Search for Causes

[Fake Messiah]

When atheists look at the world, they look at it as purely one level. How we perceive things is strongly related to our worldview. If God has revealed itself to us we can recognize him in all. This doesn't mean that once we believe then we manufacture his presence. It means that we need to know what we're looking for or we miss it.

First you say we perceive things on our (predicated) worldview but then you claim that you see God despite your beliefs (which are your worldview) and that we need to know what we're looking for and you already said that we perceive things strongly according to our worldview.

So, this is a word salad based on emotions and not logic, from a person that wants to believe. When someone wants to believe they need very little to believe it. That's why we see sentences with shiny words but not much meaning.

And since you're also touching on subject of difference between an atheist and theist, that difference is that theists want to believe, but atheist asks "Why should I believe?"

[LastPoet]

I argue this with you in the forum, but that's really where I'm at in my journey right now.  I'm more into the process of trying shed my ego so that I may merge, so to speak, with God.  I believe our ultimate purpose is to return to God or the ultimate reality from which we are currently separated.

Personal opinion but for someone that like you, to claim you are in synchrony with the pressuposed creator of this vast universe, you are not shedding your ego. Infact you are bloating your own existence to something that can't be proven to others.

To return to a god is the ultimate ego boost. The fact that you feel the need to yammer your personal beliefs in a site full of haethens gives a fair testimony of that. Food for thought.

Paul, according to the lore, was skeptical of Jesus, then god presented him with the riad to Damascus experience. Why doesn't god do the same for us?

[The Grand Nudger]

Or for Lek, for that matter.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1951089' dateline='1578020526']

I like to think I keep an open mind. But, the problem with considering the supernatural as a cause, is that no one can tell me what a supernatural thing actually is, and why it is disqualified from the category of ‘natural’. As far as I can tell, the best description of the supernatural we currently have is, “some event that occurred in the natural world that we don’t have an explanation for yet.” How am I supposed to evaluate whether it’s likely or not that the cause of some phenomenon was supernatural when I don’t even know what it is, or what evidence of it would look like? If the only evidence for a supernatural cause is the lack of a natural explanation...well...that’s no evidence at all. It’s just an argument from ignorance fallacy. Lek, if you can’t test for the supernatural, why would you even consider it a possibility?


Would you agree that if there is a supreme supernatural being, who acts according to whatever laws it wishes, that it could communicate knowledge of itself directly to a human being?  Also, that it could do this using a method that is not understandable to us?   If this is  possible, it could spread to billions and billions of people in all times and places.  Since this knowledge cannot be discovered strictly by human means,  those who received this knowledge would accept it with certainty, while those who haven't would be highly skeptical.  This would explain why so many believe with certainty while others reject it.

Sure. Again, if you’re proposing magic as a cause, it can be and do anything you want or need it to be and do, right? It can explain away any problem with logic and any lack of evidence for itself, right? It can conveniently explain why people don’t find your arguments in favor of its existence persuasive. Right?  But, you’re starting with your conclusion again, Lek. What reason do you have to believe any such supernatural being is even possible? How have you determined the likelihood of a cause that is, by your own definition, untestable?

[Lek]

No. God is whomever or whatever he is. I just happen to believe that he's supernatural, which is the view the vast majority of believers throughout history believed or believe. It makes sense to me.

That's not, at all, how those terms work.  When we add the caveat things make sense "to me" we are explicitly acknowledging that they do not, in fact, make sense.  This is the sort of novel and useless employment of terms that you're never going to slip past when we have these discussions.

On top of that, you're plain and simply wrong.  Most people, who have believed in most of the gods, throughout most of history..did -not- view gods as "supernatural".  That's why I asked you why you needed it.  Whether you'd prayed on it, studied it, or received any enlightenment.  The god that you believe in was a departure from the norm.  There's an entire age named after the trend in belief.  

