The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

Didn't you just state awhile back that you didn't know anything?

I don't know how it happened.

Do you know what that means? It means you don't have an opinion one way or the other.

So basically you're arguing from ignorance, which is par for the course I guess.

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

[Whateverist]

---

I don't think that is really parallel.  I don't believe in abiogenesis because I trust science will one day show how that transition occurred.  There just isn't any natural alternative and logically I reject 'the supernatural', and that has nothing to do with science.



Definitely not.  For me it isn't a question of authority.  It is just a question of making sense, and to me 'the supernatural' just doesn't.



For the record I find plenty of mystery in the world, and mystery doesn't trouble me.  But for me, mystery doesn't have a 'Twilight Zone' connotation.  I assume that that which is mysterious is also natural.  Doesn't mean it'll make sense to me, but of course it would be natural.  What else could it be .. for me.  I realize of course that you have another alternative you keep open and that is your prerogative.  We just have to disagree over that stuff.  (Doesn't mean I won't eat your smoked salmon .. I mean, if you had any extra.)

---

When you state that you "reject the supernatural" you essentially are saying that you reject anything that is undetectable with your 5 senses.  Aren't the  senses a product of the natural? If the senses are a product of the natural, then all they can perceive is the natural.

You see the natural, you touch the natural, you hear the natural, you taste the natural, and you smell the natural.

So anything that is undetectable to any of those natural senses don't exist?

It isn't quite that simple.  There are many things undetectable to my five senses which I do not reject, including: my feelings for my loved ones; their feelings for me; the dictates of my own conscience; the value of my own artistic efforts.  There are many things I accept which cannot be vouchsafed empirically.  But I count all of that as natural.

You guys ask for proof of "supernatural" (I'll refer to it as the "spiritual" from now on), but how exactly am I to do that when you are not willing to use your spiritual sense?

I don't actually ask for proof for anything outside of mathematics.  But this doesn't really fit here.  I wouldn't call it as you do where I bolded, but I do have a felt sense of what is significant, important, moral, beautiful and more.  I can accept plenty of things without empirical evidence.  But I consider it a natural byproduct of my being, a capacity which transcends the bounds of reason.  But why should I expect that what I am is only my capacity for reason?  I don't.  When you say it is from God, I just think you're projecting what is happening inside the totality of yourself to something 'out there'.  I don't think you are factually correct to do so, but I don't see a lot of harm in it either.

One thing I will pointedly disagree with you on is your attribution of your "spiritual sense" to something "supernatural".  How do you know so clearly what are the limits of the natural world?  How can any of us be sure that anything is not natural.  Frankly I don't think you 'elevate' God by such a categorical assignment.  This is what we disagree on.

How would you explain that natural world exists to a person that was devoid of the natural senses? How would you prove the color blue exists to someone that couldn't see?

The only way one has of detecting the spiritual realm is his spirit, and faith is the "spiritual sense", and to the christian it's the "true" sense, the sense that takes preeminence over all the others, hence we "walk by faith not by sight".

So where you reject everything that doesn't agree with the natural, a christian rejects everything that doesn't agree with the spiritual.

Our disagreement doesn't regard what is detectable by the senses or verifiable empirically.  It is instead over the limits of the natural and the source of what is beyond reason.

[KevinM1]

Spiritual sense... Okay, let's dive into that.  

What part of the body is responsible for a spiritual sense?  How does it work?  

Our eyes have lenses designed to take in light, and chemicals to process that light.  And various connections to the brain that allow us to process that information and 'see'.

Our ears are openings, with a membrane placed within a canal upon which sound vibrates.  Those vibrations are processed by the brain.

Our skin has a ton of nerve endings which are sensitive to stimuli.  These are connected to the brain.

Our nose has special chemical receptors which can differentiate smells based on chemical makeup.

Our tongue also has special receptors, with zones that detect different things (which is why sour tastes are in a different location than sweet, which are in a different location than bitter).

Keep in mind, our senses are not perfect.  We see only a portion of the actual light spectrum, we have a distinct hearing range, etc.  But, we know how they work due to hundreds of years worth of studying anatomy, biology, and chemistry.  

And because of that, we can still describe what blue is to a blind person, even if they'll never have the experience of it.  We can describe the eye.  We can describe how light works.  It's not ambiguous in the least.  There's no faith involved because we know how these things work.  We don't need to physically feel an X-Ray to know they exist, as anyone who has ever had a broken bone knows.

So, how does the spiritual sense work?  What body part is at work?  How does it work mechanically?  Chemically?  If there's an actual sense at work, then it should be reflected in our biology.  Something unique and not just the brain chemistry of the warm fuzzies associated with something happy/joyous.

[Huggy Bear]

It isn't quite that simple.  There are many things undetectable to my five senses which I do not reject, including: my feelings for my loved ones; their feelings for me; the dictates of my own conscience; the value of my own artistic efforts.  There are many things I accept which cannot be vouchsafed empirically.  But I count all of that as natural.

Love is the epitome of supernatural.

Love defies logic and reason. It cannot be measured or explained. Yet you know it exists.

What if I said love = God

You ask why evil exist in the world? If everyone had love (Agape) then evil couldn't exist.

