Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[MedKid]

does god exist?
who created the heavens and the earth?
who created the universe?
who created the animals?
who created humans?
have a think who did all these things The Big Bang XD

 

[Graustein]

does god exist?
who created the heavens and the earth?
who created the universe?
who created the animals?
who created humans?
have a think who did all these things The Big Bang XD

Yes.

 

[KFunk]

who created the heavens and the earth?
who created the universe?
who created the animals?
who created humans?

The LHC

 

[BradCube]

hi brad

Hiya Sam! *waves*

Well I think it is because you already accept nature as existing right? In order to say "well in this instance there is the supernatural" you're creating an entirely new realm of existence. Surely this should take more evidence than merely a question we don't have an answer to.

See, to me it seems again that you are presuming your conclusion as a proof in your argument. Assuming we are creating an entirely new realm of existence assumes that the supernatural is not already part of our existence - ie naturalism is true.

Well it depends what you mean by 'the supernatural', if you mean that at the most mysterious point whereby we quite possibly will never have the means to probe (the very beginning/before the beginning of our universe) an explanation which is so far beyond nature as we know it to be worthy of being called supernatural might be true - perhaps fair enough. This is a long way from any God though and I personally would disagree with it.

Certainly with this argument alone, God is not the only possible explanation. However, if you have no problem believing that the cause of the universe could be a supernatural one, why so much hesitance in even posing the possibility of this supernatural cause being God? You say you would love for there to be a God, but try and dismiss the mere possibility at every turn. To me, your arguments seem to suggest that you're not really all that fond of the God idea at all. Maybe you just enjoy an engaging and thoughtful argument? (in which case, I love you all the more )

Yeah sure, a property of fairies is that they live in black holes.

Well, if one did believe that we had good grounds to expect evidence of fairies only in black holes, then why be so quick to dismiss their existence? I realize that may sound a little ridiculous, but I truly think that is because you don't believe that fairies have a property of black holes or that there is no reason to propose that as a property - ie we see no reason to think that fairies live in black holes (which is quite different from the God situation). Posing something we do not understand as reason to propose a supernatural entity does not make much sense in my mind. The only times that theists do (or should do) this is when they see no reasonable naturalistic alternative. (Not sure if I've overstepped the mark here, but it seems to make fair enough sense at the time of writing.)

 

[BradCube]

does god exist?
who created the heavens and the earth?
who created the universe?
who created the animals?
who created humans?
have a think who did all these things The Big Bang XD

Hey man,

Not sure if I am understanding you properly here, but are you suggesting the big bang as some sort of disproof for Gods existence?

 

[Enteebee]

See, to me it seems again that you are presuming your conclusion as a proof in your argument. Assuming we are creating an entirely new realm of existence assumes that the supernatural is not already part of our existence - ie naturalism is true.

It's a realm of existence that we don't know about yet... surely you can accept that? I.e. We already know about the realm of nature, we do not yet know of some realm of the supernatural, which is what you're proposing is the answer to how the universe began.

However, if you have no problem believing that the cause of the universe could be a supernatural one, why so much hesitance in even posing the possibility of this supernatural cause being God?

Because there's no need to assume that's the case.

You say you would love for there to be a God, but try and dismiss the mere possibility at every turn.

There's no evidence in favour of it. Even if I accept (which I don't) that the beginning of the universe points to a supernatural cause; To then go further and imagine that such a supernatural cause must be a personal god that influences our lives and has a special heaven for us all to go to would be to press the point that since it's supernatural we don't know what it is.

I mean, to me at least, saying it's "something supernatural" is really just a restatement of the ultimate agnostic position "we don't know what it is and we'll never know".

Well, if one did believe that we had good grounds to expect evidence of fairies only in black holes, then why be so quick to dismiss their existence?

Because it's something adhoc that we've come up with, like God. It's not an explanation we've found by looking at the evidence or that is supported by the evidence. Just because something seems eternally unknowable doesn't mean it's supernatural, but if we want to accept that it is then we still don't end up with God.

