What is your single best argument for the existence of god(s)

[nonbeliever_92]

So to qualify as magical something has to first be impossible? No wonder you haven't seen evidence then. Odion's quote about no evidence being sufficient springs to mind once again.

You want some element of magic that is quantitative, repeatable and testable? Consider the following:

Mind Control/Glamour - Hypnosis
Curses/Blessings - Nocebo/Placebo
Berserker Magic - Adrenaline rush


Now considering you have here some well known ways in which ancient magic could be made to work, you would think scientists would be overjoyed that not only have they proven magic to exist, they actually know how to employ it for themselves! Instead, what was once called magic is renamed and the method used to cast a spell no longer "counts" as evidence. Rather than measuring the means by which magic can be performed, advocates of scientific method have decided they have disproved magic.
Granted, some things ARE disproved by science, such as a god throwing lightning bolts. With magic however, scientists have exactly what they always demanded, hard, testable evidence.

I guess the main point here is semantics, none of these I would consider magic becuase they're all natural occurences, there' nothing especially amazing about them that makes them magical. they're wonderous, no doubt, but not magical. There's nothing supernatural about them.

 

[Erebus]

I guess the main point here is semantics, none of these I would consider magic becuase they're all natural occurences, there' nothing especially amazing about them that makes them magical. they're wonderous, no doubt, but not magical. There's nothing supernatural about them.

This is the point where most people tell me I have more in common with an athiest than a theist

Personally I don't believe anything can be "beyond natural law" or anything similar as if it exists, it is within natural law. Some things change our perception of natural law however, such as space travel, flight or even sailing around the world. We've discovered magic, monsters and gods (Amazon snake gods anyone?) and tragically our discovery of them seems to reduce their status to us.

I've witnessed some very strange things, but I have little doubt that given enough time, scientists will someday be able to measure and analyse them.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Heres' the thing, you say you do not believe in the supernatural, yet you claim science has shown proofs of it?

 

[Erebus]

Heres' the thing, you say you do not believe in the supernatural, yet you claim science has shown proofs of it?

Not quite, I said I don't believe in anything beyond natural law. In my mind, "supernatural" is largely a matter of perception. I consider ghosts to be perfectly natural for example, while I'm confident you would consider them supernatural. Science tends to find proof of things considered supernatural by the majority of people.

It can be a little contradictory I admit, I have the same problem with morals. I don't believe in ultimate morals myself, but sometimes it's necessary to use the commonly accepted notion of good/evil for ease of conversation. I might not consider murder to be evil myself for example, but I know other people do and so it saves time to describe it that way rather than simply cross the word "evil" out of my dictionary and explain my stance on morality all the time instead. Does that make any sense? I'll rethink my wording if not.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I think a better word instead of supernatural would be Preternatural. Less confusion, though I still find it ridiciulous.

 

[Erebus]

I think a better word instead of supernatural would be Preternatural. Less confusion, though I still find it ridiciulous.

Yes there you go, I don't believe in the preternatural

What do you find ridiculous?

 

[Sententia]

So for the existence of God is not external proofs but existential awareness and experience.

If you realize your time here is limited and you are responsible for what you do while you are here then you must believe in god?

 

[ShakeZula]

Not quite, I said I don't believe in anything beyond natural law. In my mind, "supernatural" is largely a matter of perception. I consider ghosts to be perfectly natural for example, while I'm confident you would consider them supernatural. Science tends to find proof of things considered supernatural by the majority of people.

It can be a little contradictory I admit, I have the same problem with morals. I don't believe in ultimate morals myself, but sometimes it's necessary to use the commonly accepted notion of good/evil for ease of conversation. I might not consider murder to be evil myself for example, but I know other people do and so it saves time to describe it that way rather than simply cross the word "evil" out of my dictionary and explain my stance on morality all the time instead. Does that make any sense? I'll rethink my wording if not.

Your word games are tiring. You've simply redefined magic and supernatural to be perfectly natural things in order to... what? I'm not sure. Maintain whatever pagan belief system you have, perhaps? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it, too?

