Naturalism vs. Super-Naturalism
Hello all:
If y'all have discussed this topic elsewhere, please point me to the relevant thread!
The question of naturalism strikes me as being the most divisive issue between theists and atheists. (Cue "Thank you, Captain Obvious" responses) Atheists, obviously, think naturalism is true, while the vast majority of theists think some sort of super-naturalism is true. So there is no confusion, allow me to define my terms. I would define a naturalist as one who thinks the natural world is “the whole show.” The whole, interlocking event we call Nature is just what there is. It would be possible to believe in some sort of god in this scheme. However, this god would still be part of the show—a naturalistic god, who must follow the laws of Nature, the same as anything else. But I think it safe to say most naturalists are atheists. A super-naturalist simply thinks something exists besides nature. (Or, it might be better to say “beyond” or “behind” nature.) This something is not part of nature. It is not caught up in the natural system; it is separate or other. I also think it safe to say most super-naturalists think this something created nature. Exactly how the super-natural relates to the natural is nebulous. Deists, for example, might claim that no interaction occurs between the natural and the super-natural. A Christian theist would argue that the Super-natural (i.e. God) can and does affect Nature. I think the question of naturalism causes much unnecessary friction. Consider the question of miracles. If naturalism is true, then no miracles could occur. We can rule out miracles from the start. If everything is a part of nature, then nothing can interfere with nature. Indeed, nothing exists which could possibly do a miracle. It would be pure nonsense to refer to an event as miraculous. So, an atheist thinks a Christian simply stupid for believing any miracle might have occurred, when really they simply have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. Finally, the point of the thread: 1) Are you a naturalist or a super-naturalist? 2) Why do you hold that position? 3) Do you agree with my categorization of your position? (E.g., if you are a super-naturalist, have I wrongly described your beliefs?) Thanks,Ryan P.S. This thread might go better in the philosophy forum. Please feel free to move it!P.P.S. I suck at forum code! Sorry!
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. --Michael Crichton
- Login to post comments
I mean can God interact with the physical world (in your beliefs)?
Yes.
Then help me out -- why did you say that mathematics is a separate type of reasoning?
I've just explained. Mathematic truths are neither derived from experience nor are they true by definition.
No, because axioms are a tool of mathematical reasoning. If you want to go after the philosophy of mathematics and logic, and get all circular, you could resort to Kurt Godel, if you like. Is that where you're going with that thought?
I've not even read Kurt Godel. You are just name dropping.
You are claiming that the presuppositions necessary for scientific induction to take place were themselves derived from scientific induction?! You are the one who is being circular.
To understand. How are we meant to understand the concept of spirit. A spirit is made of what, exactly? And if we don't know, then how can we discuss spirits as though we do know what they're made of?
Your question is stupid. To ask what a spiritual being is "made of" is a loaded question which presumes a spiritual being to actually be material, since only a material being could be "made of" anything.
Spirit is usually understood as a negative term, denoting that which is not extended in space. But if you want a positive definition, you could say that it is an entity which is pure form (see Aristotle's hylomorphism).
No, I'm suggesting that you're saying a being can be eternal. What reason would you have to suggest that a being could be eternal?
(1) All of logical reasoning must be underlied by basic axioms which themselves supersede all formal systems. Such concepts can only be accounted for by an eternal being.
(2) The motion of the universe contains singular entities coming in and out of existence and such motion is only meaningful if we posit a starting point and this starting point must necessarily be a being who is unmoved, which is possible only if this being is eternal.
(3) We have an objective framework of right and wrong in humanity and such concepts can only be accounted for by an eternal being. Otherwise, things would not be always right or always wrong.
(4) A chain of causality cannot infinitely regress or else it would follow that your existence traversed an infinite line of causality, which is impossible or else you could not have been here because nothing can come after an infinity. Therefore, there must be one being who is not caused and only an eternal being can satisfy this criteria.
(5) Knowledge requires absolute truth. If all truths are contingent and there is no absolute truth, then the contingency will not be based upon anything. Absolute truth must partake of knowledge had to be an eternal being.