Now we have something supernatural, which is eternally unknowable, if you want to call that God you can go ahead but you may just be calling a mindless special sub-atomic particle from a universe with different rules to our own (making it supernatural to our universe) entering our universe or something.

but I truly think that is because you don't believe that fairies have a property of black holes or that there is no reason to propose that as a property - ie we see no reason to think that fairies live in black holes (which is quite different from the God situation)

It doesnt matter... Okay fairies don't have a property of black holes. What if I create a myth of black hole dragons, that kids latch onto and then in 500 years take very seriously. They worship the black hole dragons and point to the mystery of the holes as evidence for the fact that it must have been the supernatural black hole dragons.

They would believe in their supernatural being just as much as you do in yours and have as much evidence. But they'd be committing the same mistakes... Assuming first that the supernatural is an easier explanation than that it's just natural and we don't/can't understand it. Assuming that if they establish the supernatural they then have good reason to believe in their Dragon, whereas the truth is all that takes them to is supernatural agnosticism.

 

[BradCube]

It's a realm of existence that we don't know about yet... surely you can accept that? I.e. We already know about the realm of nature, we do not yet know of some realm of the supernatural, which is what you're proposing is the answer to how the universe began.

Even that is stretching it - there are millions of people who claim to know about the supernatural. If by know, you mean show empirically, then sure, but we've already been through that.

Because there's no need to assume that's the case.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not ask you why you can't assume God is the reason for the universe, I asked why you cannot even pose the possibility of God being the cause of the universe. You seem so opposed to the idea that you cannot even entertain the possibility.

Even if it were the case that that we have no reason to assume God is the reason, this is so far from an atheistic response. If we have no reason to assume God is the reason, then we certainly don't have any reason to assume that he is not the reason! I just don't understand at all how you maintain your atheism. It's like that you proclaim to be an atheist, but when questioned on your beliefs you just say, "oh I'm not really an atheist, I'm an agnostic". Then after being questioned, you go back to proclaiming the truths of atheism?

There's no evidence in favour of it. Even if I accept (which I don't) that the beginning of the universe points to a supernatural cause; To then go further and imagine that such a supernatural cause must be a personal god that influences our lives and has a special heaven for us all to go to would be to press the point that since it's supernatural we don't know what it is.

Well, the arguments we have been discussing so far haven't really looked at the characteristics of God - we've only looked at whether it is reasonable to make the jump to belief in God. Plus, these sorts of arguments only describe general truths about God and not things which would be of doctrinal value (like heaven). This is why these arguments thus far would be just as applicable to Islam as Christianity.

I mean, to me at least, saying it's "something supernatural" is really just a restatement of the ultimate agnostic position "we don't know what it is and we'll never know".

I think the thing to highlight here is the difference between knowing somethings truth and being able to show somethings truth. If your statement went to "we can't show what it is and we'll never be able to show what it is" then I would agree.

It's because of this that I think you may have a hidden assumption here. Namely, that in order to know somethings truth, one must be able to show somethings truth. However, at least for the christian, this is just not the case at all. The christian believes that the Holy Spirit provides them with the reassurance of Gods existence. Thus they can know of Christianities truth (or Gods existence in our case) but still not be able to show its truth to an unbeliever.

Now I must be clear here - I am not supporting intellectual suicide in assuming anything and everything's truth factor. We should be very prudent in examining issues with great thought and care. However, if we are even able to show some reasons (even if they do not equate to proof) we should feel justified enough to make the claim for the proposition or belief. Both you and I acknowledge that we cannot show something to be 100% true (and I realize that in many cases we use the word "know" interchangeably). In the case of Christianity though, one must make the leap of faith before one can know it's truth. I hope for your sake and my own I'm not sounding mentally deranged at this point. The topic of how reason and faith co-exist is something whole books are dedicated to. Having said that, this is the current position I hold.

