Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 5, 2024, 7:16 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(July 31, 2013 at 8:10 pm)BettyG Wrote:


Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep... Tongue
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 3:00 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 2:05 am)PeterPriesthood Wrote: ... trying to prove anything about religion with logic is dangerous. We'll end up going down the Rabbit Hole, my friend. We need to keep our Faith strong and trust that it will help us discern the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm okay that we don't know everything about the Universe yet. God does though. I'm certain that if he doesn't reveal it all to us in this lifetime, there's at least more life to live once we shed our mortal shells.

What, and your own special brand of logic keeps you out of Rabbit Holes? You've assumed there is a God, and you base your faith on this assumption. Can you explain why this mode of thinking is correct, or will that be Rabbit Hole territory?

It's correct because God has made his presence known to me, and this is because of my faith. Essentially, I passed a very important part of his test. Gaining faith in Christ is an essential part of our mortal sojourn, and, without it, we will never achieve exaltation.

As you can see, I like to keep my Rabbit Hole neat and tidy.
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 10:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep... Tongue

Sleep is a weakness. Devil

I don't mean to poach your fun, but it was just too irresistible. Tongue
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 3:43 am)Undeceived Wrote: Step two. Picture the thing/event/force that is the catalyst for our universe.

Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either. 

(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote:
Quote:What caused it? Another thing/event/force. And so on into infinity. Every thing/event/force is changing, causing the next. Now, if we obey our inclinations and find where infinity yields to a beginning, we come to a point where there was no change.

Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you? If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?

Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with? And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed? This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?

I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 11:41 am)Esquilax Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 10:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep... Tongue

Sleep is a weakness. Devil

I don't mean to poach your fun, but it was just too irresistible. Tongue
Yep, irresistible it was...
Keep it up! Wink

(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either. 

(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you? If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?
Why propose a theory that can't be verified?
If there is such a being, it is trying its damnest to keep away, to remain hidden from us.
Also, if there is such a being, how did it come to be? Did it evolve on some substrate (like humans on Earth) accompanied by other such beings... or what?

(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?
Many have tried.... and have only "succeeded" when they become self-convinced of the reality of such a being. Leading to total absence of evidence for others to be convinced without that prior requirement of already being convinced.


(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with? And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed? This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?

I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.
I'd go with the kid and the ant farm.
Kid builds the farm, puts some ants in... sees them go about for a few days... grows tired, gets a new toy, lets the ants be until his mom forces him to dispose of the farm, because he's going to move out.
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
Quote: Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you? If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?

Is there evidence for your answer? As long as there is none, everyone can hold to the theory they prefer. Also, the intelligent being hypothesis is not that good in terms of logical economy.

Quote: Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations?

Because whenever we go past our observation our arguments just become magnificent wanks.
Also, you can't seem to go beyond arguments from ignorance when it comes to prove god.
"Every luxury has a deep price. Every indulgence, a cosmic cost. Each fiber of pleasure you experience causes equivalent pain somewhere else. This is the first law of emodynamics [sic]. Joy can be neither created nor destroyed. The balance of happiness is constant.

Fact: Every time you eat a bite of cake, someone gets horsewhipped.

Facter: Every time two people kiss, an orphanage collapses.

Factest: Every time a baby is born, an innocent animal is severely mocked for its physical appearance. Don't be a pleasure hog. Your every smile is a dagger. Happiness is murder.

Vote "yes" on Proposition 1321. Think of some kids. Some kids."
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Why not reason past our observational limitations?

To look beyond what can be observed would not be reason.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 9:58 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Why not reason past our observational limitations?

To look beyond what can be observed would not be reason.

This.

If I'm eating regular French Fries from Burger King, I suppose I could imagine that I'm actually eating Parmesan-coated Sweet Potato Fries dipped in hand-made Tzaziki sauce, but that does not change the reality that they are still nothing more than regular French Fries.
[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote: But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either. 

Do you know how we get to the point of discounting or accepting the idea of flying unicorns? Evidence. The same is true of universal origins, and as it stands the idea you propose is impossible to verify, and therefore impossible to hold rationally.

In time, you may be right, but if you hold this position now, without evidence, then you're just being irrational.

Quote:Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you?

Because the answer you're proposing has as little explanatory power as infinity does; saying that a god created things doesn't get us a mite closer to knowing how that happened, what actually happened, or to what purpose. I used this example in another thread, but saying "god" to the question "how did the universe begin?" is exactly the same as answering "meat" to the question "how are hotdogs made?"

You may be correct, but you still haven't illuminated anything.

Quote: If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?

Yes. In fairness, the same could be said of discounting it too; the proper response, when not in possession of enough facts to form an educated position, is to not hold a position. Keep an open mind, and wait, or better yet, look yourself.

The only reason I'm here arguing is because you guys are making far too many unfounded assumptions in the process of confirming a belief you already have, which is inherently the wrong way to go about this.

Quote:Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science?

Science is the single most accurate method we have by which we can determine truthful things about the universe. In order to demonstrate some other way of knowing, you'd need to use... well, science to show its accuracy.

We can know things without using science, but let's not knock the concept either; in the case of existential claims, it works.

Quote:Why not reason past our observational limitations?

Because you have no justification for believing in anything that you can't detect. Our senses are the only apparatuses we have by which to interact with the world, that and the machines science allows us to construct; anything beyond them is indistinguishable from fantasy.

Quote:Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?