You haven't really given your argument any substance.
But that is just your opinion. You simply poison the well and then automatically disregard any argument that I give you as "lacking substance" whilst claiming that you are actually open minded to any evidence that a theist may present.
Hand waving answers only work for things that aren't all that complicated. Intelligence is an extremely complicated subject. If it weren't, we would already have artificially intelligent machines.
(1) We do not have artifically intelligent robots.
(2) Therefore, "intelligence" is a difficult concept to understand.
If we want to define intelligence as knowing (which is a terrible definition of intelligence) then we could say that a database was intelligent. Databases are clearly not intelligent, so there's something missing there.
So you are claiming that your computer *knows* things? Would you also claim that your computer has emotions like love if it's able to flash "I love you" on the marquee screen saver?
Sure. First, if we're to assume the principle of sufficient reason, then as Schopenhauer put it, anything that becomes must have been preceeded by a previous state.
That's not the principle of sufficient reason. Read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
That is, if we're assuming a chain of causality, it goes on forever. You're kind of stuck with that.
No, you are not.
If you create a being such that it breaks this chain of causality by stopping it at a period of time, and also further state that this being is the only necessary being, then you've contradicted the principle of sufficient reason, which should apply to the being itself.
Umm, no. God, as a necessary being, is his own sufficient reason.
The simpler version is "everything needs a cause except this one thing".
Actually, nobody is claiming that everything needs a cause. The claim is that anything which cannot account for its own existence through its very nature must be brought into existence by something else. Or you could say that everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
Not even God is exempt from those rules.
I'm pointing out that you're making assertions. For instance, You've said that God is indivisible without demonstrating why you think that is.
I did demonstrate why that is the case. God has to be indivisible or else his qualities would exist separately from him and would have to be accounted for by an even higher entity.
But a being that does not exist as we do, and yet still exists is okay (I'm assuming)? I'm just trying to understand where you put God in all this.
He does exist as we do insofar that he is an object in reality.
They were all really crappy arguments. I mean really crappy.
No. You will disregard any arguments no matter what they are. There is absolutely no evidence that you will accept for God because you do not want God to exist.
If you want to show that something exists, but it can't be measured, then your problem isn't with the creatures existence so much as what you'll accept "exist" means. That's why I was asking whether or not God could interact with the physical world -- if so, then the possibility exists for God to be measured. At that point, God would have partial existence. At least, the part that interacted with the physical world would have existence.
Yes, God can interact with the physical world. It has all been documented in the scriptures. Read up.
I'm saying that you've put the word "necessary" in front of God without showing any reason to consider God necessary.
God is necessary because God cannot possibly not exist. In fact, assuming that he does not exist inevitably leads to irrationality, since by doing so, you are unable to account for your own existence, your rationality, or your morality.
And different gods, too. What if you picked the wrong one?
All I've picked was an eternal being who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, holy, righteous.
I can't fathom how a different culture could worship something that did not meet any that criteria.
They are? Where?
On the planet Earth.
The odd thing about what you wrote there is that I could say the same thing to you. Who are you saying is turning metaphysical ideas into natural events? And how do you know about the destruction of humanity, and its causes? Who's trying to make science their metaphysics? Do you mean having a naturalist's outlook on things?
I'll get back to you on that. I don't have the links in front of me.
- Login to post comments
God is necessary because God cannot possibly not exist. In fact, assuming that he does not exist inevitably leads to irrationality, since by doing so, you are unable to account for your own existence, your rationality, or your morality.
That pretty much ends the argument. It's probably safe to go on the assumption that you're going to keep repeating the same lines over and over again, or resort to some ridiculous sophistry, like saying I claim my computer loves me.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Lol. So he never learned to add 2 and 2. How one could possibly make a statement such as "God is necessary because God cannot possibly not exist." is beyond me. If god cannot possibly exist, then god is NOT necessary, and DOESN'T exist.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Lol. So he never learned to add 2 and 2. How one could possibly make a statement such as "God is necessary because God cannot possibly not exist." is beyond me. If god cannot possibly exist, then god is NOT necessary, and DOESN'T exist.
