Search for Causes

[LadyForCamus]

---

Sure. Again, if you’re proposing magic as a cause, it can be and do anything you want or need it to be and do, right? It can explain away any problem with logic and any lack of evidence for itself, right? It can conveniently explain why people don’t find your arguments in favor of its existence persuasive. Right?  But, you’re starting with your conclusion again, Lek. What reason do you have to believe any such supernatural being is even possible? How have you determined the likelihood of a cause that is, by your own definition, untestable?

There's your circular reasoning.  I say billions of educated, sane people believe or believed in God and the supernatural and you begin with with the premise that I'm proposing magic.

That many people believe something is true doesn’t mean that it necessarily is. That’s a logical fallacy.

You use these kind of terms to try to denigrate what I say.

Not at all, and I apologize if it came across that way. I have no reason to want to denigrate you. While I think there are a lot of problems with your reasoning, you’ve always been a kind and respectful member. I have no desire to put you down. I just don’t know what else to call the god proposition; some thing that exists but can’t be investigated, demonstrated, or defined; that can literally be and do anything the believer in it wants it to; a thing that serves as an answer to everything, and yet an explanation for nothing, as Matt D. so aptly puts it. In what meaningful way is that different from magic? 

You premise is that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore the argument can't be true.

No. We’ve been over this. I don’t assume it doesn’t exist; what I’m saying is, I cannot even assess that proposition because I have no idea what a supernatural thing actually is. What’s it made of? Where is it? How does it work? What are its mechanisms of action? What are some positive descriptors of it? What disqualifies it from being a natural thing? What is the difference between a natural thing and a supernatural thing? If you’re asking me if I believe something can exist, I need to know what it is first, before I can attempt to make an evaluation. If you’ve never seen or heard of a tomato before, and I ask you, “Lek, do you believe tomatoes can exist?”, I’m assuming the first thought in your line of reasoning is going to be a question, “Hey, LFC, what’s a tomato?”. Yes?

I say that God enlightened me and you say that that there could be other reasons why I believe that and, anyway, God doesn't exist, so God can't be one of the options.

No. What I’m asking you to do for me is explain how you’ve determined the god proposition is not only possible but probable when, by your own admission, it can’t be tested.

If you were open minded you would say "Wow, billions of people believe this.

No, that’s a logical fallacy (mentioned above), and has nothing to do with open mindedness.

They're appear to be normal educated people.

Irrelevant. Many otherwise normal people believe in things like a flat earth and faked moon landings. Does that mean they must be right? Of course not; that’s why such reasoning is fallacious.

We've haven't proved that they are wrong.

And, I’m not obligated to do so. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Maybe they are right.

Maybe they are. It’s up to them to demonstrate that.

I don't believe it, but we need to further investigate this further anyway.

Sure. So, what is a logically sound, tangible, reliable method for investigating the god proposition? Or, more broadly, the supernatural proposition? Remember, we haven’t even adequately defined it yet. We have to do that first.