fr0d0 I would agree that it is highly unlikely that there will be natural explanation for the supernatural. However before placing that claim please establish the plausibility of the 'supernatural'.

There's an infinite number of things I could define in such a way as to be internally consistent, and consistent with reality.

I have still done nothing to demonstrate any of them are actually part of reality.

If you define supernatural as "not in reality" then you've kind of snookered yourself, because that's exactly the same as "not existing".

(December 29, 2014 at 8:03 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I take supernatural to mean not possibly natural. Outside of the realm of nature. Evidence of the supernatural would require supernatural abilities to detect. Natural evidence of the supernatural is a contradiction in terms.

If it exists science can detect it. Labelling something supernatural is just moving the goal posts so you can have your warm and snugglies.

Quote:Logically there are two identical answers, as naturally, we cannot know at all. We have zero natural evidence.

So you freely admit to there being no evidence and yet you persist in your belief.

Quote: Now the information that we possess and accept on the problem are not the same, hence the different stances on belief. Given my understanding, you would have to believe in deity, you would have no choice. The logical evidence is overwhelming.

The logical evidence is overwhelmingly in opposition to the existence of god.

Quote:Likewise, given your understanding, I would have to disbelieve. I wouldn't have any choice either.

But there is only one "truth" it just so happens that we are right because we can prove the majority of what we believe and for other things we can say we don't know.
We don't have to fall back on the god cop out for our explanations.

(December 29, 2014 at 7:46 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Your logic is that you need to see natural evidence of something not natural/ supernatural. It doesn't get any more illogical than that for me.

Logic point #1. Please show me how that is wrong.

Please point me to a logical statement that I've made about my beliefs that you find fallacial or unsound.

I don't know why I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. The problem is probably with me. Couldn't your same arguments be used to prove that anything nonexistent exists such as Santa?


'Your logic is that you need to see natural evidence of something not natural/supernatural like Santa. It doesn't get more illogical than that for me."

(December 29, 2014 at 7:54 am)watchamadoodle Wrote:

(December 29, 2014 at 6:48 am)robvalue Wrote: So it comes back to believing what you want to believe, emotional reasoning and not logic. I think we eventually got to the point I was trying to make earlier Admitting there can be no proof or even evidence for something is admitting there is no logical reason to believe it, unless you define logic as being picking and choosing beliefs which may be true.

It seems like Fr0d0 is making Christianity the starting assumption of his logical path, and declares victory immediately by saying "hah, I'm being logical". This is like a proof by contradiction. We need to apply logic to the assumption of Christianity and show that it leads to a contradiction with the accepted opinions of science, history, archaeology, or Christianity itself.

Fr0d0's strategy works with deism, but it doesn't work with Christianity IMO.

Of course a proof by contradiction can only prove that the assumption is false; it can't prove the assumption is true. I think Fr0d0 is arguing that it is o.k. to believe something that can't be proven false, but we can prove Christianity false - or at least very unlikely.

No I disagree. I don't think I've made any actual defences of the detail yet. All I'm getting to answer are what I see as logical gaffs made in opposition. Well, the same logical gaff made over and over.

I have a thousand reasons to believe, as I said in another thread this past week. I'm immediately challenged on scientific contradictions which are simply not there in my faith. I stated this without going into detail. Then blind faith, which I don't hold. The straw men are coming thick and fast, and you're taking my position as that, my swathing defences against the straw men, without tasking me on any detail. I find that a strange point at which to make judgement. You must be aware how very inaccurate you are being?

As far as I understand it, he reasons god into existence because he wants a god existing. So the whole chain is broken, since the goal is already predefined. There's actually a term for that kind of reasoning, but right now it escapes my mind.

For me it was actually the other way round on my way to atheism. I wanted a god to exist, but when I tried to atribute god's existence with any kind of reason, I always came up empty in light of knowledge. So I came to the conclusion, you'd have to suspend knowledge in order to believe. And that's certainly not where I wanted to go.

OK, well I tried again, but I'll resign for now. I'll continue to keep an eye on things, but I see no logical chain of arguments leading from reality to a god actually existing (not possibly existing, I already admit it's possible).

To admit someone using a scientific approach would come to the conclusion you are wrong, is to admit that you are not being scientific. It's not logical to be unscientific if you are interested in actual truth.

This is not surprising and not an attack at you Frodo, I've never seen a single logical argument even coming close to demonstrating a god, unless the god is defined in such a way as to obviously exist anyway (a sun or something). I've not even been convinced by deistic arguments, let alone the "my god" non sequiter that follows.

Bottom line is, using science and logic, you cannot demonstrate that anything supernatural exists. And you cannot prove that anything supernatural has caused an event in reality, even if they do exist. I'm afraid that's the cold hard truth of science, and to abandon that is to abandon the scientific method. It's not my dogma, it's the only model which has reliably been shown to produce truth.

I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm not even telling you that you should think you're not being logical. I understand that you believe you're being logical. I am just giving my opinion on why I think you are not.

You're not an official AF Regular™ until you've chased fr0d0 around the mulberry bush a few times.

Wow, I'm now a true atheist!

Again I'm not targeting frodo, but when people defend religious beliefs they rarely will ever back down or concede points. In fact, frodo does concede points more than most do, I'll give him that.

The beliefs form their own defences, and no argument showing them to be irrational is allowed to stand; some way of refuting it is always preferable. Even if it involves making other massive assumptions to support these side-arguments, the mind can convince itself it's being rational.

That is my take on it, given my observations of hundreds of religious arguments from all sorts of people.

---

I'll add that frodo is a good deal more reasonable and polite than most theists I've dealt with.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 29, 2014 at 7:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Quite the opposite for me Rob. Feelings are nothing to do with logic. I don't understand how you're making that leap.

Logical proof is actually proof. If it weren't logical it couldn't be possible.

Because something is logically possible does not make it true.

Agreed. And that backs up my point of this being a 50/50 choice.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

Quote:Are you saying that what is logical is also impossible?? That seems arse about face.

Sometimes what seems logical can be impossible in practice.

Also agreed. That's not what Rob is saying tho. He's saying the two are mutually exclusive.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

Quote:Having an obviously illogical reason not to believe seems undesirable. With no logic OR evidence I guess you're left with a feeling. Is that you're position? It seems so to me: you disbelieve because you feel that's right.

There is no evidence for a god and gods existence is illogical.

How is God's existence illogical? Until you can demonstrate that I will file it under baseless assertion.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

Quote:I believe because I understand it to be true. No feelings involved.

What are you understanding to be true? there is no evidence for what you believe and its a logically improbable.

There can be no evidence logically. It is actually logically possible. That's why neither of us can know. that's the honest starting point. If you have any other information I'm all ears. I assume that you don't.