Because it's something adhoc that we've come up with, like God. It's not an explanation we've found by looking at the evidence or that is supported by the evidence. Just because something seems eternally unknowable doesn't mean it's supernatural, but if we want to accept that it is then we still don't end up with God.

Seems that you may have constructed some straw men for me to first deal with. The reason your property of fairies appears ad hoc, is because that's exactly how you were dealing with it. "Fairies need a property of black holes to fit brads argument? No problem, fairies have a property of black holes!"

The problem lies in that this is not good reasons at all to expect to find evidence of fairies in black wholes. This is quite dissimilar to God though who's evidence we would expect to find in the creation of the universe (as we do seem to indeed find)

Now we have something supernatural, which is eternally unknowable, if you want to call that God you can go ahead but you may just be calling a mindless special sub-atomic particle from a universe with different rules to our own (making it supernatural to our universe) entering our universe or something.

I've already addressed the know vs show issue so I won't really bother with that. Instead I will give reasons for why I do not think that your proposed solution is true (similarly as I would prefer you to respond as an atheist to a theistic argument).

First problem I see is how something can enter our universe before time has begun. This also implies that our universe is already in existence (since it is entering it) and so I don't see how this addresses the creation issue at all.

It doesnt matter... Okay fairies don't have a property of black holes. What if I create a myth of black hole dragons, that kids latch onto and then in 500 years take very seriously. They worship the black hole dragons and point to the mystery of the holes as evidence for the fact that it must have been the supernatural black hole dragons.

They would believe in their supernatural being just as much as you do in yours and have as much evidence. But they'd be committing the same mistakes... Assuming first that the supernatural is an easier explanation than that it's just natural and we don't/can't understand it. Assuming that if they establish the supernatural they then have good reason to believe in their Dragon, whereas the truth is all that takes them to is supernatural agnosticism.

But don't you see Enteebee? The reason we propose the supernatural in this case is not simply because we don't understand, it's because it seems directly contradictory to what we would expect to see under any natural laws. It seems impossible by any account of natural scientific standards.

 

[Enteebee]

Even that is stretching it - there are millions of people who claim to know about the supernatural. If by know, you mean show empirically, then sure, but we've already been through that.

If that's what you're resting your argument on then you're really resting your argument on their subjective experiences. Sure if people already 'know' the supernatural then they have no problem carving out the supernatural for God at this point in time where there's no naturalistic argument... but then they never really needed that because they already knew.

I think what they really do is 'believe' in the supernatural and I have no reason to believe in it. You're trying to provide an argument as a reason to believe in the supernatural that requires us to know the supernatural already else be subject to occams razor.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not ask you why you can't assume God is the reason for the universe, I asked why you cannot even pose the possibility of God being the cause of the universe. You seem so opposed to the idea that you cannot even entertain the possibility.

I entertain the possibility... I also entertain the possibility of fairies, I see little/no difference as yet.

Well, the arguments we have been discussing so far haven't really looked at the characteristics of God - we've only looked at whether it is reasonable to make the jump to belief in God. Plus, these sorts of arguments only describe general truths about God and not things which would be of doctrinal value (like heaven). This is why these arguments thus far would be just as applicable to Islam as Christianity.

Your argument basically goes: We exist, We have no naturalistic explanation to explain this evidence, therefore the explanation must be supernatural. This isn't an argument in favour of God but in favour of the supernatural existing if someone is to accept that when you have an occurance for which there is no good natural explanation you should accept it was the supernatural.

I've argued that we should not accept it was the supernatural, we should assume that it is (as many things have been in the past) an instance where it was something natural that we cannot yet / may not be able to understand. I reach this conclusion as we do not yet know of the supernatural so it makes no sense to assume the supernatural exists (requiring a whole new realm of reality) instead of that it's a natural cause we merely don't understand.

In response to this you've claimed people already know the supernatural... Well that requires people to already know the supernatural exists.

I think there are a myriad of things for which we have strongly investigated but have no strong and complete naturalistic explanation as yet. I.e. In response to say consciousness... I may say this comes about via brain fairies.


