Define "god" and "supernatural"

(April 14, 2014 at 1:02 pm)Chuck Wrote: Define "god" and "supernatural"

I don't see the point in these definitions....but Chuck, you're on my list of people I always try to answer.

Replace "supernatural" with "non local / non physical" if you like.

Replace "god" with "supernatural mechanism" if you like.

(April 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replace "supernatural" with "non local / non physical" if you like.

What is supernatural about non-locality if it is integral to natural world and subject to observation and prediction?

(April 14, 2014 at 1:21 pm)Heywood Wrote: Replace "god" with "supernatural mechanism" if you like.

What does replacing one empty word without specific predictive power with another do except to steal an underserved aura of cultural awe to thwart an uncomfortable rigorous investigation in order to better remain swaddled in an disgraceful comfort blanket of ignorance?

If you can't define your answer, then your answer has no potential specific explanatory power, and is therefore is not subject to verification, validation, or falsification. It only offers the illusory and nebulous power of a smoke screen to deter investigation. So if you can't define your answer to the point of making your answer in principle falsifiable, you've offered only meaningless words, not an answer.

If no answer can be given that has specific predictive power and thereby falsifiability, then be honest and say "No Answer".

(April 14, 2014 at 12:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: Here is an argument:

Premise 1: We will see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes only if God exists.
Premise 2: We do see events that cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

In order to "beg the question", the conclusion would have to be contained within one of the premises.

I've emboldened the conclusion which you've included in the premise.

Creationists: Couldn't see begging the question if it slapped them upside the head several times while stating their conclusion for them.

(April 15, 2014 at 4:44 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(April 14, 2014 at 12:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: Here is an argument:

Premise 1: We will see events which cannot be explained by local physical causes only if God exists.
Premise 2: We do see events that cannot be explained by local physical causes.
Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

In order to "beg the question", the conclusion would have to be contained within one of the premises.

I've emboldened the conclusion which you've included in the premise.

"If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

(April 15, 2014 at 9:56 am)Heywood Wrote: "If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

The 'only if...' means that this is an assumption not a condition. Consequently your statement reads:

Premise: Things are only wierd if God exists
Premise: Things are wierd
Conclusion: God exists

You get a U.

(April 15, 2014 at 11:12 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(April 15, 2014 at 9:56 am)Heywood Wrote: "If God exists" is not a conclusion. "If" is a conditional statement. You are conflating a condition with a conclusion. The conclusion or declaration that "God exists" is not contained with in any premises.

Sorry Ben but you get an F here.

The 'only if...' means that this is an assumption not a condition. Consequently your statement reads:

Premise: Things are only wierd if God exists
Premise: Things are wierd
Conclusion: God exists

You get a U.

Sorry bro, "only" does not make the "if" go away. Its a conditional statement....not a statement that makes a conclusion.

Semantics, is that to which we have been reduced?