RE: Do you have the right to be an atheist?
June 30, 2015 at 4:37 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2015 at 4:38 am by Longhorn.)
(June 30, 2015 at 3:59 am)pool Wrote: @ Neimennovic,
xD That's a very faulty logic.
Grass+Hopper = Grass that can hop?
The definition of Supernatural is not "Beyond nature".It is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.".
PS I didn't just make that up.
(B mine)
That's what I said.
Nothing is beyond the laws of nature because nature is everything. Beyond the laws of nature = beyond nature = beyond what exists = nonexistent.
Moreover, beyond scientific understanding != beyond laws of nature. You have two different definitions:
1) things beyond our scientific understanding
Many things used to be beyond scientific understanding. Our ignorance does not grant any of those things powers above the laws of nature.
2) things beyond the laws of nature
Empty set
So you're either proposing the existence of something nonexistent or implying that because we don't understand it, it must work beyond the laws of nature. It may come as a shock to you, but there are laws of nature we have not yet described. That doesn't mean that what follows these yet unknown laws is beyond the laws of nature, because nothing is.
Arguing semantics is not a good way to get your point across; moreover, changing definitions only does that much: change definitions.
Arguments a priori are worthless when it comes to the existence of god. And again, as long as you have to make his case for him, he's only becoming less compelling. Especially when you do it as weakly and as dishonestly as in this thread.