I'm slightly more agnostic to the claim that there might be something which is as close to 'supernatural' to us as anything might ever get (I'd be willing to call it supernatural if you really want to push the point) at the beginning of the universe. I am still atheist of anything that I'd call a God.

But don't you see Enteebee? The reason we propose the supernatural in this case is not simply because we don't understand, it's because it seems directly contradictory to what we would expect to see under any natural laws. It seems impossible by any account of natural scientific standards.

I don't think we have anything which is contradictory to what we'd see under any natural laws... We just don't have any natural explanation as yet perhaps to why the universe came into existence. There's nothing really for it to seem impossible to, our natural science just doesn't go that far yet.

IMO you've demonstrated how in the end your belief relies on already believing in the supernatural / already having faith. If you want to claim that someone is rational to believe the universe had a supernatural beginning since they already believed in a supernatural God then fine.

 

[melanieeee.]

course god exists.

 

[HalcyonSky]

course god exists.

thanks for interrupting bradcube / enteebeee's rebuttals with your amazing input

 

[BradCube]

If that's what you're resting your argument on then you're really resting your argument on their subjective experiences.

Well sure, but aren't we all resting our arguments on subjective experiences? Unless you can show that their subjective knowledge of the supernatural is less valid than your subjective knowledge of the natural, this, I don't think this is really all that much of a claim.

Sure if people already 'know' the supernatural then they have no problem carving out the supernatural for God at this point in time where there's no naturalistic argument... but then they never really needed that because they already knew.

You've got the order I've proposed confused here. I'm not claiming that one can assert the supernatural because they know the supernatural (otherwise there would be no need for assertion). I am claiming that one can know the supernatural by first asserting and then believing.

I think what they really do is 'believe' in the supernatural and I have no reason to believe in it. You're trying to provide an argument as a reason to believe in the supernatural that requires us to know the supernatural already else be subject to occams razor.

Well not really. That's not the argument I am trying to put forward at all. I'm trying to show that Occam's Razor is not applicable because you are using it to assume that naturalism is more probable than the supernatural (which is exactly what we are arguing). The reason for bringing up the point that people claim to know the supernatural was not to claim that knowledge of the supernatural is necessary to assert the supernatural - it was to show that you cannot assume naturalism's probability over the supernaturals (since you can't say, we know of naturalism but not of the supernatural).

I entertain the possibility... I also entertain the possibility of fairies, I see little/no difference as yet.

I suppose in one sense you can at least talk about the existence of God and thus must entertain it in some sense. It still seems as though you don't give it any real consideration however.

Your argument basically goes: We exist, We have no naturalistic explanation to explain this evidence, therefore the explanation must be supernatural. This isn't an argument in favour of God but in favour of the supernatural existing if someone is to accept that when you have an occurance for which there is no good natural explanation you should accept it was the supernatural.

I've argued that we should not accept it was the supernatural, we should assume that it is (as many things have been in the past) an instance where it was something natural that we cannot yet / may not be able to understand.
So, in your mind, the most logical thing to do is assume in any possible scenario that it was not the supernatural, it was natural and you just don't know how...

Is this the real crux of the matter here? What you have just outlined here, is that you will never come to belief in the supernatural (even if it does exist) because you will always assume that the answer is natural and you just don't know how. Surely this logic is too limited to be used in a debate regarding a supernatural God? What you are saying is that we should always under every scenario assume that a supernatural God does not exist, since, a natural explanation we have no evidence or knowledge for is a far more rational belief. You have effectively cut off the possibility of the supernatural and refuse to consider it as a real alternative. Are we wise to even continue the debate?

I could point out my problems with the Science-of-Gaps used here, but I am sure you are already aware of my position on this issue.

I reach this conclusion as we do not yet know of the supernatural so it makes no sense to assume the supernatural exists (requiring a whole new realm of reality) instead of that it's a natural cause we merely don't understand.

In response to this you've claimed people already know the supernatural... Well that requires people to already know the supernatural exists.

