The book of Job, chapter 38 written aproximatly 2000 BC, verse 1 to 4 The LORD for our benefit is giveing Job a ticking off by demanding answers of him by asking, where he was when He laid the foundations of the earth, and so tells Job to declaire his understanding of these matters, to which of course Job can not, verse 5 to 37 God slips us a few scientific facts of His creation , / 12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dawn to know its place; Here God is speeking of the sun rise, / 13 God makes a referance to the light overtakeing the darkness, / 14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. here God explains night and day by depicting earth as clay being turned or rotated on a potters wheel, and the light of the day and the darkness of night, are but garments the earth puts on and takes off . So here you have it the scriptures speek of the earth rotating on its axis , and this is how we have a sun set and a sun rise, whilst ancient science taught a geocentric view that the sun revolved around the earth . go figar. ps: The revelations that continue in this chapter of Job are also thousands of years ahead of their time , and the founder of modern oceanography and hydrography Matthew Maury stands as a testiment to this irifutable fact to this very day.

(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Supernatural fits very well. Potentially natural supernatural, as you propose, doesn't.

What grounds can one rationally posit such an oxymoron? I don't just propose it doesn't, it is the default option. My question is how does one bridge the gap between no grounds for plausibility to attempting to justify it as potential?

(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: How do you think people assert these claims? That sounds a little like you're demanding more than would be possible of the truly supernatural.

Not so. At one point the Sun rising was by definition a supernatural occurrence, that became understood as natural, and the turtle example I gave, absurd or not, would have served as a more possible explanation than invoking an explanation from that which is imaginatively possible, i.e. God.

(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We draw upon our rationalising abilities that a world we are able to rationalise made possible.

Agreed, my question still stands. From what position do you justify conjuring explanations that are not grounded in the world you rationalize and then attempt to claim they are in fact, rational?

If the question is, "Where did the universe come from?" At what point is it rational to throw out the world around us, and simply posit that The Universe was created?...rationally? That is to say, with good reason?

(May 14, 2013 at 4:27 am)goodnews Wrote: The book of Job, chapter 38 written aproximatly 2000 BC, verse 1 to 4 The LORD for our benefit is giveing Job a ticking off by demanding answers of him by asking, where he was when He laid the foundations of the earth, and so tells Job to declaire his understanding of these matters, to which of course Job can not, verse 5 to 37 God slips us a few scientific facts of His creation , / 12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dawn to know its place; Here God is speeking of the sun rise, / 13 God makes a referance to the light overtakeing the darkness, / 14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. here God explains night and day by depicting earth as clay being turned or rotated on a potters wheel, and the light of the day and the darkness of night, are but garments the earth puts on and takes off . So here you have it the scriptures speek of the earth rotating on its axis , and this is how we have a sun set and a sun rise, whilst ancient science taught a geocentric view that the sun revolved around the earth . go figar. ps: The revelations that continue in this chapter of Job are also thousands of years ahead of their time , and the founder of modern oceanography and hydrography Matthew Maury stands as a testiment to this irifutable fact to this very day.

Isn't it amusing, that a person who is aware of the relationship of the earth to the sun and its general position and movement through the solar system - gleaned from an education that was stymied at every point by religious faith - reads those passages and interprets them as being somehow supportive of their much more well developed understanding of all the above then anything that was exhibited by the authors or even remotely suggested by the text?

Dawn needs no "commanding", and has no "place". What scientific fact?

Light does not overtake darkness - this is just an allusion to a long running spiritual theme. What scientific fact?

Turning something as clay to a seal is a reference to a change in visual appearance - I'll let this one pass, we can't see at night, some observation there - fucking brilliant.

But where did you get the idea of a potters wheel (do you see anything in those passages about a potters wheel), -you were looking for something connected to clay and the rotation you understand gleaned from somewhere other than the text. Do you generally spin around in circles while you dress or undress? I don't.

There are no revelations in that chapter, and nothing there is in any way ahead of it's time even as prose. The allusions, the allegories are all firmly entrenched in the timeframe - the only salient observation of any scientific reality beyond the text is that we can't see at night.....and something tells me that we didn;t have to wait for word from any god to figure that one out

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: You may be right but that's a lot more than I know. I have no more reason for believing this premise than I do for believing any of the claims made by theists.

Good point. Thank you. I guess I should really rephrase that one...

No claim of an unembodied mind or celestial agent can be posited from evidence that is made available to me.