I don't actually ask for proof for anything outside of mathematics.  But this doesn't really fit here.  I wouldn't call it as you do where I bolded, but I do have a felt sense of what is significant, important, moral, beautiful and more.  I can accept plenty of things without empirical evidence.  But I consider it a natural byproduct of my being, a capacity which transcends the bounds of reason.  But why should I expect that what I am is only my capacity for reason?  I don't.  When you say it is from God, I just think you're projecting what is happening inside the totality of yourself to something 'out there'.  I don't think you are factually correct to do so, but I don't see a lot of harm in it either.

One thing I will pointedly disagree with you on is your attribution of your "spiritual sense" to something "supernatural".  How do you know so clearly what are the limits of the natural world?  How can any of us be sure that anything is not natural.  Frankly I don't think you 'elevate' God by such a categorical assignment.  This is what we disagree on.

*emphasis mine*

That's just it, God isn't "out there" he's right here where we're at.

As far as what determines the limits of the natural world, I've explained that our natural senses determine what we perceive as natural. And even those don't perceive things as they really are... does not science state that there is no such thing as a solid? reconcile that with your natural senses.

Our disagreement doesn't regard what is detectable by the senses or verifiable empirically.  It is instead over the limits of the natural and the source of what is beyond reason.

Fair enough.

[Huggy Bear]

And because of that, we can still describe what blue is to a blind person, even if they'll never have the experience of it.  

Pretend I'm blind and have never seen a color in my life, how would you describe the color blue?

[KevinM1]

And because of that, we can still describe what blue is to a blind person, even if they'll never have the experience of it.  

Pretend I'm blind and have never seen a color in my life, how would you describe the color blue?

I would describe it as being on the high end of the visible light spectrum.  That a clear sky and clear water have that color due to a variety of factors (I don't really feel like going into things like refraction, spectrometry, etc. at the moment).  That most people attribute it to cool/cold.

Again, I already said that a blind person wouldn't be able to experience it.  But the mechanisms that allow us to perceive color are well understood.  I'm still waiting on an explanation of your purported spiritual sense.  Even if I'm physically deficient and lack it, you should be able to unambiguously describe how it works like the rest of our senses.  Even in broad terms like I've done in my previous post.  That is, if it's actually a sense and not just confirmation bias mixed with warm fuzzies due to psychological conditioning stemming from cultural indoctrination or poor analogy.... 

So, are you going to describe the mechanism?  Because I am a curious person, and I want to know how it works.

P.S. Love, like other emotions, is a manifestation of brain activity and chemistry, and not at all unique to humans.  And it can be measured, by measuring the changes in said activity/chemistry compared to the norm, as well as adrenaline levels, pulse, breathing, etc.  Love itself is a mixture of instinct (immediate family, potential and actual mates), culture (what traits are desirable... chubby/fat used to be attractive because it spoke to one's wealth and opulence), and psychology (compatibility, shared values, etc.).  It is not magic.  And yes, I have been deeply, madly in love.  To the point of willingly self-sacrificing for them.  Still not magic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Didn't you just state awhile back that you didn't know anything?

I don't know how it happened.

Do you know what that means? It means you don't have an opinion one way or the other.

So basically you're arguing from ignorance, which is par for the course I guess.

To make an argument from ignorance, you actually have to be arguing for something.  Since I'm not...swing and a miss. Never going to get around to telling us anything about the hybridization you -did- argue for, are you?

I'll ask again...are you sure that your intepretation is correct...and in being correct about that having falsified your own beliefs.....or could you be wrong? Ironically, this is -exactly- what happened in that conversation you love to necro-quote. What're the odds, huh?

[Huggy Bear]

Didn't you just state awhile back that you didn't know anything?



Do you know what that means? It means you don't have an opinion one way or the other.

So basically you're arguing from ignorance, which is par for the course I guess.

To make an argument from ignorance, you actually have to be arguing for something.  Since I'm not...swing and a miss.  Never going to get around to telling us anything about the hybridization you -did- argue for, are you?

I'll ask again...are you sure that your intepretation is correct...and in being correct about that having falsified your own beliefs.....or could you be wrong?  Ironically, this is -exactly- what happened in that conversation you love to necro-quote.  What're the odds, huh?

Your argument is that according to the bible Cain was Adam's flesh and blood, correct?

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

[The Grand Nudger]

Your argument is that according to the bible Cain was Adam's flesh and blood, correct?

....................no..I accepted your snakeman hypothesis...remember?  Why do you think I asked you all those questions? If your interpretation is correct, and if the stuff in magic book really happened...then the answers to those questions would be demonstrable, irrefutable evidence of both propositions. Unfortunately, their absence would be demonstrable, irrefutable evidence...that one or both were untrue.



(huggs, seriously, don't get yourself in trouble...somebody will eventually report you, you know this)

[Huggy Bear]

Your argument is that according to the bible Cain was Adam's flesh and blood, correct?

....................no..

Really?

No,it doesn't..just as it doesn;t get any clearer than gen 4:1.  The author (in john) expresses our spiritual lineages, as he saw them, not our genetic lineages.  That doesn't change the fact that cain and abel were brothers, both of adam. 

I accepted your snakeman hypothesis...remember?  Why do you think I asked you all those questions?

That's an oxymoron. You don't question something you accept...

(huggs, seriously, don't get yourself in trouble...somebody will eventually report you, you know this)

It's ok, you've stated that quote brings you amusement ("it makes you giggle"), If spreading joy is wrong, I don't want to be right....

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....