Yes, knowledge of the supernatural is required to have knowledge of the supernatural (this seems pretty obvious to me). I have to assume then that you are trying to say that in order for us to make the jump to the supernatural we need to know the supernatural - which I don't think is the case. To re-iterate from above, we can show some reasons as to why one would be open to the possibility of the supernatural. From this they can then make the leap of faith to belief, and from there (under Christianity anyway) they can come to a real knowledge of the supernatural.

I think there are a myriad of things for which we have strongly investigated but have no strong and complete naturalistic explanation as yet. I.e. In response to say consciousness... I may say this comes about via brain fairies.

It seems we still haven't left the fairies . I would still state that I don't think this is comparable to God as we have no idea of what properties to look for even if brain fairies did exist.

I'm slightly more agnostic to the claim that there might be something which is as close to 'supernatural' to us as anything might ever get (I'd be willing to call it supernatural if you really want to push the point) at the beginning of the universe. I am still atheist of anything that I'd call a God.

I'm kind of confused by your statements here. Do you mean to say that you believe that the supernatural could exist but simply refuse to consider God? I'm guessing what you really mean, is that such a cause is supernatural for our universe but not supernatural for another?

I don't think we have anything which is contradictory to what we'd see under any natural laws... We just don't have any natural explanation as yet perhaps to why the universe came into existence. There's nothing really for it to seem impossible to, our natural science just doesn't go that far yet.

I just don't see how you maintain this. If everything which begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause. However, currently big bang cosmology suggests that the universe came about by nothing and from nothing as far as we can observe. How is this coherent with current scientific principles we see today?

IMO you've demonstrated how in the end your belief relies on already believing in the supernatural / already having faith. If you want to claim that someone is rational to believe the universe had a supernatural beginning since they already believed in a supernatural God then fine.

What I've tried to explain is that a belief (or faith) in the supernatural (under Christianity) is required for a knowledge of the supernatural. I haven't tried to say that the jump to the belief in supernatural requires a knowledge of the supernatural.

 

[Enteebee]

Well sure, but aren't we all resting our arguments on subjective experiences? Unless you can show that their subjective knowledge of the supernatural is less valid than your subjective knowledge of the natural, this, I don't think this is really all that much of a claim.

I accept that if we already know the supernatural exists then positing a supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe is acceptable. If you believe you've had a subjective experience which has proven the existence of the supernatural to you then what can I say? The best I can say is that it's no better than someone having a subjective experience of a dragon living in their garage... bringing us back to the crux of the matter. Do we have any reason to accept the supernatural exists?

Well not really. That's not the argument I am trying to put forward at all. I'm trying to show that Occam's Razor is not applicable because you are using it to assume that naturalism is more probable than the supernatural (which is exactly what we are arguing). The reason for bringing up the point that people claim to know the supernatural was not to claim that knowledge of the supernatural is necessary to assert the supernatural - it was to show that you cannot assume naturalism's probability over the supernaturals (since you can't say, we know of naturalism but not of the supernatural).

Yes the point of bringing it up was to show that we cannot assume probability... but I believe we can since I don't accept people's subjective experiences as anything better than a claim that they have fairies in their garden.

Is this the real crux of the matter here? What you have just outlined here, is that you will never come to belief in the supernatural (even if it does exist) because you will always assume that the answer is natural and you just don't know how.

Yes I believe I will never come to belief in the supernatural.

Surely this logic is too limited to be used in a debate regarding a supernatural God? What you are saying is that we should always under every scenario assume that a supernatural God does not exist, since, a natural explanation we have no evidence or knowledge for is a far more rational belief. You have effectively cut off the possibility of the supernatural and refuse to consider it as a real alternative. Are we wise to even continue the debate?

You can explain to me what's wrong with my proposed epistemology? I wouldn't say I've cut off the possibility... just that I've made it extremely improbable. The supernatural could still exist, just while I haven't myself had any subjective experience of it (nor do I currently within the scope of all my knowledge see how I could) there is no reason for me to believe it is as it's far more likely we've just got something natural we can't understand.