Only if we can first confirm that he's there, before beginning the process of belief and communication back. Otherwise we're literally talking to empty air. Besides, you're only endorsing this with regards to a single god, right? If I were to start believing in Zeus because of this conversation you'd think I was doing it wrong.

Quote:Can a changeless being accidentally cause change?

Why couldn't it? You're ascribing creation to a purposeful act, but the thing about conscious beings is that their acts sometimes have unforeseen consequences; who is to say the creator didn't just sneeze the universe into existence? Or maybe it was trying for something else, and accidentally ended up with us?

A creator is one thing, but at the moment you've got no basis at all for assuming a competent one too.

Quote: If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with?

As a writer, let me tell you, sometimes your imagination outreaches your skills. The creator could imagine something perfect, but that doesn't entail he has the creative skills to enact it. That's yet another claim, and one that requires evidence for it.

Quote: And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed?

Once again, you're assuming there aren't some knock-on consequences of the initial design, unforeseen to the creator, that would cause our universe to die. Why is that?

I can build the greatest sandcastle ever, and be immensely proud of it, but nothing's going to stop the tide from taking it out to sea. And if I didn't build it correctly, it's going to collapse. This is the problem with this argument; your initial conclusion only states "creator," and now you're ascribing all these skills and motivations to it that you can't possibly justify.

Quote:This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?

And here you are assuming motivations too. What if your creator's motive wasn't just to create, but to build himself a food source? What if it's an emotional vampire, and feeds off of suffering? What if it's a sadist on a cosmic level and loves watching universes die?

How are any of these excluded by your initial argument?

Quote:I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.

If this is the case with your creator, then he's not changeless, is he? He's just changed.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
(August 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Do you know how we get to the point of discounting or accepting the idea of flying unicorns? Evidence. The same is true of universal origins, and as it stands the idea you propose is impossible to verify, and therefore impossible to hold rationally.

You mean to say that everything you believe has been verified by the scientific method? Has your wife's love has been demonstrated through instruments or have you used logic to interpret the evidence? That's all we're doing in this argument for God. We have realized certain truths, such as the probability that all actions need causes (inductively speaking), and we let them lead us to conclusions.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because the answer you're proposing has as little explanatory power as infinity does;
The only reason I'm here arguing is because you guys are making far too many unfounded assumptions in the process of confirming a belief you already have, which is inherently the wrong way to go about this.

You're right, this argument is not enough to believe in God. But it is enough to compel us to seek Him, if we are willing. My belief is not confirmed by science, but by experience. When I developed a relationship with Jesus, my life changed completely. I've seen friends' lives changed too. I've seen bigots become lovers. I've seen drug addicts become leaders. I've seen criminals turned into citizens. I've seen miserable rich people become joyous missionaries.

Galatians 5:19-22
"The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

You can tell a tree by its fruit. We know the Spirit of God exists by what He produces within us.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: A creator is one thing, but at the moment you've got no basis at all for assuming a competent one too.

This changeless being is the first efficient cause, meaning nothing around it/him is changing yet. There is no matter. This is step one, before anything exists at all, in our universe or preceding universes! Therefore anything the being creates would be fully grasped by its/his mind. There is nothing it/he cannot comprehend, because it/he is the first thing that's not nothing. While we have no control over our building blocks, it/he invents the blocks themselves. And again, there must be a first thing that's not nothing unless we wish to do the irrational--break causal chains or go to infinity. So you can dispute causation or infinity, but it doesn't seem that the "incompetent first efficient cause" objection holds any water.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The creator could imagine something perfect, but that doesn't entail he has the creative skills to enact it. That's yet another claim, and one that requires evidence for it.

Yet the claim is not vital to my argument. If I can logically demonstrate the existence of a creator, he is obviously creative enough to make us... because here we are. In my effort to prove that a steam engine must have had a designer, I need not track the engineer down and ask for his credentials.

(August 1, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What if your creator's motive wasn't just to create, but to build himself a food source? What if it's an emotional vampire, and feeds off of suffering? What if it's a sadist on a cosmic level and loves watching universes die?

Why do you give our creator motives so unlike and beneath our own? If it/he created us, it/he would be similar, yet greater. It/he must also know love, peace and patience. If it/he sought only suffering, the world would be a much more terrible place. But since the creator knows both love and torture, which do you think he would choose? Which is more logical--to care for and nurture your creation or to erase all the hard work you put into it?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Three in five British adults say miracles are possible zebo-the-fat 15 2427 September 30, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Last Post: Pat Mustard
  Miracles in Christianity - how to answer KiwiNFLFan 89 21329 December 24, 2017 at 3:16 am
Last Post: Nay_Sayer
  Satan, anti-christ, false prophet vorlon13 43 9704 November 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm
Last Post: Harry Nevis
  How does "Science prove that the miracles of the Bible did not happen" ? Emzap 62 13515 November 4, 2016 at 2:05 am
Last Post: dyresand
  Question for the anti's.......? ronedee 57 7516 March 12, 2016 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: Nihilist Virus
  Is Christianity responsible for anti gay bigotry? 1994Californication 35 8584 March 12, 2016 at 7:48 am
Last Post: Panatheist
  Anti-christ? wolfclan96 225 40871 August 20, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  Jesus' imperfect miracles. Brakeman 32 7955 June 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Last Post: robvalue
  An Anti-Gay Preacher In My Hometown Was Busted On Grindr Faith No More 50 15929 May 25, 2015 at 8:55 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
Rainbow Bloody miracles from a bloody cult. Bob Kelso 22 5433 March 26, 2015 at 11:24 am
Last Post: KevinM1



Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)