Ghosts, for example. No such thing. Or, I should say, no such thing has ever been proven to exist. But despite zero credible evidence, you believe it and call it 'natural', knowing perfectly well that ghosts are considered to be supernatural entities. You don't like that though, so you change it to suit your needs. Unfortunately, while English does provide for a surprising amount of flexibility, arbitrarily changing the meanings of words will not get you very far in a serious discussion. If you're not going to stick with the linguistic zeitgeist of the times then you will be a very poor communicator.

-S-

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In 500 words or less what is your number one single best argument, reasoning, or evidence for your diety?

What is God but the consciousness of the universe? What am I but a conscious part of the universe?

 

[ShakeZula]

What is God but the consciousness of the universe? What am I but a conscious part of the universe?

Are you being facetious? Where do you get this idea that the universe is conscious?

-S-

 

[Erebus]

Your word games are tiring. You've simply redefined magic and supernatural to be perfectly natural things in order to... what? I'm not sure. Maintain whatever pagan belief system you have, perhaps? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it, too?

Ghosts, for example. No such thing. Or, I should say, no such thing has ever been proven to exist. But despite zero credible evidence, you believe it and call it 'natural', knowing perfectly well that ghosts are considered to be supernatural entities. You don't like that though, so you change it to suit your needs. Unfortunately, while English does provide for a surprising amount of flexibility, arbitrarily changing the meanings of words will not get you very far in a serious discussion. If you're not going to stick with the linguistic zeitgeist of the times then you will be a very poor communicator.

-S-

Hi Shakezula, quick question... did you read my posts or are you just ignorant for the fun of it?
I haven't changed any words to suit my needs, I've explained my position and I'm not going to bother going over it again. If you don't agree with me, that's your prerogative, but I don't appreciate it when people respond with nothing more than a barrage of insults, let alone then call ME the poor communicator.
I'm normally willing to debate with anybody, even if they don't agree with my position at all. You however have posted nothing of worth and plenty of disrespectful cheap shots. Don't be surprised if I ignore your posts, I don't waste my time on people I have no respect for.

 

[ShakeZula]

Hi Shakezula, quick question... did you read my posts or are you just ignorant for the fun of it?
I haven't changed any words to suit my needs, I've explained my position and I'm not going to bother going over it again. If you don't agree with me, that's your prerogative, but I don't appreciate it when people respond with nothing more than a barrage of insults, let alone then call ME the poor communicator.
I'm normally willing to debate with anybody, even if they don't agree with my position at all. You however have posted nothing of worth and plenty of disrespectful cheap shots. Don't be surprised if I ignore your posts, I don't waste my time on people I have no respect for.

I'm sorry, but where did I insult you? I called you no names and I said nothing denigrating to your character. A 'barrage of insults'? Where? Kindly explain yourself.

-S-

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Are you being facetious?

Nope!

Where do you get this idea that the universe is conscious

Because I am conscious. How am I not a part of the Universe?

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Your word games are tiring. You've simply redefined magic and supernatural to be perfectly natural things in order to... what? I'm not sure. Maintain whatever pagan belief system you have, perhaps? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it, too?

Ghosts, for example. No such thing. Or, I should say, no such thing has ever been proven to exist. But despite zero credible evidence, you believe it and call it 'natural', knowing perfectly well that ghosts are considered to be supernatural entities. You don't like that though, so you change it to suit your needs. Unfortunately, while English does provide for a surprising amount of flexibility, arbitrarily changing the meanings of words will not get you very far in a serious discussion. If you're not going to stick with the linguistic zeitgeist of the times then you will be a very poor communicator.

-S-

I don't know what definition of magic and supernatural you are using but from what I've read Shyanekh did not redefine anything. They just prefer not to think there is anything "supernatural".

There are many within the Pagan community that do not believe in anything "supernatural". Meaning things like ghost and clairvoyance or even magic are . . . well . . . natural (regardless of what your opinion is about their existence).

