One philosophical argument for existence of supernatural.

[tor]

Objective values don't require supernatural.

[Simon Moon]

I reject your first premise. It is an unsupported assertion.

Argument done.

See ya....

[Rampant.A.I.]

Something of that sort is completely debunked here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI

I'm not going to watch a 17 minutes video. Put into your own words.

Yeah, why would you examine any counter-arguments to your position?

[Mystic]

I'm not going to watch a 17 minutes video. Put into your own words.

Yeah, why would you examine any counter-arguments to your position?

In a dialogue, a person should put arguments in their own words. Not referencing youtube videos or books.

He can easily summarize the points from the video.

I have a feeling it has to do with the fact animals don't have same morals as us, and morality/value/praise needs a frame of reference, but I don't see how that refutes objective value existing. It needing relative experience doesn't negate there being an objective value.

---

I reject your first premise. It is an unsupported assertion.

But I supported it in the discussion that followed.

[tor]

Give me an example of objective value which is impossible to exist with naturalistic means.

[Mystic]

Give me an example of objective value which is impossible to exist with naturalistic means.

Did you read my reply and argument properly?

Here was the response to when you misunderstood my argument before:

Praise would exist in the sense beings praise other beings or appreciate others or have a sense of pride, but what would not exist would be knowledge that objective praise value exists. This argument is not saying this means no objective praise value exists, it's that we would not know it does if naturalism is true. The reason being is because we would have preceded with a purely subjective creation of a sense of value and praise without knowing at least at this point of time how it got to a sense of objective praise and objective value actually being true. The latter I argue would need a supernatural type knowledge, it would require knowledge through faith, and could not be verified from mechanism of naturalism. I also am arguing that this faith is strongly rooted in humanity to the extent that we do have knowledge.

[tor]

Ah well then your whole argument is based on faith.
You can't prove praise, appreciation and sense of pride can not exist by purely naturalistic means.
And the knowledge of supernatural is in your words a knowledge "through faith" which is not knowledge at all.
So it all comes down to faith.

[Mystic]

Ah well then your whole argument is based on faith.

The argument is more like saying the faith in objective value/praise and concept of ourselves cannot be knowledge through naturalism, but only knowledge through supernaturalism and that this faith is a knowledge. I call it faith because it's belief in the unseen and believed without physical evidence.

[tor]

Ah well then your whole argument is based on faith.

The argument is more like saying the faith in objective value/praise and concept of ourselves cannot be knowledge through naturalism, but only knowledge through supernaturalism and that this faith is a knowledge. I call it faith because it's belief in the unseen and believed without physical evidence.

So belief in objective value cannot be a product of nature? How so?
As for faith in supernaturalism if there is no evidence how do you know it even exists? You don't you just have faith. You can have faith in anything and be wrong.

[Alex K]

1)In face of naturalism, our concept of ourselves and praise is not firmly grounded

I honestly have not the faintest idea what this sentence is trying to say. Grounded, praise, what??? Can you rephrase that?