:

I think I'll stick to using the dictionary. ;)

[cloudz]

To our knowledge, the nature we exist in is the only nature. One cannot argue or talk about anything else (i.e. ‘another nature’ or ‘beyond nature’) and expect to make any sense, and not commit fallacies.

When scientists talk of other dimensions they can seem to make some sense, yet we would not expect to exist in the nature of another dimension or know very much about it.



You see, the term supernatural was coined in Latin, when Latin was the prominent language, and in Latin, “super” is defined as ‘exceeding,’ ‘beyond’ or ‘above,’ so the term ‘supernatural’ (super- ‘exceeding’ or ‘beyond’ + nature) was created to refer to ‘things’ quite literally beyond nature, which obviously to us is necessarily irrational and incoherent.

So supernatural is contra nature, the antithesis of nature.

I say lets fudge what these guys thought all that time ago, it hardly seems relevent when considering what we know today. There is speculation about what we know as to what it adds up to. you could call it cosmology theory, scientific theory, theology, science fiction, metaphysical/supernatural. It seems to me they amount to much the same thing by and large ('educated' speculation).. Surely words can change meaning with the times .

Because it assumes there is another nature, which begs the questions and steals the concept.

Another nature? or a part of nature, yet to be understood or confirmed. As long as it is taken as speculative, what does it steal. Its own speculation?
Sure it asks questions, but that's kind of a tool of gaining further knowledge isn't it. If we weren't curious to discover more, or 'beg the questions' how much would have been discovered. We started off ignorant, and now we are less so. This line of enquiry surely yielded something of note, through the ages, maybe even in times to come..

Well, by its very definition, we cannot know of its ‘standard.’ If we could, it would always have been natural. Something is not supernatural, which then becomes natural when we understand it. Our understanding of lack of does not affect it supernatural or natural ‘status.’

Other than its status in our minds perhaps.. After all we are talking about a word that describes above other things a speculation made by our minds about things were that is all we can do: wonder about.

That deserves a word. A nice fancy one. A super one even. :) :)


The paradox of the supernatural, if such a ‘place’/’thing‘ ‘exists’ is we can never know of it, because if we know of it, it is natural. It is impossible by definition to know of anything supernatural.

Maybe that's the point..

The point is many people don’t realise that the position on knowledge and belief are separate. Hence many just call themselves agnostic. This, in my view, is merely to avoid answering the question. Declaring yourself agnostic doesn’t say anything on your belief.

Why are they seperate. Isn't the point that if you lack certain knowledge regard something how do you go about believing or not believing it?
If I was a detective and I had no evidence eitherway, how could i believe someone either guilty or innocent? I may lean toward one or other, I may even feel strongly. but wouldn't it be foolhardy to make a belief of it?

Why is it avoiding answering the question? You may be right about the last part. You may ask, but no one has to answer how you want. The answer in this case is no belief eitherway. Maybe they want to keep there option open. If they admit to a possibility of god existing, how can they believe that there are no Gods. It is quite possible that at the same time they also admit that there is a possibility that there is no God. So they are unable to say they believe in god.

You seem to think this is impossible. I beg to differ. I almost want to say you are begging the question, but wouldn't know what i was on about. :p

Belief often follows from knowledge, however one can believe something, but not declare knowledge on what they believe. So on issues regarding god, one should state their position on both knowledge and belief.

I know no-thing and only know everything I know.Believe in no-thing just everything that is, whether i know it or not.. Howz that?

Well, the issue is pretty much black and white. Do you believe in god? If you say no, you’re an atheist. Of course, there are variations within that, but you’re still an atheist nonetheless.

Yes your question does seem very black and white indeed. the issue a little less so.. (still)

I think it fair to assume that some people may and can be a mix of these 'positions'.. because many people may well tend to be less black and white than you would like or assume them to be.