It seems we still haven't left the fairies . I would still state that I don't think this is comparable to God as we have no idea of what properties to look for even if brain fairies did exist.

We have no idea what properties to look for in regard to god either as far as I can tell.

I'm guessing what you really mean, is that such a cause is supernatural for our universe but not supernatural for another?

I mean that something we don't understand/can't understand would seem supernatural even if it were natural.

I just don't see how you maintain this. If everything which begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause. However, currently big bang cosmology suggests that the universe came about by nothing and from nothing as far as we can observe. How is this coherent with current scientific principles we see today?

a) There is no 'natural law' which claims that everything which begins to exist has a cause. People have demonstrated this many, many times in this thread.

b) I have explained how a universe could come into existence without a 'cause'. If you accept that 'time' is a requirement for causation and that time began, then to ask what came before time (asking about causation outside of time) is to ask a meaningless question.

What I've tried to explain is that a belief (or faith) in the supernatural (under Christianity) is required for a knowledge of the supernatural. I haven't tried to say that the jump to the belief in supernatural requires a knowledge of the supernatural.

Why would you have such a faith in the first place?

 

[Enteebee]

Just to sumarise the argument as far as I see it for people reading along and so Brad can more easily engage with it... I see our current discussion as this.

Brad: It is reasonable to accept a supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe as there is currently no solid natural explanation despite hard efforts to find one.

Me: It is far more reasonable to believe that there is a natural explanation and we are merely unable to work out what it is yet. This is because we already accept the natural exists, we know that we have in the past mistakenly assumed there is no natural explanation just because we can't think of one yet and for the supernatural to be the explanation requires far, far greater complexity in that we have to create a whole new realm of existence.

Brad: People do already know the supernatural exists because they have had subjective experiences.

Me: What's the difference between someone's subjective experience of God and my subjective experience of fairies?

Now Brad might claim that such thinking is too restrictive in that it seems to reject the supernatural, but then I ask what exactly is wrong with the reasoning? If you are shown through evidence to have killed someone you may wish to claim the methods of analysing the evidence are too restrictive because they lead to only the conclusion that you are guilty but I think in order to show something is truly 'too restrictive' you have to explain what it is about it that makes it restrictive.

What makes my analysis restrictive for the supernatural is that the supernatural appears to be something that will always be less reasonable then that we have a natural explanation and just don't know it yet (unless we have subjective experience, but there's problems with that too as I explained). Perhaps this is also just the objective fact?

 

[Boxes]

course god exists.

end of argument.

 

[tommykins]

Just to sumarise the argument as far as I see it for people reading along and so Brad can more easily engage with it... I see our current discussion as this.

Brad: It is reasonable to accept a supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe as there is currently no solid natural explanation despite hard efforts to find one.

Me: It is far more reasonable to believe that there is a natural explanation and we are merely unable to work out what it is yet. This is because we already accept the natural exists, we know that we have in the past mistakenly assumed there is no natural explanation just because we can't think of one yet and for the supernatural to be the explanation requires far, far greater complexity in that we have to create a whole new realm of existence.

Brad: People do already know the supernatural exists because they have had subjective experiences.

Me: What's the difference between someone's subjective experience of God and my subjective experience of fairies?

Now Brad might claim that such thinking is too restrictive in that it seems to reject the supernatural, but then I ask what exactly is wrong with the reasoning? If you are shown through evidence to have killed someone you may wish to claim the methods of analysing the evidence are too restrictive because they lead to only the conclusion that you are guilty but I think in order to show something is truly 'too restrictive' you have to explain what it is about it that makes it restrictive.

What makes my analysis restrictive for the supernatural is that the supernatural appears to be something that will always be less reasonable then that we have a natural explanation and just don't know it yet (unless we have subjective experience, but there's problems with that too as I explained). Perhaps this is also just the objective fact?

Thanks for that, I was dreading going through all your essays and Brad's essays.