The people that make the claims to me cannot present evidence for their claims either.

I have been left to assume, that there is no such evidence made to them, that is not made to me, and from that I conclude that they are in no better a position to invoke such an entity as the answer for the universe than I am for the answer to my crossword puzzle if the question doesn't match the answer I invoke.

(May 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Present me with any concept you suppose to be true, without having a reason grounded in reality to support it, and I will reject it outright as well.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: I believe that reflection will often reveal more than any tabulation of what I know to be true can reveal.

I must ask,what you are reflecting on? Do such things correlate with reality, or are they simply figments? If such things are merely figmented products of reflection, what truth can be assigned to these otherwise unconjured thoughts? My contention is that such reflection is more imagination, and is no different than me creating a comic book, and creating a monsterous villain to fill pg. 13. The villian I created is not true in any other sense than it is now on paper when before, it was only in my imagination. Any other meaning cannot be rationally correlated to reality if the nature of its existance did not either.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: I likewise find that my sense of composition is worth sharing even though I don't have any formal instruction in that.

Whatever you opinion of what is worth sharing is, cannot be refuted on the grounds of not having formal instruction of it. You are indeed right there, as such an argument would be fallicious.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: I also attribute great value to flights of inspiration even though I do not build them up upon a solid footing of true belief.

This sounds poetic, I enjoyed it, and don't want to touch it.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: In short, I find great value in that which originates in the unconscious rather than being assembled through reason with the conscious mind.

Inspiration is a beautiful thing. Both my fiancee and I are amateur painters. Mostly acrylic , but we've filled our house with our "works"..he he he. My point is that such things, beautiful as they may be as works of creativity, correlate with reality as imaginative depictions of my inspiration. They cannot be rationally justified as the cause of the universe. Motives, inspiration, creativity have merit. Depictions and representations of them can be displayed and correlate with reality as such. Postulating that they are answers to questions beyond their nature to be answers for... would require a great deal of rational justification, of the sort, I have not heard.

(May 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: There is nothing available that could justify bridging the gap of my ignorance with imagination.
That is why I do not believe theists, and reject their claims of theism.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: I hear you. I likewise acknowledge no god claims. However I am not in as big a hurry to proclaim them untrue or unworthy.

If the origin of a claim stems from the place in my head that I draw upon for the first place to put paint on canvas, I will assess the claims merit according to its applicability and nature. Such an origin could not explain to me why my light switch will not function to activate my lamp, any more than it can explain to me the early stages of the creation of the universe. While creativity and inspiration have merit, and the value placed in the object they create can stand fast in ones subjective perspective of them. We are discussing opinon over a valid claim. If an opinion is to be considered as a valid explanation, it has to be grounded in reality otherwise its no different than how special I may believe my painting is.

(May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm)whateverist Wrote: To do that might require that I cast out my own unsupportable beliefs, which I will not do.

I'm not so inclined to agree here. It almost feels like we're equivocating a bit on the word belief and the context we are using it in. There are things that you can believe are true, and recognize that they are souly true for no other reason than it is your opinion, an opinionated belief...such as in taste of food, art, music etc. But I don't think anybody would expect justification for preference be made for such things as the subjects of such beliefs, are at least grounded in experience and reality, in at least some sense, even if small.

Then there are claims that one believes are true, and are true for everybody, the universe included. The subject of this belief shares the same properties as the subject in my comic book, and none of the rationally grounded properties assigned to the subject of such beliefs can be logically correlated to it by any other means aside from individual insistance.

A believer either admits a certain level of agnostism by holding it as an opinion, or the believer suggests gnostism by holding it as a conviction and regard it as true above any other opinion of it. In every instance that the latter has been suggested, I have not heard good reason to accept it as anything other than the former, and without good reason for invoking such claims that do not correlate with reality it is unclear to me why anybody holding such a belief would expect anyone opposed to it to concede its validity. That is the point I was hoping to make, but my brain sometimes gets overloaded and things come out firing on too many cylenders. Thanks for indulging my thoughts.

---

(May 13, 2013 at 9:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: On what grounds is anyone able to assert claim of a God and then stamp it as rational?

I for one am of the opinion that a rational understanding of the physical universe depends on presupposing forces and principles that operate parallel to, in tandem with, and above those of the physical universe.

From one bold word to another, how do you justify bridging the gaps between an opinion (unsupported by argument) to it being rational (having good reason) to making claims about a physical universe at its empirical laws on the grounds of a mere presupposition that has not yet been justified itself? I appreciate your perspective Chad, and do enjoy reading your opinions, I just don't see how you logically connect those dots.