It's fairly mind-bending. Statements like "God is necessary" are roughly equivalent to "God has a massive purple sombrero" to me (as I've said before). Equally unverifiable is God's choice of godly footwear and what God has for God breakfast in the God morning.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Hopefully he will come back, but it looks like a drive-by. From reading his Blog, it doesn't look like he sticks around if there is any serious argument leveled against what he writes.
Also, his Blog makes him sound like a jerk. That is not relevent to the discussion, but still interesting.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "participate".
Are you asking if there are physical events which are only caused by God and not some other physical event?
No, I would disagree.
Wouldn't you agree that scientific induction requires a set of axioms which themselves cannot be derived from scientific induction?
If yes, where do they come from?
Are they just based on the physiology of our brains, which itself is a contingent factor of the physical world?
If no, then can you give me any idea as to what closes the gap between perception and knowledge? How can a perception turn into knowledge if we have no prior knowledge?
Okay. I'll cite Aquinas, who suggested that we can know God through revelation and through logical reasoning.
But you've already rejected both of them and I really can't offer you anything else.
I'm not sure what you mean as far as "how to deal".
Wait a minute, Mr. Atheist. Are you claiming that nothing is eternal?
Except that I'm already disagreeing that we can know nothing about God. It is therefore unjustified for you to just randomly insert this into your rebuttal.
I really do not see anything difficult about the concept of intelligence. Something is intelligent if and only if it experiences the qualitative state of knowing. What is so difficult about that?
Can you demonstrate this?
You are just making assertions.
No.
Yes.
Another assertion. Can you prove that God exists only as a thought object or that nobody has any evidence? I've already disproved the latter, as I've offered you 40 different proofs. So we have evidence, but you've rejected it. So where do we go from here?
Are you saying that everything is contingent?
That different cultures have different beliefs.
The issue is that scientists are extending their methodologies to things like morality, choices, love, kinship, aesthetics, knowledge, human value, etc. This is science taking metaphysical ideas and turning them into natural events. This not only leads to irrationality, but it will ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity. Metaphysics cannot be your science, but science cannot be your metaphysics.
The rest of what you've written consists of more assertions that remain unproven by you.
I love how when a theist gets blasted to oblivion on something, they just ignore it completely and keep on with their other arguments, hoping that something else will work, instead of realising that there's something very wrong with their thought processes.
You have yet to demonstrate anything unnatural about any of these things, while observation and details support the idea that they are quite natural.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Lord, you ask where do you go from here...obviously you either provide counter-arguments for his refutations, or you concede. I think that is the basic idea behind a debate.
You need to show us why his refutations are wrong instead of just saying the discussion is over because he does not agree with you.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Was a simple question. Does your God, which is supposedly part of this "supernatural" realm, participate or interact with our "natural" realm?
If he does then the two realms by definition cannot be mutually exclusive, they are one in the same overall realm.
Logic? Really? Coming from someone who attempts to use 800 year old philosphical arguments and no understanding of science. There is no logic in having a personal experience and expecting others to believe what you do with zero evidence of said experience.
Deal with, understand, relate, know, deduce, decern, explain, etc... It means giving a definition of what spiritual is other than empty baseless circular rhetoric. Is it part of the body, do only certain religions experience awareness of it, if so, why? etc...
Only conceptually since you could NEVER prove an actual infinite by definition. Do you think there are things that are eternal/infinite? I'd like to see you show some evidence without you overstepping the exact same argument you claimed against atheists of having infinite knowledge to make said claim.
What's so difficult about judging intelligence? What is a qualitative state of knowing then? Is it simply reacting with one's environment? A rock falling down a hill could fill that criteria... No one has managed to pin down a concise working definition of what exactly intelligence is and the fact that you think you know is amusing.
Define perfection for us that's not subjective. It's empty apologetics that lets anyone assert anything they think is god's will. The bible says it's perfect so we must follow these rules because they're perfect because the bible says they're perfect.
Your "proofs" were riddled with logical fallacies. Every single one of them. Come back when you can explain why they weren't torn apart by one-liners and stop using ad hominems.
