1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by nonbeliever_92, Mar 3, 2010.

  1. nonbeliever_92

    nonbeliever_92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286
    Ratings:
    +105

    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.
     
  2. Erebus

    Erebus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,845
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Religion:
    Pagan
    This is the point where most people tell me I have more in common with an athiest than a theist :p

    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.
     
  3. nonbeliever_92

    nonbeliever_92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286
    Ratings:
    +105
    Heres' the thing, you say you do not believe in the supernatural, yet you claim science has shown proofs of it?
     
  4. Erebus

    Erebus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,845
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Religion:
    Pagan
    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.
     
  5. nonbeliever_92

    nonbeliever_92 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,286
    Ratings:
    +105
    I think a better word instead of supernatural would be Preternatural. Less confusion, though I still find it ridiciulous.
     
  6. Erebus

    Erebus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,845
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Religion:
    Pagan
    Yes there you go, I don't believe in the preternatural :cool:

    What do you find ridiculous?
     
  7. Sententia

    Sententia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,298
    Ratings:
    +336
    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?

    :D
     
  8. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    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-
     
  9. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry Verisimilitudinous

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,880
    Ratings:
    +1,663
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism
    What is God but the consciousness of the universe? What am I but a conscious part of the universe?
     
  10. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    Are you being facetious? Where do you get this idea that the universe is conscious?

    -S-
     
  11. Erebus

    Erebus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    4,845
    Ratings:
    +1,492
    Religion:
    Pagan
    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.
     
  12. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    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-
     
  13. Guitar's Cry

    Guitar's Cry Verisimilitudinous

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    11,880
    Ratings:
    +1,663
    Religion:
    Panreligious mystical paganism
    Nope!

    Because I am conscious. How am I not a part of the Universe?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anti-thesisofreason

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +52
    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).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    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-
     
    #75 ShakeZula, Mar 7, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2010
  16. Satans_Serrated_Edge

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    3,092
    Ratings:
    +1,381
    Religion:
    The temple of ham sandwich
    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.
     
  17. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    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-
     
  18. Anti-thesisofreason

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    726
    Ratings:
    +52
    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 [​IMG] (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.
     
  19. ShakeZula

    ShakeZula The Master Shake

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    Messages:
    103
    Ratings:
    +14
    The Oxford English Dictionary.

    AskOxford: supernatural

    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.

    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.



    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.

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

      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-
     
  20. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,720
    Ratings:
    +13,334
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.

    How is "Jew" evidence of God?
     
Loading...