(May 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: That was certainly one of the implications of Godel, Escher, Bach. My point is that reason itself depends on something over and above what can be known purely by empirical observations.

Pure speculation, and while this may be true, there is no example of it being true. There is no example of a mind existing outside of a body, and so there is no reason to entertain the idea of an unembodied mind. These are valuable as nothing more than imaginative possibilities serving as creative entertainment, and have not warranted any merit other than that.

(May 14, 2013 at 9:02 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: No claim of an unembodied mind or celestial agent can be posited from evidence that is made available to me.

Agreed.

(May 14, 2013 at 9:02 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: The people that make the claims to me cannot present evidence for their claims either.

I have been left to assume, that there is no such evidence made to them, that is not made to me

Yeah, I assume the same.

(May 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I must ask,what you are reflecting on? .. Any other meaning cannot be rationally correlated to reality if the nature of its existance did not either.

As a means of answering empirical questions it is not good methodology, I'll give you that. Supposedly Crick dreamed about the double helix form of DNA but I'm pretty sure he didn't publish anything based upon the dream. It would have been its ability to fit what observations we could make at the time which made it believable and noteworthy to others.

(May 14, 2013 at 9:02 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Inspiration is a beautiful thing. Both my fiancee and I are amateur painters. Mostly acrylic , but we've filled our house with our "works"..

Good on you both for making room in your lives for creative expression. I used to draw a lot but now I leave it all in the garden, the most complex art form I've ever done involving color and texture and sculpture and change over the seasons and the years. A garden is also a place and constitutes an environment for a community of living things which interact with a 'will' of their own. I may not believe in God but I play one in my garden.

(May 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm not so inclined to agree here. It almost feels like we're equivocating a bit on the word belief and the context we are using it in. There are things that you can believe are true, and recognize that they are souly true for no other reason than it is your opinion, an opinionated belief...such as in taste of food, art, music etc. But I don't think anybody would expect justification for preference be made for such things as the subjects of such beliefs, are at least grounded in experience and reality, in at least some sense, even if small.

I think theists would do well to leave it at this level. I think many believe they are in communion with what they call God, that they are constantly in the presence of an 'other' that is wiser and knows more. Fine, hold it as a preference, as something they would no more insist on to others than they would their preference for more salt. If they just stopped there, their own understanding of the world could be as empirically grounded as anyone's. It is the desire to project that 'other' out into the universe and find literal evidence of it there that corrupts their understanding of the universe.

(May 14, 2013 at 9:02 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Then there are claims that one believes are true, and are true for everybody, the universe included.

A believer either admits a certain level of agnostism by holding it as an opinion, or the believer suggests gnostism by holding it as a conviction and regard it as true above any other opinion of it.

Exactly. There are private truths -verifiable by no one but me- and public truths which require evidence to be shared.

(May 14, 2013 at 10:48 am)whateverist Wrote: A garden is also a place and constitutes an environment for a community of living things which interact with a 'will' of their own. I may not believe in God but I play one in my garden.

Bit like herding cats...lol.

(May 14, 2013 at 12:13 am)whateverist Wrote: I'm hopeless for remembering. But it is a wise man indeed who listens to his dog.

New thread in philosophy about dogs! I want to read your input!

---

(May 14, 2013 at 10:48 am)whateverist Wrote: A garden is also a place and constitutes an environment for a community of living things which interact with a 'will' of their own. I may not believe in God but I play one in my garden.

The ole-lady has quite the green thumb as well. She has a knack for saving and maintaining plant-life. Outside and in. The only problem comes when her summer-plants, that have "made so much progress!" will die if not brought inside. So, over the past few winters, the inside of our home becomes more and more like an inside garden.

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Supernatural fits very well. Potentially natural supernatural, as you propose, doesn't.

What grounds can one rationally posit such an oxymoron? I don't just propose it doesn't, it is the default option. My question is how does one bridge the gap between no grounds for plausibility to attempting to justify it as potential?

Yours was the oxymoron I refer to. I have no idea how you justify it.
What is 'no grounds for plausibility'?

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: At one point the Sun rising was by definition a supernatural occurrence, that became understood as natural, and the turtle example I gave, absurd or not, would have served as a more possible explanation than invoking an explanation from that which is imaginatively possible, i.e. God.

