I can feel your anger

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would you want to go away, I personally don't want you to leave. Unintentional comedy comes at a high premium in my life, so I appreciate your contributions.

You'd have a stronger case if matter required belief, it doesn't. You'd have a stronger case if we ever found or had any inklings of the existence of this mysterious supernatural world that you implicitly offer as an alternative, we haven't.

The material world is all that we know, and as it stands, all that we seem to be able to know in the first place. You could always change this, rather than bicker over whether or not people swallow whatever you'd like to sell. No one has ever done that, most opt to bicker instead. You might want to consider the differences between those things which you feel are "beliefs" if you want to understand why your continued insistence in this area will be less than fruitful. I think the term "belief" has been used far too loosely far to often in these posts amigo.

If you think you've found a gotcha moment, you're going to be disappointed. I do not believe in supernatural shit. This lands me in the materialist camp(or on the borders of it in any case) -almost by default- not through any sort of belief. It is where I find myself, case in point, due to a complete and utter inability to "believe" things in the first place.

[Whateverist]

Now that this thread seems to be dying down I thought I'd go back and look at the many pages I never read since I came in so late. Here is a real gem:

Thank you Clive. I wonder how everyone feels about this format. I don't always conduct myself in this way. God only knows that ever catching anyone conducting themselves in this way when talking with others is really, really, really rare. Sure won't find it in political debate. I've probably seen it in philosophic settings more than any where else. But boy would you be disappointed if you went around expecting it to go this way any where else.

[Selliedjoup]

Why would you want to go away, I personally don't want you to leave. Unintentional comedy comes at a high premium in my life, so I appreciate your contributions.

You'd have a stronger case if matter required belief, it doesn't. You'd have a stronger case if we ever found or had any inklings of the existence of this mysterious supernatural world that you implicitly offer as an alternative, we haven't.

The material world is all that we know, and as it stands, all that we seem to be able to know in the first place. You could always change this, rather than bicker over whether or not people swallow whatever you'd like to sell. No one has ever done that, most opt to bicker instead. You might want to consider the differences between those things which you feel are "beliefs" if you want to understand why your continued insistence in this area will be less than fruitful. I think the term "belief" has been used far too loosely far to often in these posts amigo.

If you think you've found a gotcha moment, you're going to be disappointed. I do not believe in supernatural shit. This lands me in the materialist camp(or on the borders of it in any case) -almost by default- not through any sort of belief. It is where I find myself, case in point, due to a complete and utter inability to "believe" things in the first place.

That you state you don't need to justify your view/belief/dogma is amusing for me too, that said if the proportion of people who thought like you lot increaed I'd be worried.

I agree the material world is all we know, however that you apply that as material is all we know, that is all which can exist is odd presumption to make. You just presume your assumption to be true. Why you "believe" we can prove all there is is beyond me.

If this is not true, tell me why.

[Reforged]

Selliedjoup.
Quick question, if supernatural is beyond anything natural. Cannot be studied or experienced through natural means... what makes you think it should even apply to us even if it existed? We're natural creatures. When we die we become dead natural creatures right down to our decomposing bodies keeping within the natural laws as they did in life.
If you were to claim that the dead become supernatural "spirits" or go to heaven or some such nonsense then you would be assuming the existence of a supernatural creature or plane you cannot possibly know exists because as you clearly state you have no means to discern such a thing.

So to outline and clarify the question; Why should something beyond nature, apply to nature? On what are you basing this?

Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't? I think if it exists, it's natural.
If a god existed, it could explain why existence is. For proponents of Occam's razor, the occurence of a series of highly unlikely events as being random is a step (or several) too far.

As we are created within existence, and are part of it, it would explain a cause for it. I'm not proposing any more than that.

I don't claim to know or dismiss the supernatural, I just claim it's a possibility as I don't place huge emphasis on humanity's abilitiy to determine this question. You're welcome to assume it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better for whatever reason.

To answer your question, to me the whole is other/greater/different than the sum of his parts, so considering that a creator must be 'in' nature is bizarre position to hold.

