Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[En_Route]

I agree with firebird, also about the evidence part at the end there. The evidence is nothing more than a few sentences, but it is there and IMO (there, I said it   ) logically sound. I also agree with En_route and crow that it can never truly be proven. But what can? Can we really prove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? We could talk about hypothetical things on the other side of the universe that go faster than the speed of light, but we don't. We just say, "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" with the subtext of "until proven otherwise". I make no claim that my theory is as solid as the speed of light example, but I don't think it should be discarded just because we haven't tested everything in the cosmos, both hypothetical and real.

Oh, and confrontations between theists and atheists are futile... or something. 

Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.

What you have presented isn't even a hypothesis yet just an idea, whats your scope, how are you to prove you are correct when its not possible to do so with current technology (look at quantum mechanics). Take for example the point I made about our laws of nature could be totally in conflict with another universes laws of nature, maybe they have nothing to do with each other and are basically bubbles floating an a creators nest that have absolutely no relevance to each other but are visible from each, its these sort of hypothetical ideas you would need to close up or stitch together to even start becoming a theory so they can be disregarded as nonsense or work with them, then you have reproducibility and testability of evidence, what phenomena would this deal with, etc.

Currently it is the same as theology, in certain areas it makes sense but you have no evidence for such a proclamation and is just a belief from atheistic logic. That's cool with me but at least admit that is what it is, don't incorporate evidence which doesn't exist. I am atheist and so is En_Route (well I think he is) and I don't speak for him but my point is that it's not good enough yet, and to borrow from Nietzsche "if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you", which so far you have demonstrated.

I agree fully with Crow (and of course, yes, I am a fully-paid up atheist). Really,what you are doing is taking the proposition that there is no evidence to support the existence of any kind of supernatural entity (which I imagine nobody here dissents from) and turning it on its head and saying "Because there is no evidence of any supernatural being, then everything must [/i]be in the realm of the natural".This is just a plain old non-sequitur and a basic logical fallacy. You are in effect using what has been called the "soft" atheist position and trying by sleight of hand to justify a "hard" atheist position. I do applaud you for taking ideas seriously and your not inconsiderable ingenuity (and indefatigability) in defending your theory. This has been a fun thread.

[Firebird]

Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.

I think that was a little harsh, Crow. You make valid points, but I don't agree that the onus is on the person claiming that nothing can exist outside the laws of nature. My personal atheism, and I suspect that of many other people, is that nothing is "supernatural", because we've never seen any evidence of such a thing. We've seen all sorts of evidence to fit into our laws of nature and evidence that nothing's ever been able to violate those laws (when was the last time you saw a person fly without any opposing force, for example, or walk on water?). I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?

[En_Route]

Do you understand science? Sorry if that sounds rude or insulting in anyway I don't mean to be but in absolutely no case would anything you have presented be considered evidence, what you have presented so far is the same as the "because we have nature we have evidence for god" argument, no evidence just an assertion. You may actually be totally correct but you have no evidence suggesting otherwise and the responsibility of providing evidence is in your court.

I think that was a little harsh, Crow. You make valid points, but I don't agree that the onus is on the person claiming that nothing can exist outside the laws of nature. My personal atheism, and I suspect that of many other people, is that nothing is "supernatural", because we've never seen any evidence of such a thing. We've seen all sorts of evidence to fit into our laws of nature and evidence that nothing's ever been able to violate those laws (when was the last time you saw a person fly without any opposing force, for example, or walk on water?). I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?

His theory is based on the assumption that by definition there could not be a supernatural entity. There is nothing to disprove that assumption, but nothing to prove it either. The fact that we have not seen anything supernatural is good grounds for not choosing to believe in it but not good grounds for believing categorically that anything supernatural is impossible. It is a fundamental rule of logic that if you cannot prove the premises, then you cannot prove your conclusion.

[Genericguy]

I can live with what crow and en route say. I'm ok with it. You are correct firebird, I am not and never intended to sound presumptuous enough to think this would ever be considered a formal scientific theory. I put quotations around "theory" (in the begining at least, i got lazy) for that exact reason. I always meant it as literally a theory.

[Crow]

I think that was a little harsh, Crow.

I had a feeling it would come across that way but not meant in a nasty way. More tough love.

I don't think Genericguy is trying to create a formal scientific hypothesis, he's putting forth a theory. He himself says that it could be proven wrong, but nothing's been shown thus far to prove that wrong. How is that not fair to say?

A hypothesis comes before a theory, a concept/thought before a hypothesis. Its a bit anal but an important point.

Because something has not been demonstrated as of yet doesn't therefore make something true, it is just a possibility in a myriad of imaginable ideas.

[Ali]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

[En_Route]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

So how do you define  "natural"? We are defining it as being  part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine  yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

[Ali]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

So how do you define  "natural"? We are defining it as being  part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine  yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I agree to your definition of natural.  So, let me ask this.  If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live?  How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists?  I can conceive of a being that acts outside of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world.  As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand. 

