Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[En_Route]

I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions.  But do I understand what is being said here is that:

1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.

Is this correct?  Any Theists want to dive in here?  Animateddirt, you started this mess.

No one is arguing for this. As I understand it, GenericGuy is saying that there cannot be a supernatural being because anything that exists is by definition natural.

[Genericguy]

I'm not all that up to speed on my God definitions.  But do I understand what is being said here is that:

1) God exists in a supernatural state.
2) You can't explain, reason or refute this from a rational (non-god believing perspective)
3) So as a non-believer you don't have the tools to talk about the existance of god.

Is this correct?  Any Theists want to dive in here?  Animateddirt, you started this mess.

No one is arguing for this. As I understand it, GenericGuy is saying that there cannot be a supernatural being because anything that exists is by definition natural.

Yes, and this still leaves room for god(s). The goal here was to try to prove that a god hypotheses is a scientific hypothesis.

[technolud]

OK.  So if God exists, he is natural, not super-natural and thereby his existance can be subject to a scientific hypothesis?

Or is a  "God Hypothesis" something different?

This is sounding pretty tautological to me.

[Genericguy]

OK.  So if God exists, he is natural, not super-natural and thereby his existance can be subject to a scientific hypothesis?

Yes.

Or is a  "God Hypothesis" something different?

No. Some people try to separate the two, but they are the same IMO.

This is sounding pretty tautological to me.

Me too.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I apologize (US spelling) if this sounds blunt, but a person who thinks that atheists see reason better than theists is arrogant. That simple.  Isaac Newton (to give an older example) and Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne (to give more recent examples) were/are theists.  No one on this forum can claim to be more intelligent or to have accomplished more than they have. To say that they did not "see reason" is, well, in a word, stupid.

I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.

If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?

First, there is nothing poisonous about personal faith. It has saved more than one person from suicide or other tragedy.  Second, you are also proselytizing (US spelling), if that means to try to convince someone else of your view.  If "proselytizing" means sharing your thoughts and opinions, that is called "freedom of speech," which we value highly in the US.  If "proselytizing" means forcing or coercing someone to adopt your views, it is no less odious in the atheistic context than in the theistic.  

[Genericguy]

1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence. (credit to asmo for definition clarity)

2. Any assertion of truth in regards to a subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.

3. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. That, by definition, is supernatural.

4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.

5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves remain in harmony with the subject.

6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.


I hope this expresses my argument with more clarity.

Edit: the following is my revised version. This time I express that this is my opinion and admit it could be wrong, although I see no reason that it is. Also, I am not opposed to suggestions if someone feels inclined to provide any.

1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence.

2. Nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature. The subjects existence is proof that the laws of nature do not work in such a way that would prevent it from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

3. Any assertion of truth in regards to the subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence. 

4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate. 

5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves continue to remain in harmony with the subject. 

6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist. 

[En_Route]

1. Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence. (credit to asmo for definition clarity)

2. Any assertion of truth in regards to a subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.

3. Nothing that is natural can defy the laws of nature. That, by definition, is supernatural.

4. The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.

5. The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves remain in harmony with the subject.

6. Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.


I hope this expresses my argument with more clarity.

By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?

[Tank]

Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I apologize (US spelling) if this sounds blunt, but a person who thinks that atheists see reason better than theists is arrogant. That simple.  Isaac Newton (to give an older example) and Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne (to give more recent examples) were/are theists.  No one on this forum can claim to be more intelligent or to have accomplished more than they have. To say that they did not "see reason" is, well, in a word, stupid.

I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.

If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?

First, there is nothing poisonous about personal faith. It has saved more than one person from suicide or other tragedy.  Second, you are also proselytizing (US spelling), if that means to try to convince someone else of your view.  If "proselytizing" means sharing your thoughts and opinions, that is called "freedom of speech," which we value highly in the US.  If "proselytizing" means forcing or coercing someone to adopt your views, it is no less odious in the atheistic context than in the theistic.  

I called you 'mad' once so I think I can't complain if you call me arrogant 

[Crow]

By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?

Why would you want to prove them wrong?

[En_Route]

By nature we are referring here to the material universe and the laws which govern it. Your Point 1 is an assertion which theists would deny. So how do you prove them wrong?

Why would you want to prove them wrong?

Because if you can't, then you don't have any basis for argument. You can't just assert whatever suits the
purposes  of your argument; you have to justify it.

[Genericguy]

First, this is not an argument to disprove god. I am disagreeing with the op of this thread. I do not believe the confrontations are futile. It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but if someone says god created the universe, IMO that is a scientific claim. No scientific claim should ever be ignored. The reason we ignore the god hypotheses now is because we have been doing so for so long, without a second thought. New evidence, however, would warrant scientific attention. This works even on a personal level. The information may just be new to me, I use logic and science to determin if it's possible according to our current understanding of the laws of nature.

I can not back up my argument without proving that a claim for gods existence is a scientific claim. Those six points are my proof. As for the first one, is time a part of the material universe? It exists but it has no mass. Time is included in the laws of nature even though it has no material existence.

[En_Route]

The first point is an assertion you have to show is true. Not everyone accepts that time is in fact a property of the material universe or subject to the laws of nature, but let's say for the sake of argument that it is. That still gets you nowhere. Just because you can point to something which has no material existence but which nevertheless exists and  is subject to the laws of nature does not mean that everything which has a non- material existence is subject to the laws of nature.

[Crow]

Not everyone accepts that time is in fact a property of the material universe or part of the laws which govern it.

I would be one of those.

So far I have to agree with En_Route, there is much we do not know about the natural world and a lot is speculative and many anomalies exist, dark matter being a perfect example.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I just don't see why there has to be a confrontation between theists and atheists, anymore than there has to be a confrontation between those who prefer fish and those who prefer beef.  As long as people are just discussing their views and not attempting to impose "fishism" or "beefism" on others, it's just a conversation. I'll admit that theists probably need to learn this more than atheists. 

[En_Route]

I just don't see why there has to be a confrontation between theists and atheists, anymore than there has to be a confrontation between those who prefer fish and those who prefer beef.  As long as people are just discussing their views and not attempting to impose "fishism" or "beefism" on others, it's just a conversation. I'll admit that theists probably need to learn this more than atheists. 

I agree.