You assume incorrectly, perhaps ask for clarification before you base an entire paragraph on an assumption in future.
I mean supernatural as it is defined in most dictionaries:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Why should something outside the natural world effect the natural world? On what are you basing this? You can't possibly claim to have knowledge of the supernatural, its supposedly beyond our understanding. How can you make specific claims of what supernatural entities exist and operate outside the boundaries of your understanding?
You can't have it both ways, either it is beyond what we can prove or not. What are you basing your claims of specific supernatural entities existing on?

[Selliedjoup]

Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't? I think if it exists, it's natural.
If a god existed, it could explain why existence is. For proponents of Occam's razor, the occurence of a series of highly unlikely events as being random is a step (or several) too far.

As we are created within existence, and are part of it, it would explain a cause for it. I'm not proposing any more than that.

I don't claim to know or dismiss the supernatural, I just claim it's a possibility as I don't place huge emphasis on humanity's abilitiy to determine this question. You're welcome to assume it doesn't exist if it makes you feel better for whatever reason.

To answer your question, to me the whole is other/greater/different than the sum of his parts, so considering that a creator must be 'in' nature is bizarre position to hold.

You assume incorrectly, perhaps ask for clarification before you base an entire paragraph on an assumption in future.
I mean supernatural as it is defined in most dictionaries:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Why should something outside the natural world effect the natural world? On what are you basing this? You can't possibly claim to have knowledge of the supernatural, its supposedly beyond our understanding. How can you make specific claims of what supernatural entities exist and operate outside the boundaries of your understanding?
You can't have it both ways, either it is beyond what we can prove or not. What are you basing your claims of specific supernatural entities existing on?

Strange that you supply the defintion of supernatural as I assumed and then claim I assumed incorrectly.

I said: "Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't".If I assumed incorrectly, are you stating that which cannot be observed,measured or any evidence be found to support is not natural? If so, the natural does not consist of what exists, but rather what there is proof for.

I've always considered the natural to be what actually exists, not what is proven to exist. These definitions are seemingly interchangeable for you.

I don't make claims about the supernatural, I merely claim I cannot dismiss them due to a lack of evidence, which I hope you've managed to see the paradoxical nature of this by now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would you want to go away, I personally don't want you to leave. Unintentional comedy comes at a high premium in my life, so I appreciate your contributions.

You'd have a stronger case if matter required belief, it doesn't. You'd have a stronger case if we ever found or had any inklings of the existence of this mysterious supernatural world that you implicitly offer as an alternative, we haven't.

The material world is all that we know, and as it stands, all that we seem to be able to know in the first place. You could always change this, rather than bicker over whether or not people swallow whatever you'd like to sell. No one has ever done that, most opt to bicker instead. You might want to consider the differences between those things which you feel are "beliefs" if you want to understand why your continued insistence in this area will be less than fruitful. I think the term "belief" has been used far too loosely far to often in these posts amigo.

If you think you've found a gotcha moment, you're going to be disappointed. I do not believe in supernatural shit. This lands me in the materialist camp(or on the borders of it in any case) -almost by default- not through any sort of belief. It is where I find myself, case in point, due to a complete and utter inability to "believe" things in the first place.

That you state you don't need to justify your view/belief/dogma is amusing for me too, that said if the proportion of people who thought like you lot increaed I'd be worried.

I agree the material world is all we know, however that you apply that as material is all we know, that is all which can exist is odd presumption to make. You just presume your assumption to be true. Why you "believe" we can prove all there is is beyond me.

If this is not true, tell me why.

Except that I didn't state that, you did. Except that I don't hold such a belief, you merely insist that I do. Mostly for those reasons. You seem to be arguing against classical materialism, in the same way that creationists often argue against darwinism, as though it has any impact on our current understanding of either subject. Classical materialism was abandoned (by most) long ago, and not because a philosopher deconstructed it, or because an apologist refuted it, but because we discovered a little thing called gravity. Gravity, and not your holy bullshit, or demands for explanations ad naus, is a good argument against classical materialism. That you decided to go the route you have and not this particular route only shows that you couldn't even be bothered to fucking google....