A lack of accurate information on any physical phenomenon does nothing to inhibit an accurate assessment of purpose. You make the mistake of mixing an obsession to know how things happen with a religious statement of meaning.

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(May 13, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We draw upon our rationalising abilities that a world we are able to rationalise made possible.

Agreed, my question still stands. From what position do you justify conjuring explanations that are not grounded in the world you rationalize and then attempt to claim they are in fact, rational?

If the question is, "Where did the universe come from?" At what point is it rational to throw out the world around us, and simply posit that The Universe was created?...rationally? That is to say, with good reason?

I don't justify any explanations that are not grounded in the world I rationalise. I claim nothing as 'fact'. That would be irrational.

The question of origins is weakly dealt with in religion. Because that is out of the scope of religion. Every point known and to be known of origins affirms a creator. Why? Because creation invokes the supernatural > that which never can be known. No gap invoked. Rather a subject change.

(May 14, 2013 at 11:37 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 10:48 am)whateverist Wrote: A garden is also a place and constitutes an environment for a community of living things which interact with a 'will' of their own. I may not believe in God but I play one in my garden.

Bit like herding cats...lol.

I can be a vengeful god, relegating the weak or uninteresting to the compost heap, while unrepentant mollusks are casually crushed between thumb and finger.

But by and large I try to treat the will of the garden as an equal partner. I'm not one for clipped hedges and loads of symmetry. Plausibly natural looking with picturesque flourishes using loads of exotic plants is my ideal. Of course whatever natural looking may mean gets filtered through me.

(May 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: What grounds can one rationally posit such an oxymoron? I don't just propose it doesn't, it is the default option. My question is how does one bridge the gap between no grounds for plausibility to attempting to justify it as potential?

Yours was the oxymoron I refer to. I have no idea how you justify it.
What is 'no grounds for plausibility'?

Ok...Forgive me as I catch up. There are just too many p words, and i've been throwing them around too much. Let me clarify as I can see why you would be confused at this point, and it is my fault. If something is not backed by any form of evidence or grounded in reality, it can be possible at best. A claim that is neither, is not plausible as it has no substance and doesn't correlate to reality and is therein possible merely on the grounds that ANYTHING is possible because of your inability to prove it wrong.

Secondly, and please excuse me, I was under the impression that you were implying that a "natural supernatural" was potentially true, and this may be because of my word choice and will clarify that as well. Obviously, there is no justification to think it is even plausible, to much less have the potential for being true for any reason than cited above, and that would explain the misunderstanding we have.

Just to cover all bases, let me clarify the definition of "super natural" in the context I used it in.
By supernatural, this definition was intended: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal (cut and paste definition), and therefore, that which at one time is unexplainable by any law becomes natural once it is. I was not suggesting that once supernatural becomes understood and explainable it becomes "natural supernatural"...That would be absurd.

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: At one point the Sun rising was by definition a supernatural occurrence, that became understood as natural, and the turtle example I gave, absurd or not, would have served as a more possible explanation than invoking an explanation from that which is imaginatively possible, i.e. God.

(May 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A lack of accurate information on any physical phenomenon does nothing to inhibit an accurate assessment of purpose. You make the mistake of mixing an obsession to know how things happen with a religious statement of meaning.

Indeed, this information is insufficient for not understanding the why. My only point towards this "relgious meaning" is akin to what I would say to anyone wishing to assert meaning behind anything without justifiable reasons to invoke the prefacing word in front of it. By the way, if meaning is found in something such as this by you, I'm sure you are well aware that such a thing is perfectly fine and apart from my opinion of it. It is only if you attempt to convince me that it is a valid belief, and open it up for dialogue, that I would request such evidence to qualify it as so.

(May 14, 2013 at 7:49 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Agreed, my question still stands. From what position do you justify conjuring explanations that are not grounded in the world you rationalize and then attempt to claim they are in fact, rational?

If the question is, "Where did the universe come from?" At what point is it rational to throw out the world around us, and simply posit that The Universe was created?...rationally? That is to say, with good reason?

(May 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Every point known and to be known of origins affirms a creator.

Can you clarify what you are asserting here for me please?

(May 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why? Because creation invokes the supernatural > that which never can be known. No gap invoked. Rather a subject change.

I am perhaps misunderstanding that by this, your preceeding statement was implying the creator is obvious, but I will wait for clarification before addressing such a claim. I don't wish to put words in your mouth, and want know for sure if that is what you intended me to infer.