 

[ShakeZula]

I don't know what definition of magic and supernatural you are using but from what I've read Shyanekh did not redefine anything. They just prefer not to think there is anything "supernatural".

There are many within the Pagan community that do not believe in anything "supernatural". Meaning things like ghost and clairvoyance or even magic are . . . well . . . natural (regardless of what your opinion is about their existence).

The definition of supernatural, according to my dictionary is: adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature : a supernatural being.

magic: noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces

So, magic is the use of supernatural forces. Supernatural forces are those outside of science. Science is the study of the natural world. If it's natural, we should be able to measure it in some fashion. We can not measure ghosts. Which to my mind makes perfect sense seeing as there is no such thing. Or at least there is no reason to think there is. But a ghost would be supernatural. Shyanekh is saying that there is, essentially, no such thing as the supernatural, that magic is perfectly natural and so are ghosts. Thus redefining the term. If one can find hard evidence that such a thing is actually a natural occurrence then we can rewrite the dictionary, but to do so prematurely, when there is no reason to do so, is redefining the word to suit your purposes.

None of the pagan practices or beliefs you mentioned can be measured by by any tool of science. As you said, ghost and clairvoyance and magic. So this is where we start to run in to problems. If I say, for instance, that these things can't be measured by science then often a believer such as yourself or Shyanekh will say that such things are beyond science. But if they're beyond science, they are, by definition, supernatural. If they're supernatural, they aren't natural.

See what I'm saying? If you want to claim that ghosts and magic are natural, then that means they're testable. So far anytime they're tested, they fail. Are you familiar with James Randi and the James Randi Foundation? He has offered a million dollars cold hard cash to anyone proving clairvoyance, magic or psychic power. It's been unclaimed for years. Most people claiming these 'supernatural' abilities never even try for it.

-S-

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hi Shaka,

But if they're beyond science, they are, by definition, supernatural. If they're supernatural, they aren't natural.

Beyond science doesn't mean supernatural. Beyond science means beyond our current understanding, which is probably pretty primitive compared to our potential understanding.

What we know to be natural today would have seemed pretty unlikely 50 years ago.

 

[ShakeZula]

Hi Shaka,


Beyond science doesn't mean supernatural. Beyond science means beyond our current understanding, which is probably pretty primitive compared to our potential understanding.

What we know to be natural today would have seemed pretty unlikely 50 years ago.

Really? So why do we have ghost hunters running around houses at midnight claiming to have evidence, obtained via scientific tools, of their existence. It's either beyond our ability to test or every single ghost hunter (to use one example) is a liar and a fraud.

Which is it?

-S-

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

The definition of supernatural, according to my dictionary is: adjective
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature : a supernatural being.

magic: noun
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces

So, magic is the use of supernatural forces. Supernatural forces are those outside of science. Science is the study of the natural world. If it's natural, we should be able to measure it in some fashion. We can not measure ghosts. Which to my mind makes perfect sense seeing as there is no such thing. Or at least there is no reason to think there is. But a ghost would be supernatural. Shyanekh is saying that there is, essentially, no such thing as the supernatural, that magic is perfectly natural and so are ghosts. Thus redefining the term. If one can find hard evidence that such a thing is actually a natural occurrence then we can rewrite the dictionary, but to do so prematurely, when there is no reason to do so, is redefining the word to suit your purposes.

None of the pagan practices or beliefs you mentioned can be measured by by any tool of science. As you said, ghost and clairvoyance and magic. So this is where we start to run in to problems. If I say, for instance, that these things can't be measured by science then often a believer such as yourself or Shyanekh will say that such things are beyond science. But if they're beyond science, they are, by definition, supernatural. If they're supernatural, they aren't natural.

See what I'm saying? If you want to claim that ghosts and magic are natural, then that means they're testable. So far anytime they're tested, they fail. Are you familiar with James Randi and the James Randi Foundation? He has offered a million dollars cold hard cash to anyone proving clairvoyance, magic or psychic power. It's been unclaimed for years. Most people claiming these 'supernatural' abilities never even try for it.