As materialism is a position which finds the support of scientific endeavor behind it (at least for now-feel free to change that at any moment), our notions of materialism are subject to change or revision as our knowledge of our cosmos changes.

(and as a nod to those who would argue for classical materialism -gravity can be and is argued for as an effect of matter, of course.)

See, only tears lay down this road my love. You are demanding absolutes of a person who does not subscribe to beliefs, instead preferring provisional certitude, you may as well beat your head against a brick wall. If you were interested in my opinion (which of course you must be) then I'd have to say that I think you're projecting your own perceptions onto mine. You believe there to be absolutes, and so you assume that there must be similar absolutes in my perceptions. You believe that there can be certainty without provisions and so you look to find those areas in my own appraisals of reality that would suggest this -in order to criticize those things -and all of this, I suspect, in the hopes that by weakening another's views (either in actuality or perception) yours will somehow become strengthened, or at least placed on an equal plane. Unfortunately, that's not how this works.

As far as the strength of materialism in philosophy. Any conclusion you may reach can only have as much value as the premise and assumptions that went into it's culmination can be said to have. Materialism has an edge here in that the premise and assumptions (which vary, depending upon which type of materialism you want to invoke -it;s a broader field than you probably realize) can have a measure of truth or value assigned to them, because they lend themselves well to the methods we have collectively decided are a productive way of explaining the world around us. In truth, you don't have an issue with materialism until it conflicts (or is perceived by you to conflict) with some pet fantasy, such as a soul or spirit world, or magic. If these things were important to you I imagine that it would be much more useful for you to find a manner in which these things could coexist with our appraisal of the workings of the cosmos, rather than scorching the earth -even for yourself- as a kneejerk defense of a concept which you obviously haven't invested much thought in. If you want you fairy realm, make it work -don't tell others why their material realm doesn't -because it clearly does, even for you.

[Reforged]

You assume incorrectly, perhaps ask for clarification before you base an entire paragraph on an assumption in future.
I mean supernatural as it is defined in most dictionaries:
su·per·nat·u·ral (spr-nchr-l)
adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Why should something outside the natural world effect the natural world? On what are you basing this? You can't possibly claim to have knowledge of the supernatural, its supposedly beyond our understanding. How can you make specific claims of what supernatural entities exist and operate outside the boundaries of your understanding?
You can't have it both ways, either it is beyond what we can prove or not. What are you basing your claims of specific supernatural entities existing on?

Strange that you supply the defintion of supernatural as I assumed and then claim I assumed incorrectly.

I said: "Firstly, I'm assuming that by natural you mean that which we can measure, and supernatural is that which we can't".If I assumed incorrectly, are you stating that which cannot be observed,measured or any evidence be found to support is not natural? If so, the natural does not consist of what exists, but rather what there is proof for.

I've always considered the natural to be what actually exists, not what is proven to exist. These definitions are seemingly interchangeable for you.

I don't make claims about the supernatural, I merely claim I cannot dismiss them due to a lack of evidence, which I hope you've managed to see the paradoxical nature of this by now.

So you are basically arguing that the unknown is out there and branding it all supernatural? All of it a force *beyond* science, *beyond* nature because it cannot be measured?
By your definition gravity would of been supernatural before we finally figured out how it works and a unit of measurement for it. Needless to say gravity is not supernatural and your definition that the supernatural is what we can't measure does not hold up to speculation.
The definitions I gave are ones I took the trouble to look up and quote from directly. I'm not sure how that permits you to accuse me of treating them as interchangeable. Should I perhaps quote every definition I can find on the internet?

[The Grand Nudger]

You may as well Raph, I have a sneaking suspicion that Sell here shops for a long time until he finds a definition for something he can bicker over. Unless, of course, the first definition he comes across sounds like something he can bicker about, at which point his curiosity about a subject seems to take a nosedive.