On one thing or another I'd say yes but how deep the rabbit-hole goes no one can say for sure. Any assertion of a God would also violate the very concept of contingency as well since it's hinged upon special pleading.
Morality, choices, love, kinship, aesthetics, etc... can all be explained by science on a rational level. X chemical binds to Y receptor in Z area of the brain to create a cascade and response from other regions. There was an article in American Scientist just this month explaining the aesthetics in the brain, how great artists manipulate parts of the brain responsible for recognizing visual cues, exagerating them so our attention snaps to them etc... I'm sorry if this doesn't interest you or is too complicated to understand, I know just "feeling" whatever you want is so much easier.
Your assertion that metaphysics influenced by science will ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity is bullshit and you know it. IGNORING scientifically informed metaphysics will ultimately destroy humanity, ie your bigoted scientifically illiterate worldview.
I asked for clarification and you've simply repeated the question. I cannot answer it if you do not answer my request for clarification.
I don't believe I've ever claimed anything to the contrary. There is only one reality and God occupies equally with everything else.
I've never used any arguments from personal experience, nor have I even made any philosophical arguments. The only argument I've made in this thread is an argument against materialistic naturalism. To my knowledge, nobody in the middle ages ever made the argument that I've made, at least in my exact words.
I did give a definition, so I've fulfilled your request (and by "your request", I mean "Willness' Request", which means that you must be his ventriloquist because you are speaking for him.)
I've never said that an eternal being can be proved through the definition of "eternal".
God is eternal. Evidence that God is eternal includes the Bible (I could cite passages if you want), philosophy throughout the Middle Ages, logical necessity, and the very idea of "God".
Remember, you did not ask me to prove that God exists. You are only asking me to prove that God is eternal.
It doesn't surprise me that you do not know what "knowing" means since you've yet to demonstrate that this applies to you at all.
Qualia is not defined. It is experienced. You cannot define it any further than what I've given.
Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
You've already poisoned the well and now any definition I give you for "perfection" will be disavowed by you as being "subjective".
They were not my proofs.
This is an ad hoc maneuver whereby every single argument which gets presented is automatically discredited as having "logical fallacies".
And it has nothing to do with the fact that the statement "There is no evidence for God" is a false statement, as I've shown that there is evidence.
No.
Then you're saying that it is possible that everything is contingent? You are saying that it is possible that there can be contigency without any necessity whatsoever?
"On a rational level"... LOL. Not that you are biased or anything.
I've never denied that science can explain these things. Likewise, natural events could also be explained by invoking God. But that has nothing to do with the actual plausibility of the explanations.
Ohh, an article in a magazine! That's it. You've won the argument. I cannot possibly win once you've found an article in some magazine called "American Scientist".
And this one time, at band camp...
If it's bullshit, I definitely do not know it. We're in the process of alleviating responsibility to killers, homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists, etc. by turning their issues into chemistry. Pretty soon, we will not need a prison. We can simply give a pill to everyone and cure the disease of evil.
So all you have is circular reasoning, appeal to authority, and special pleading? Ok.
So now you're defining knowing as experiencing qualia. Qualia is described as something like the experience of seeing the color red or tasting something. It's a mere chemical action and reaction in your brain as a reaction to stimuli. So again I ask, can you explain the difference between something like a protien that interacts with its environment and a human on the objective judgement of what you think intelligence is? Do you think only humans possess intelligence?
I've read all of that before. Read Daniel Dennett's criticism of qualia, that's where I stand.
If you're not willing to argue that perfection isn't subjective then you have nothing, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Yes, nevermind the fact that they were pointed out and you refuse to review them. I could make all kinds of silly statements ad nauseum and call them "proofs" too but that wouldn't make it so.
You have a pretty low bar for evidence then, want to see the picture my 4 year old neice drew of sasquatch?
Evidence should be non-ambiguous.
I'm saying it's a possibility with no evidence to unambiguously say one way or the other.
The only difference is that the invocation of your God has zero explanitory power to make predictions.