[Topher]

Homer, would you say a pantheist as you describe it above (all=god) is a theist then?

all=god does not imply an omnipotent god or any of the other definition Ckava gave for example. In effect it is mostly the same as saying universe = god or god=everything.. So is this person (pantheist) an atheist or a theist under your definition of those two?
I’d say there an atheist who’s not quite ready to ‘let go’ ;) :D

Also you use the word knowledge in regard gnosticism. What is this kind of knowledge? What type ?
This link should help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

A gnostic would believe they can comprehend and know of god personally, as we would know of another person etc. They would believe to have knowledge of his existence. ‘Gnosticism’ comes from ‘gnosis,‘ which is the Greek word for ‘knowledge’.

It’s the opposite of Agnosticism (a=without + gnostic=knowledge) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)

Can anybody learn or discover such knowledge ?
By definition, no.

If they believe they can, they can present it.

You accept belief or non belief are based on knowledge or lack of knowledge. So why seperate them. Or is it that there are 2 types of knowledge being used, and being put to work. One being the knowledge of faith. You either feel faith (know it) in something greater than yourself or you don't.
Knowledge is knowledge. You either have it, or you don’t. If you have it, you can present it.

Faith is a belief without evidence, or in the absence of evidence. If one has evidence, one does not need faith.

Ok, can they be both? And when you say theist, do you mean 'any form'.
ie. whatever they choose to make their 'ultimate reality' ? i mean it could be the christian God, or something else.. maybe Ronald Mcdonald.
Theist - someone who believes in a supernatural, supreme creator god or gods, often a personal god or gods, and possibly that this/these god/creator(s) is active in the world (i.e. answers prayers etc)

Was also wondering is it possible for someone to be atheist - gnostic to some degree ? Is it a contradiction?
I think it is a contradiction. If you have knowledge of god or gods, you won’t disbelieve in them.

Although I suppose, if someone had knowledge of god, they would not longer *believe* in ‘him’, they would know ‘him’. So technically, they would lack belief (a weak atheist) and have knowledge (a gnostic).

That is just playing with terms, but I think generally I would consider it a contradiction.

What does a beetle know about human nature.? Its know nothing because it is not in its nature to. So you could say our nature is supernatural in relation to the beetle. You could even say it is above and beyond it.
No, we all have the same nature. It is still natural. It exists. It exists as something. It has limits. It has characteristics/a description. Not having a conscious doesn’t mean to lack nature. If someone doesn’t have a nature, we cannot say it exist. If you exist in the natural world, you have a nature, you are natural. That’s that the word means.

Hey presto cars, skyscrapers, rocketships etc. I bet they would be 'above and beyond nature' to those old Romans who concieved of the term 'supernatural'.
It is still natural, for they exist as something, they have limits. They might seem as beyond belief, ‘other worldly,’ but this view would be from ignorance of such things. It would commit the fallacy of equivocation to say something supernatural is something that appears ‘other worldly’ or beyond belief. It also steals the concept by saying natural things are supernatural. The fact that such things (cars, skyscrapers, rocketships) exist, mean they are natural by definition. If they were supernatural, we wouldn’t even know of them, they wouldn’t even exist.

Also if we consider another dimension.. if such things exist. It may be natural for them to do so. But could we ever understand or know them.
If they are natural, we could potentially understand them, whether we will is another thing.

If we never understood them, but verified they were there. We could say they were natural but their very nature was supernatural - beyond our understanding.
If we could verify their existence, they would not be beyond our understanding, our comprehension etc. We may have a limited understanding (i.e. we only understand it exists), we may lack addition knowledge, but it would not be beyond our understanding. That would be a contradiction.

If it is natural, it is natural. It’s tautology. To say it was also supernatural is a contradiction. Akin to saying A and ~A.

[cloudz]

Cheers Homer, v. helpful stuff all round, things are a bit clearer upstairs on these topics, finally! :)

[Durkhrod Chogori]

There are many gods not just one. And about the ultimate one, we have eternity to find IT. ;)