[Selliedjoup]

Except that I didn't state that, you did. Except that I don't hold such a belief, you merely insist that I do. Mostly for those reasons. You seem to be arguing against classical materialism, in the same way that creationists often argue against darwinism, as though it has any impact on our current understanding of either subject. Classical materialism was abandoned (by most) long ago, and not because a philosopher deconstructed it, or because an apologist refuted it, but because we discovered a little thing called gravity. Gravity, and not your holy bullshit, or demands for explanations ad naus, is a good argument against classical materialism. That you decided to go the route you have and not this particular route only shows that you couldn't even be bothered to fucking google....

To hold the position of requiring evidence to be produced negates the possibility of the unknowable, whether this position is stated or now, that’s the only position you can hold. Unless evidence can be produced depending on it is pointless.

You insist I have “holy bullshit” despite my claims of agnosticism.
Many people here require evidence for a god, sounds like materialism to me. It’s up to you to define your position, not me to look it up on google.

As materialism is a position which finds the support of scientific endeavor behind it (at least for now-feel free to change that at any moment), our notions of materialism are subject to change or revision as our knowledge of our cosmos changes.

(and as a nod to those who would argue for classical materialism -gravity can be and is argued for as an effect of matter, of course.)

See, only tears lay down this road my love. You are demanding absolutes of a person who does not subscribe to beliefs, instead preferring provisional certitude, you may as well beat your head against a brick wall. If you were interested in my opinion (which of course you must be) then I'd have to say that I think you're projecting your own perceptions onto mine. You believe there to be absolutes, and so you assume that there must be similar absolutes in my perceptions. You believe that there can be certainty without provisions and so you look to find those areas in my own appraisals of reality that would suggest this -in order to criticize those things -and all of this, I suspect, in the hopes that by weakening another's views (either in actuality or perception) yours will somehow become strengthened, or at least placed on an equal plane. Unfortunately, that's not how this works.

You’re right, i do believe in absolutes. There is an absolute truth, reality, whether these can be identified are another issue. I’m not bothered whether those here changing their views or not, I have zero expectations that they will. I think this is due to the fact that many believe they make no assumptions towards their conclusion of no belief. It would make sense to suspend belief in the absence of proof, but many take great delight in claiming a lack of belief (or a semantic negation) and disparaging the wisdom of those who belief. I assure you, most believe the ‘new’ atheists to hold similar views to fundamentalists. Of course you can deny this, creationists deny their fundamentalism as they’re correct too.

As far as the strength of materialism in philosophy. Any conclusion you may reach can only have as much value as the premise and assumptions that went into it's culmination can be said to have. Materialism has an edge here in that the premise and assumptions (which vary, depending upon which type of materialism you want to invoke -it;s a broader field than you probably realize) can have a measure of truth or value assigned to them, because they lend themselves well to the methods we have collectively decided are a productive way of explaining the world around us. In truth, you don't have an issue with materialism until it conflicts (or is perceived by you to conflict) with some pet fantasy, such as a soul or spirit world, or magic. If these things were important to you I imagine that it would be much more useful for you to find a manner in which these things could coexist with our appraisal of the workings of the cosmos, rather than scorching the earth -even for yourself- as a kneejerk defense of a concept which you obviously haven't invested much thought in. If you want you fairy realm, make it work -don't tell others why their material realm doesn't -because it clearly does, even for you.

Materialism has an edge if it proves a god to be false or a proven ‘natural’ solution, until then it has no advantage. I have issue with materialism as it’s a circular belief set.

---

So you are basically arguing that the unknown is out there and branding it all supernatural? All of it a force *beyond* science, *beyond* nature because it cannot be measured?
By your definition gravity would of been supernatural before we finally figured out how it works and a unit of measurement for it. Needless to say gravity is not supernatural and your definition that the supernatural is what we can't measure does not hold up to speculation.
The definitions I gave are ones I took the trouble to look up and quote from directly. I'm not sure how that permits you to accuse me of treating them as interchangeable. Should I perhaps quote every definition I can find on the internet?

No I'm arguing for the possibility of the unknown, and if it exists it exists irrespective of whether we label it supernatural or natural.

[downbeatplumb]

Bored now.