Yes, lets just do exactly what they do and kill all of them right? Nevermind the dozens if not thousnands of other programs and scientific research being done to study criminal behavior.
I think I mentioned something about a door and your ass. Goodbye.
Excuse me for butting in here, but that is such a graphic example of not answering the question and bad 'logic'.
Unless you take it as given that God as described in the Bible does exist, the Bible does not provide evidence that anything is 'eternal/infinite", merely that some people believe that there are 'eternal/infinite' things. You either didn't understand the question, or are deliberately avoiding it, or simply cannot even entertain hypothetically that God might not exist.
Philosophy is similarly just more evidence that other people believed that there are 'eternal/infinite' things - that is not actual evidence. At least outline the evidence they based their belief on.
"Logical necessity' is just an empty assertion, without the logical argument why there must be something eternal or infinite.
And of course referring to 'the very idea of "God"' as evidence that "there are things that are eternal/infinite" is so totally illogical, especially when you stress in your response that you are not trying to "prove that God exists."
IOW this response is such a clear example of the totally confused, illogical 'thinking' necessary to maintain a belief in God, it deserves to be framed and put on display on the RRS site somewhere.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I mean can God interact with the physical world (in your beliefs)?
Then help me out -- why did you say that mathematics is a separate type of reasoning?
No, because axioms are a tool of mathematical reasoning. If you want to go after the philosophy of mathematics and logic, and get all circular, you could resort to Kurt Godel, if you like. Is that where you're going with that thought?
I'm not sure what you mean as far as "how to deal".
To understand. How are we meant to understand the concept of spirit. A spirit is made of what, exactly? And if we don't know, then how can we discuss spirits as though we do know what they're made of?
No, I'm suggesting that you're saying a being can be eternal. What reason would you have to suggest that a being could be eternal?
You haven't really given your argument any substance. If you want to tell me how we can know God in a meaningful way -- for instance, Aquinas' idea that we could get to know God logically -- and then fail entirely to demonstrate God logically, then I feel that I have to point out that weakness in the argument.
Hand waving answers only work for things that aren't all that complicated. Intelligence is an extremely complicated subject. If it weren't, we would already have artificially intelligent machines.
If we want to define intelligence as knowing (which is a terrible definition of intelligence) then we could say that a database was intelligent. Databases are clearly not intelligent, so there's something missing there.
Sure. First, if we're to assume the principle of sufficient reason, then as Schopenhauer put it, anything that becomes must have been preceeded by a previous state. That is, if we're assuming a chain of causality, it goes on forever. You're kind of stuck with that.
If you create a being such that it breaks this chain of causality by stopping it at a period of time, and also further state that this being is the only necessary being, then you've contradicted the principle of sufficient reason, which should apply to the being itself. Some would call this "special pleading", but you could say it's strictly contradiction.
The simpler version is "everything needs a cause except this one thing". That's a contradiction. So I suppose technically, it's not circular. I was looking at it from the point of view of an argument, where you could go back and forth between saying that everything requires a cause and this one thing (breaking "everything" does not require a cause. So I misspoke with "circular".
I'm pointing out that you're making assertions. For instance, You've said that God is indivisible without demonstrating why you think that is.
But a being that does not exist as we do, and yet still exists is okay (I'm assuming)? I'm just trying to understand where you put God in all this.
They were all really crappy arguments. I mean really crappy. If you want to show that something exists, but it can't be measured, then your problem isn't with the creatures existence so much as what you'll accept "exist" means. That's why I was asking whether or not God could interact with the physical world -- if so, then the possibility exists for God to be measured. At that point, God would have partial existence. At least, the part that interacted with the physical world would have existence.
I'm saying that you've put the word "necessary" in front of God without showing any reason to consider God necessary.
And different gods, too. What if you picked the wrong one?
They are? Where?
The odd thing about what you wrote there is that I could say the same thing to you. Who are you saying is turning metaphysical ideas into natural events? And how do you know about the destruction of humanity, and its causes? Who's trying to make science their metaphysics? Do you mean having a naturalist's outlook on things?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence