Search for Causes

[Mr.wizard]

Can you give an example of something that exists that does not follow natural laws ?


How are you confident these worlds exist ? and seriously... Ghosts ?

I gave you three examples of the supernatural that don't follow natural laws.  I'm fairly confident these worlds exist due the testimony of mystics throughout history.  I've also heard a good bit of personal testimony about ghosts from friends, in-laws and acquaintances. I'm not at all convinced that they don't exist.

Well I'm not convinced they do exist and I'm fairly confident that they don't exist due to the testimony of many people throughout history including friends and relatives. If your using personal testimony as your evidence, how do you decide which testimony leads you to the truth?

[possibletarian]

[quote='possibletarian' pid='1951499' dateline='1578269916']

Can you give an example of something that exists that does not follow natural laws ?


How are you confident these worlds exist ? and seriously... Ghosts ?

I gave you three examples of the supernatural that don't follow natural laws.

Well you gave three examples of what you believe to be supernatural, what I'm asking is now you know they exist (outside of faith that is)

I'm fairly confident these worlds exist due the testimony of mystics throughout history.

And they provided proof enough for you to believe how ?

 

I've also heard a good bit of personal testimony about ghosts from friends, in-laws and acquaintances. I'm not at all convinced that they don't exist.

Well so have i, I've heard testimony of people who believe many things, but so what, they are not testifying with anything other than experiences, which we know are very unreliable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another argument in bad faith. Lek emphatically does not take the word of mystics throughout the ages to be worth diddly squat. He's a christian. He thinks those mystics were full of shit.

[no one]

Either Lek's abilities to solve problems is seriously diminished, or Lek is just another intellectually dishonest crackpot religitard.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's neither ( though, for max cynicism..you don't have to choose).

Modern christian belief has become what Crosby or Polanyi would call naturalistic theism. Where belief in god rests on items of personal experience and natural observation rather than sacred revelation. Lek finds himself at the crux of this change, where naturalism™ in opposition - to him..atheism...makes it hard for him to recognize god...when he considers it. Whereas naturalism™ in content is the ground from which he searches for god as well as the ground from which he makes appeals to us, his fellow naturalists, but not his fellow believers.

For all of the hemming and hawing about our worldview and how we must see the world, in opposition... Lek is intimately acquainted. It is our worldview after all. Religiously, the inclusion or exclusion of a god would seem to make a world of difference, but in actual practice and in use it makes no difference at all.

[Mister Agenda]

I really haven't been able to find a definition of supernatural that doesn't amount to 'stuff people think is supernatural'. Attributed to something beyond scientific understanding. Considered to be of supernatural origin.

One demonstrable ghost would send me back to the drawing board on many aspects of my view of reality. Just as looking for ghosts and always finding nothing or misinterpreted natural causes caused me to reevaluate my belief in them when I was more credulous than I am now.

Maybe the definition of supernatural should be 'events or things that would objectively and observably exist if they were real that some people believe in that they can't demonstrate the existence of'.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

In response to your question, I thought it would be pretty easy to come up with a definition of God that I could clearly relate to you all.  Actually, when I got into it I found it to be quite difficult.  In fact, I really don't know who or what God is completely.

I appreciate you being candid.

Being limited in my perception by my earthly body and environment, I'm not capable of defining in words a being for which we have no words.  I think rather that God is someone or something that we come to know in a limited way as he takes the initiative to reveal himself in his timing to those who seek him.

And, I suppose my response to this line of reasoning will always be: if you don’t know what something is or how it works, and you have no way to investigate or demonstrate it, then how have you determined it to be the cause of an experience or phenomenon? Or, how have you determined it to be a more likely cause than a natural cause? I feel we’ll just keep going around in circles until you can explain that to me.

I understand the supernatural as anything that exists that is not confined to following natural laws.  God, other worlds of existence, ghosts, etc., fall under the category of supernatural.

So, these causes are a part of the natural world; they can interact with the natural world but are not confined by it, and their interactions with the world can’t be detected, even though every other effect of a natural cause in the world CAN be detected? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Don’t you think the simpler explanation for such unexplained phenomena is that the causes are natural, and we just haven’t figured out what they are yet?

[Lek]

It's neither ( though, for max cynicism..you don't have to choose).  

Modern christian belief has become what Crosby or Polanyi would call naturalistic theism.  Where belief in god rests on items of personal experience and natural observation rather than sacred revelation.  Lek finds himself at the crux of this change, where naturalism™ in opposition - to him..atheism...makes it hard for him to recognize god...when he considers it.  Whereas naturalism™ in content is the ground from which he searches for god as well as the ground from which he makes appeals to us, his fellow naturalists, but not his fellow believers.

If you read my posts, you'll realize I've stated numerous times that I believe because God has revealed it to me. Is God revealing it to me not sacred revelation? Some of my fellow believers, whoever they are, agree with me and some don't. Who do you think are my fellow believers?

[no one]

The other patients in the mental ward?

[Simon Moon]

If you read my posts, you'll realize I've stated numerous times that I believe because God has revealed it to me.  Is God revealing it to me not sacred revelation?  Some of my fellow believers, whoever they are, agree with me and some don't.  Who do you think are my fellow believers?

How do you know it was actually a god revealing something to you?

Is everyone that sincerely claims that a god revealed something to them, relaying factual information (and I am not accusing them of lying, just mistaking)? Are there any percentage of people, who claim that a god revealed something to them, mistaking some other type if experience as that of a god's revelation?

If yes to the above, how do you know you are not one these people? What sort of tests did you run in order to eliminate other possibilities other than a god?

And how are those of us, who are skeptical that anyone is having gods reveal things to them, supposed to tell the difference between those of you who actually had a god reveal things to them, and those that sincerely believe a god revealed things to them, but were mistaking?