What is it doing, for god..or for you, except saddling you both with shit that neither of you wants to or even can defend?  As you say, a god, if it is, is what it is.  A god, if it goes around curing cancer, does it however it does as well.  Is there some specific reason that a god can't be natural, or that a god can't use natural means?  If not, and you seem unattached to the notion now..why have you spent all these pages going to bat for it?  It's useless and unimportant to you.  Nothing but a liability.  It's not even a good faith argument if we were going back and forth for the lulz.  

I'm over here throwing you a lifeline.  You don't have to say shit like this, or make arguments like these.  You wanna know what, I bet that you don't even believe in the supernatural.  It's just a word you use, an entirely pavlovian response.  What's different about the supernatural that god uses from the world that god made?  Nothing.  

Or do you lack the conviction of your faith in the nature of gods creative act?

Just because I believe God is supernatural doesn't mean I would not accept a God who is totally natural if that was the case. Also, a god who has control over nature to achieve his purposes is supernatural.

---

Paul, according to the lore, was skeptical of Jesus, then god presented him with the riad to Damascus experience. Why doesn't god do the same for us?

I don't know. Should he?

---

Sure. Again, if you’re proposing magic as a cause, it can be and do anything you want or need it to be and do, right? It can explain away any problem with logic and any lack of evidence for itself, right? It can conveniently explain why people don’t find your arguments in favor of its existence persuasive. Right?  But, you’re starting with your conclusion again, Lek. What reason do you have to believe any such supernatural being is even possible? How have you determined the likelihood of a cause that is, by your own definition, untestable?

There's your circular reasoning. I say billions of educated, sane people believe or believed in God and the supernatural and you begin with with the premise that I'm proposing magic. You use these kind of terms to try to denigrate what I say. Your premise is that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore the argument can't be true. I say that God enlightened me and you say that that there could be other reasons why I believe that and, anyway, God doesn't exist, so God can't be one of the options. If you were open minded you would say "Wow, billions of people believe this. They're appear to be normal educated people. We've haven't proved that they are wrong. Maybe they are right. I don't believe it, but we need to further investigate this further anyway."

[Simon Moon]

There is nothing about atheism that precludes in being open to possibilities.

Atheism is just not being convinced that gods exist.

I am completely open to being convinced that a god exists.

You're one of the few atheists I have encountered in this forum who truly seems to be open to the existence of God and/or the supernatural.  It's my personal opinion that you'll find what you're looking for.

---

Let me clarify my position a bit.

While I may be looking for little 't' truth, I am not looking for a god or gods, anymore than I am looking for garden fairies or unicorns. I don't expect to find any of them.

Theists have been presenting their case for the existence of some god or another for several thousand years, and their case continues to get weaker, not stronger.

Their 'evidence' does not hold up to scrutiny, their philosophical arguments (Kalam, teleological, ontological, transcendental) are all fallacious. And the best you can do, is present a personal experience, which can not be differentiated from: delusion, misinterpretation of an unusual but otherwise natural brain state, or some other unidentified natural event. In fact, you can't even show us the method you used to eliminate all possible natural causes for your experience.

[no one]

Billions of people believing something, dose not make it truth, Lek. People believe in the nonsense of god because people are arrogant creatures. People think that they are special, that they have some sort of meaning or purpose in the grand scheme of things. god cements that notion, and puts them at ease.

[arewethereyet]

I am thinking that it's self-importance that leads a person to think they have one-on-one conversations with the god(s) they share with millions of other people.

Apparently those who claim this personal relationship feel they are important enough for god to focus on them.

Seems that flies in the face of the concept of 'shedding your ego'.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just because I believe God is supernatural doesn't mean I would not accept a God who is totally natural if that was the case.

Then the supernatural is not important to you, or your god,  at all.  

Also, a god who has control over nature to achieve his purposes is supernatural.

Yeah, just as supernatural™ as me.  I also have control over nature to achieve my own purposes.  So do plants.  Who cares? So what if you think god is supernatural? So is the universe god created from god magic. It's obvious that you use the term as an empty set. Lean in, or gtfo.

There's your circular reasoning.  I say billions of educated, sane people believe or believed in God and the supernatural and you begin with with the premise that I'm proposing magic.

Yes, billions of sane and educated people believe in magic.  So what?  It's a fact.  

