One philosophical argument for existence of supernatural.

[Esquilax]

Why?

I think the first premise is false

Because in evolution, we would've gained it simply because it was beneficial to us without any bearing on whether we actually know it to be objective or not. Evolution would've just gave us a sense of praise without any bearing in a objective reality of praise, we would not know whether it's objective or not.

But that doesn't answer the question, it's just an assertion that if this thing is an evolved trait then it isn't objective. But you go to no effort at all to justify that assertion- leaving aside your misunderstanding of how evolutionary traits develop and remain in populations- nor do you make the case that what you're saying is the only way to gain a firm grounding for these traits. It's a false dichotomy.

[emilynghiem]

The argument basically comes down to:

1)In face of naturalism, our concept of ourselves and praise is not firmly grounded.
2) Without being firmly grounded, it takes a form of illusion as far as knowledge of ourselves and praise goes.
[what is meant by this premise, is that we don't know it being true, not that we know it's wrong]
3) However our knowledge of ourselves and praise is firmly grounded knowing it's not an illusion.
4) Therefore naturalism is not true.



When it comes to our own existence, we have a concept of the self. To me this concept of the self needs to backed up by an actual soul. There is a reason to this. We aren't merely an experience. We attach ourselves actions. Actions in the past, relationships we have, habits we take, attributes we take on, they all form part of the concept of who we are.

If we were merely an experience produced by the biological brain, then the past no longer is a part of who we are, things we've done shouldn't impact our concept of our self other than they did so because evolution favoured us having such a concept of ourself.

There is more to it, our sense of pride assumes praise and value exists. If naturalism was true, we can trace our sense of value when we first mind appeared and valued it's own existence to exist rather then to die. As for us, are roots would take a different form of praise with actions done in a community or tribe as we evolved.

At one point did subjective sense of praise turn into an objective sense of value and praise? Somewhere down the line in evolution, it wasn't perfectly objective for sure, from naturalism perspective, so how did it get to be an objective value? At one point in evolution did it go from having a sense of value to knowing there is an objective value or a sense of praise to knowing there is an objective praise value.

The same is true of our sense of selves. We wouldn't have a way of really knowing who we are objectively, it's more of a sensation and experience that we would have gotten as we evolved.

There would be nothing to back this oneness concept of ourselves we have, we simply have it, because evolution favoured us having it.

However, I believe we innately know objective praiseworthiness exists as well that our concept of our selves is built on some objective basis.

Us knowing objective praiseworthiness doesn't mean there is a universal sense or that we know exactly what that it is. It just means when we have a sense of praise, we do so thinking there is an objective value to that praise, even if we aren't aware of that exact value. The same would not be true if all we had was our subjective experience.

The same is true about knowing ourselves. That there is an objective existence to ourselves, outside our own very relative experience.

Hi MysticKnight
I find it boils down to issues of semantics, and what people CALL the abstract or collective level that is beyond empirical perception.

For example, if people have a SENSE of "collective society" "collective humanity" that is faith-based because we literally do not see all the people we are referring to.

We understand there is a body of laws or knowledge about the universe, but don't literally know what is contained there. So it is based on faith that such knowledge is out there, waiting to be discovered, or expanded upon.

I don't think anyone needs to be forced to acknowledge things in "different terms" such as saying natural is incomplete and forcing something to be called "supernatural."

I find it works to start with what people DO CALL these elements, and work with that vocabulary. Telling people their views are wrong evokes the opposite reaction and just starts resistance rejection and conflict.

Working with each person's given system allows us to align our terms for these levels, and see that we are talking about the same things in life.

[bennyboy]

I don't think anyone needs to be forced to acknowledge things in "different terms" such as saying natural is incomplete and forcing something to be called "supernatural."

I find it works to start with what people DO CALL these elements, and work with that vocabulary. Telling people their views are wrong evokes the opposite reaction and just starts resistance rejection and conflict.

Working with each person's given system allows us to align our terms for these levels, and see that we are talking about the same things in life.

Yeah, but what if it's obvious that people are talking about bullshit? If a Christian, for example, really believes that God is Sky Daddy and that we have a personal relationship with said Sky Daddy-- that he watches us masturbate with disapproving clucks, or that he will actually execute revenge for one's sins to the fourth generation-- then where's the common ground?

[Simon Moon]

For example, if people have a SENSE of "collective society" "collective humanity" that is faith-based because we literally do not see all the people we are referring to.

We understand there is a body of laws or knowledge about the universe, but don't literally know what is contained there. So it is based on faith that such knowledge is out there, waiting to be discovered, or expanded upon.

Neither of these is a faith based position.

Our sense of a collective society is based on the observation of (and the agreement of) the society we live in. My position that I live a society where he majority agrees that: murder, theft, rape, etc are wrong, and not conducive to a thriving society, is based on the observation that I live in that society.

I understand that not everyone in our society agrees to the above, therefore we have laws to punish and dissuade people that engage in any of them.

I don't have to see everyone in my society to understand what sort of society I am living in.

As far as the laws and knowledge of the universe, again, not a faith based position.

All science is based on the tentative understanding of observed facts. Nothing in science is considered true, with absolute certainty.

When it comes to the universe, so far, the physical laws, work everywhere that we have observed (with the exception of the planck time).

If in the future, it is observed that this in not true, science will be modified to include the new observations.

There is never any faith involved in science. If a scientist relies on faith, then he/she is not doing science.

[Mystic]

I would like to bump this thread. I know it's not good to necro posts, but I feel our knowledge of praise is indeed signs of supernatural/soul/spirit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thank you for that reaffirmation of your faith, now if only there were an argument somewhere...in this thread.........

[Iroscato]

Mystic, we've been over this before. Everything a human is, was and will ever be is stored in the brain. Once the brain dies and rots, the person ceases to exist. That's it. Goodnight. Cheerio. Thanks for playing. Have a good one. Sayonara.

[Dystopia]

If only all Muslims were like MysticKnight

[IATIA]

The same is true about knowing ourselves. That there is an objective existence to ourselves, outside our own very relative experience.

Then for starters, prove to me that you are not a "brain-in-a-vat".

[Cato]

I would like to bump this thread. I know it's not good to necro posts, but I feel our knowledge of praise is indeed signs of supernatural/soul/spirit.

Quite right. Necro posting is similar to Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. I don't recall Surah and verse where Mohammed had these powers. Funny thing about prophets, they never proclaim or demonstrate the powers of the prophet before them, but they always claim to be definitive. Curious though, the flavor of prophet most always depends on the prophet your parents recognize. Any true prophet could easily transcend these bounds, but it never happens.