I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists.  You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.

[En_Route]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

So how do you define  "natural"? We are defining it as being  part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine  yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I agree to your definition of natural.  So, let me ask this.  If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live?  How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists?  I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world.  As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand. 

I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists.  You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.

You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.

[Ali]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

So how do you define  "natural"? We are defining it as being  part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine  yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I agree to your definition of natural.  So, let me ask this.  If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live?  How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists?  I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world.  As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand. 

I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists.  You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.

You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.

First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing.  What's that all about?

Second of all, I don't believe it's a failing of the imagination, but of logic.  Logically, I don't see how something can exist outside of the physical world.  Logically, where would it live, if not in the physical world?  Quatum particles certainly behave in ways that seem counter-intuitive.  That proves my point, not yours.  They appear to break the rules that we usually assign to the physical world, and yet they are still of the physical world.  They are not super-natural simply because they break the rules we think we understand.

[Genericguy]

(I revised my "theory" a bit. Still means the same thing, I just included one thing. I just modified my post on page 7, i think it was 7, as I didn't want to stir the pot again.)

[Crow]

First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing.  What's that all about?

Could be referring to a queef maybe? You know like I don't want to sound like an old fart, but I don't want to sound like vaginal flatulence. I dunno.

[Ali]

First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing.  What's that all about?

Could be referring to a queef maybe? You know like I don't want to sound like an old fart, but I don't want to sound like vaginal flatulence. I dunno.

Can somebody please add the words "vaginal flatulence" to En_Route's title?  Pretty please? 

[Recusant]

Sorry, only with his consent, and only in the "Personal Text" area which is available for him to edit at any time. I think that he showed poor judgment in his choice of a descriptive term, and I support your holding his feet to the fire, but personally I can't justify saddling him with an involuntary custom title he can't change. He looks silly enough with his foot in his mouth, anyway.

[En_Route]

It seems like a lot of semantics to me.  Whether or not something is "natural" or "supernatural" probably depends on how we define those words.  Like Genericguy, I can't imagine how a thing could exist outside of nature.  That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just more having to do with my concept of "natural" - by it's very existance, it is natural.  How could it exist and be outside of nature?  What does that even mean?

So how do you define  "natural"? We are defining it as being  part of,and subject to, the laws of the material ( if you prefer, physical) universe).A being which is not subject to those laws, e.g. because of its immortality, its absence of physical presence, its unlimited ability to do what is impossible under those laws, indeed its ability to extinguish the entire material universe while itself continuing to exist, ranks as "supernatural".
Is it a semantic distinction? No, but it's a fine  yet significant one.It's the difference between believing that no god could possibly exist and not believing in the existence of any god because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

I agree to your definition of natural.  So, let me ask this.  If such a being existed (one that was somehow separate from the physical world) where would it live?  How would it interact with the physical world? Even if it were in some other dimension, wouldn't that other dimension still be part of the world that exists?  I can conceive of a being that acts outsidingnde of the laws of nature...until I try to think about the specifics about where on an x and y and z graph such a being would reside, and by what mechanism it would interact with the world.  As soon as I give it a place to live or an appendage that touches the world in some way, it becomes part of the physical world, even if it follows rules that we don't understand. 

I've always considered myself to be a "soft" atheist, believing that I can't ever rtuly know for sure that a god exists.  You may have just convinced me that untuitively I do know that one can't exist, at least not one that is supernatural.

You are simply saying that nothing can exist which is beyond the grasp of your comprehension. In fact, already we know of phenomena at the quantum level which we can describe but cannot explain. I don't mean to sound like a vagina, but I think what you describe as intuition is really just a failure of imagination.

First of all, you say vagina like it's a bad thing.  What's that all about?

Second of all, I don't believe it's a failing of the imagination, but of logic.  Logically, I don't see how something can exist outside of the physical world.  Logically, where would it live, if not in the physical world?  Quatum particles certainly behave in ways that seem counter-intuitive.  That proves my point, not yours.  They appear to break the rules that we usually assign to the physical world, and yet they are still of the physical world.  They are not super-natural simply because they break the rules we think we understand.

I don't think and never contended that quantum particles prove the point either way.I simply used them to illustrate that there are certain subjects even within the material universe that we can't fully grasp. It's a logical fallacy to argue that because some things which we cannot grasp are part of the physical world, therefore everything we cannot grasp must be part of the physical world.  It is a live possibility that the solution as to the ultimate origins of the universe may simply be beyond our powers of comprehension. So we cannot rule out the possibility that the logic which prevails in relation to our physical world may not apply to some unspecified realm beyond it which might or might not contain some theistic entity. Of course we have no evidence to support such a hypothesis and the whole concept of god or gods looks suspiciously like wish-fulfillment on the part of mankind.