 

[BradCube]

I accept that if we already know the supernatural exists then positing a supernatural explanation for the beginning of the universe is acceptable. If you believe you've had a subjective experience which has proven the existence of the supernatural to you then what can I say? The best I can say is that it's no better than someone having a subjective experience of a dragon living in their garage... bringing us back to the crux of the matter. Do we have any reason to accept the supernatural exists?

This isn't my point though. My point is not simply to say that knowledge of the supernatural is based on subjective experience. My claim is that knowledge of everything is based on ones subjective experience. You need to be able to show why ones subjective experience of the natural is more valid than ones experience of the supernatural if you still want your argument to hold.

Yes the point of bringing it up was to show that we cannot assume probability... but I believe we can since I don't accept people's subjective experiences as anything better than a claim that they have fairies in their garden.

If we cannot assume probability of subjective experiences, then we cannot assume that the supernatural realm, nor the natural world we see exists. This is why I see your reasoning here to be too restrictive.

Yes I believe I will never come to belief in the supernatural.

Do you actually aknowledge your reason why you come to this conclusion though? To you the supernatural does not exist because it is less probably than the natural. Since this argument assumes that we have knowledge of the probabilities here, it's either circular or unbased no?

You can explain to me what's wrong with my proposed epistemology? I wouldn't say I've cut off the possibility... just that I've made it extremely improbable.

The problem with your reasoning is the assumption that the supernatural is less likely in order to prove that the supernatural does not exist. This seems circular to me when arguing about the supernaturals very existence.

With your proposed epistemology, I don't see how you have not cut off the possibility of the supernatural realm. While the supernatural may exist, you have proposed that under all circumstances we should assume that is does not.

The supernatural could still exist, just while I haven't myself had any subjective experience of it (nor do I currently within the scope of all my knowledge see how I could) there is no reason for me to believe it is as it's far more likely we've just got something natural we can't understand.

But even if you did have a subjective experience of it, you would claim that there is a better naturalistic explanation for such an experience and would henceforth cut off the possibility of the supernatural again.

We have no idea what properties to look for in regard to god either as far as I can tell.

But we do have properties to look for! In the case of the fairy, one could simply substitute any mythical creature (ie, unicorn, ogre, dragon etc) and the plausibility would be equal. This is because the properties of the creature in question have no bearing upon why we would expect to find them. This is not the case for God though. Not only do we infer God because we see a supernatural timeless beginning to the universe (as one would expect from an eternal supernatural God), but one also sees reasons to infer a God from the world around us. ie an argument for the fine tuning of the universe.

I mean that something we don't understand/can't understand would seem supernatural even if it were natural.

If this is what you mean, then I think we may have a confusion of terms. If it were a natural cause (even if we did not understand it), then it is naturalistic. If it cannot be explained naturalistically (there is no possible natural explanation) then it is supernatural.

a) There is no 'natural law' which claims that everything which begins to exist has a cause. People have demonstrated this many, many times in this thread.

But it is rooted in a metaphysical intuition - and I certainly think it is more plausible than its denial. If it was not, why would we not expect anything and everything to just pop into existence?

b) I have explained how a universe could come into existence without a 'cause'. If you accept that 'time' is a requirement for causation and that time began, then to ask what came before time (asking about causation outside of time) is to ask a meaningless question.

Well would you care to go through your reasoning again, because I'm still not convinced. We don't have to say things such as before, in order to inquire what was prior to the big bang or what caused it. Certainly God is not excluded as a cause since he is able to act and simultaneously create time through doing this.

I just don't think you can dismiss the question as easily as you would like. If time did not exist, why when nothing existed would one possibly expect time to begin existing along with the whole universe? I can't see how claiming that the universe needs no explanation of its existence seems in any part rational.

Why would you have such a faith in the first place?

One could be prompted to make the jump to faith for a variety of reasons, but in our case we are looking at how one might make the jump to faith after weighing up the reasons for proposing Gods existence (various positive arguments + a lack of negative argument).