You use these kind of terms to try to denigrate what I say.

Why would magic be denigrating to a person who believes in the supernatural?  

Your premise is that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore the argument can't be true.  I say that God enlightened me and you say that that there could be other reasons why I believe that and, anyway, God doesn't exist, so God can't be one of the options.  If you were open minded you would say "Wow, billions of people believe this.  They're appear to be normal educated people.  We've haven't proved that they are wrong.  Maybe they are right.  I don't believe it, but we need to further investigate this further anyway."

Ad populum. A textbook example of sloppy thinking.  The number of people who believe in something does not lend that something any credibility whatsoever.  Do we need to go through the very long list of silly things that lots and lots of people believed?   No, ofc not..because you know better. Thing is, we do and have studied the things that billions of educated and sane people believe, from a factual rather than magical basis, and it becomes clearer all the time why we believe the sorts of things we do.

This endless argument in bad faith is why people brush you off, why they don't invest in a conversation with you. Throwing you lifelines doesn't help either. You'd rather drown out of spite, lol. Good luck with god and that ego.

[LadyForCamus]

---

Sure. Again, if you’re proposing magic as a cause, it can be and do anything you want or need it to be and do, right? It can explain away any problem with logic and any lack of evidence for itself, right? It can conveniently explain why people don’t find your arguments in favor of its existence persuasive. Right?  But, you’re starting with your conclusion again, Lek. What reason do you have to believe any such supernatural being is even possible? How have you determined the likelihood of a cause that is, by your own definition, untestable?

There's your circular reasoning.  I say billions of educated, sane people believe or believed in God and the supernatural and you begin with with the premise that I'm proposing magic.

That many people believe something is true doesn’t mean that it necessarily is. That’s a logical fallacy.

You use these kind of terms to try to denigrate what I say.

Not at all, and I apologize if it came across that way. I have no reason to want to denigrate you. While I think there are a lot of problems with your reasoning, you’ve always been a kind and respectful member. I have no desire to put you down. I just don’t know what else to call the god proposition; some thing that exists but can’t be investigated, demonstrated, or defined; that can literally be and do anything the believer in it wants it to; a thing that serves as an answer to everything, and yet an explanation for nothing, as Matt D. so aptly puts it. In what meaningful way is that different from magic? 

You premise is that the supernatural doesn't exist, therefore the argument can't be true.

No. We’ve been over this. I don’t assume it doesn’t exist; what I’m saying is, I cannot even assess that proposition because I have no idea what a supernatural thing actually is. What’s it made of? Where is it? How does it work? What are its mechanisms of action? What are some positive descriptors of it? What disqualifies it from being a natural thing? What is the difference between a natural thing and a supernatural thing? If you’re asking me if I believe something can exist, I need to know what it is first, before I can attempt to make an evaluation. If you’ve never seen or heard of a tomato before, and I ask you, “Lek, do you believe tomatoes can exist?”, I’m assuming the first thought in your line of reasoning is going to be a question, “Hey, LFC, what’s a tomato?”. Yes?

I say that God enlightened me and you say that that there could be other reasons why I believe that and, anyway, God doesn't exist, so God can't be one of the options.

No. What I’m asking you to do for me is explain how you’ve determined the god proposition is not only possible but probable when, by your own admission, it can’t be tested.

If you were open minded you would say "Wow, billions of people believe this.

No, that’s a logical fallacy (mentioned above), and has nothing to do with open mindedness.

They're appear to be normal educated people.

Irrelevant. Many otherwise normal people believe in things like a flat earth and faked moon landings. Does that mean they must be right? Of course not; that’s why such reasoning is fallacious.

We've haven't proved that they are wrong.

And, I’m not obligated to do so. That would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Maybe they are right.

Maybe they are. It’s up to them to demonstrate that.

I don't believe it, but we need to further investigate this further anyway.

Sure. So, what is a logically sound, tangible, reliable method for investigating the god proposition? Or, more broadly, the supernatural proposition? Remember, we haven’t even adequately defined it yet. We have to do that first.