-S-

I don't know where you got your definition of supernatural from but mine has nothing in it about being beyond science. All I am saying is what many consider to be supernatural is considered natural by many Pagans. Just because science cannot "measure" it today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.

Its funny how yesterdays "supernatural" becomes todays natural like Alchemy being the fore father of chemistry.

su·per·nat·u·ral (sōō'pər-nāch'ər-əl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Nothing about being "outside science" here.

The Chilean earthquake is said to have shortened our day's by as little as 1.26 millionth of a second. However the man who figured this out didn't measure anyting he used math, he even claims it is most likely not measurable. By your definition the shortening of the earth day is supernatural because it can't be measured.

Magic, sometimes known as sorcery, is the practice of consciousness manipulation and/or autosuggestion to achieve a desired result, usually by techniques described in various conceptual systems. The practice is often influenced by ideas of religion, mysticism, occultism, science, and psychology.

-Wikipedia

Magic: Is the art of effecting changes in consciousness at will.
-William Butler

Magic: Is the Art and Science of causing changes to occur in conformity with Will.
-Aleister Crowley

Nothing about being outside science here either.

 

[ShakeZula]

I don't know where you got your definition of supernatural from but mine has nothing in it about being beyond science.

The Oxford English Dictionary.

AskOxford: supernatural

All I am saying is what many consider to be supernatural is considered natural by many Pagans. Just because science cannot "measure" it today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.

Which is fine and I already addressed this point in my initial response to Shyanekh when I said if magic and the supernatural are found to be completely natural then, and only then, can we stop using the word supernatural to describe such events. To do so without the evidence to support it is redefining the languages to suit one's own purpose, which was my original point of contention with him.

Its funny how yesterdays "supernatural" becomes todays natural like Alchemy being the fore father of chemistry.

That alchemy gave rise to modern chemistry does not validate alchemy. It's still as much bunk now as it was then. Or have you figured out how to turn lead in to gold? Chemistry was what took place once we removed mysticism from the equations and started looking at the hard numbers.

su·per·nat·u·ral (sōō'pər-nāch'ər-əl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
   ...
   Nothing about being "outside science" here.

1. 
   
   And I already covered this as well. Science is the study of the natural world. If it's natural then it's the territory of science to study it and determine it's truthiness[sic]. Therefor, anything supernatural, as in outside of the natural world, is outside science.
   
   

   The Chilean earthquake is said to have shortened our day's by as little as 1.26 millionth of a second. However the man who figured this out didn't measure anyting he used math, he even claims it is most likely not measurable. By your definition the shortening of the earth day is supernatural because it can't be measured.

   
   Math is a way of measuring and solving questions about the natural world. Not all measurement is done with a stop watch.
   
   

   Magic, sometimes known as sorcery, is the practice of consciousness manipulation and/or autosuggestion to achieve a desired result, usually by techniques described in various...

   
   See citation regarding supernatural. If you wish to take issue with what many believe to be the standard bearer of the English language, perhaps you can write them an email to dispute magic having anything to do with supernatural forces. Perhaps they will take it under advisement.
   
   -S-

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey, don't shoot the messenger! It's just a saying, calm down.

You're right, there is no evidence for God, but absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence. It's impossible to debate something like this because they are not measurable.

I know you're repeating an old expression, but it's not correct. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not proof of absence (not until you look everywhere, anyhow), but it certainly is evidence.

Also, if evidence for a claim is completely absent, then that claim cannot be knowledge, since it has no rational basis. I can come up with all sorts of wild ideas that could never be disproven, but unless I had access to some sort of evidence for them, I would have had no real reason in the first place to believe they might be correct.

IOW, absence of evidence is both evidence of absence and evidence that the person making the claim was probably talking out of their butt.

Well I'm not trying to push my view on anybody and with out going in to details but for me Jew is the evidence of G-D.

How is "Jew" evidence of God?