 

[BradCube]

Just to sumarise the argument as far as I see it for people reading along and so Brad can more easily engage with it... I see our current discussion as this.

Wanted to mention that we have also been discussing a fair bit more than this also. This is just where we are currently up to (as enteebee said). For those interested, I think the previous dialogues are definitely worth a read.

If you are shown through evidence to have killed someone you may wish to claim the methods of analysing the evidence are too restrictive because they lead to only the conclusion that you are guilty but I think in order to show something is truly 'too restrictive' you have to explain what it is about it that makes it restrictive.

Just one point on this. If we are putting it in these terms, I would say the reason it is restrictive is because you have assumed that it is more likely for them to be guilty than innocent. With this in mind, you discard all evidence that would point to the innocence of this person, since you claim that it is more likely they are guilty. So under this schema, of course the person will be seen as guilty - you have cut off the possibility of believing they could be innocent.

 

[chicky_pie]

Anyone converted from [insert your religion here] to Atheism yet?

List your names after me, plz.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

course god exists.

Kill yourself

 

[Enteebee]

You need to be able to show why ones subjective experience of the natural is more valid than ones experience of the supernatural if you still want your argument to hold.

Belief in the natural is needed in order to interact with the world. I cannot suspend belief in the natural. Clearly, there are people who can function without belief in the supernatural. It seems apriori more valid based on this necessity. To live is to have subjective experience of the natural.

Of course, you can go ahead and claim we don't know of nature if you really want, but it seems a bit like solipism to me.

If we cannot assume probability of subjective experiences, then we cannot assume that the supernatural realm, nor the natural world we see exists. This is why I see your reasoning here to be too restrictive.

Obviously everything is a subjective experience... but the subjective experience of the existence of china is surely different to the subjective experience of something supernatural?

If you think otherwise then I would suggest that you're either stuck with fairies or you believe we can't know anything. My epistemological method starts off with cognito ergo sum, but then I think we practically need to move beyond that.

The problem with your reasoning is the assumption that the supernatural is less likely in order to prove that the supernatural does not exist. This seems circular to me when arguing about the supernaturals very existence.

With your proposed epistemology, I don't see how you have not cut off the possibility of the supernatural realm. While the supernatural may exist, you have proposed that under all circumstances we should assume that is does not.

Well if the supernatural is far less plausible an explanation do you accept that it is no longer reasonable to accept it? Obviously you can claim it's more or as plausible, but you need to give reasons why and I think yours are lacking.

But it is rooted in a metaphysical intuition - and I certainly think it is more plausible than its denial. If it was not, why would we not expect anything and everything to just pop into existence?

It seems rather unfair of you to place the burden of basically all knowledge on a naturalistic worldview while requiring no knowledge for your own. Surely if you can place such a burden on naturalism I can place the same on the supernatural?

You should have to explain how G-d/whatever does what it does else how is your explanation any better than my saying "I don't know, nature did it" ? In the same way that the 'supernatural works in mysterious ways' perhaps the natural does? Or would you describe a nature that works in mysterious ways as supernatural? If you would then I have no problem with a belief in the supernatural.

But we do have properties to look for! In the case of the fairy, one could simply substitute any mythical creature (ie, unicorn, ogre, dragon etc) and the plausibility would be equal. This is because the properties of the creature in question have no bearing upon why we would expect to find them. This is not the case for God though. Not only do we infer God because we see a supernatural timeless beginning to the universe (as one would expect from an eternal supernatural God), but one also sees reasons to infer a God from the world around us. ie an argument for the fine tuning of the universe.

If that's how you conceive God then I accept that.

If this is what you mean, then I think we may have a confusion of terms. If it were a natural cause (even if we did not understand it), then it is naturalistic. If it cannot be explained naturalistically (there is no possible natural explanation) then it is supernatural.

How would you ever prove that something is natural and we can't explain it instead of being something that cannot be explained naturally?

I can't see how claiming that the universe needs no explanation of its existence seems in any part rational.

I don't see how claiming in a realm of non-causation you need cause is rational.