POLL: One Statement

Remove all ads!

Rune Quester:

First, I never said that you were using a lack of proof as denial for existence of God, but I have encountered that before. My previous comments were intended as general additions to the topic, not at any individual.

Second, Not all Christian faiths believe in original sin. I am a Mormon, and our doctrine explicitly states that we will have to answer for our own sins, and nobody else's. Justice demands that all transgressions be answered to and that if God himself were to lift that restriction, then Justice would be unsatisfied. Mercy is where someone takes that consequence upon themselves and then imposes his own conditions (obedience to the best of your ability, faith in Him as a mediator on our behalf). This was the role of Jesus Christ. He died that our sins may be forgiven. He as suffered for our sins (and we all commit them), and asks certain things in return. If you do not have this faith, then nothing can be done on your behalf. We are given free will for that reason. We must learn to do that which is right and to have faith in Jesus Christ. Temptation was also a part of that plan, because we cannot know Good unless we are faced with its opposite-evil.

Third, You refuse to accept that there was anything divine about Jesus Christ. That is your decision. But simply because you refuse to accept this doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Again, my comments were designed as a general contribution, not as a personal attack. It is regretable that you feel that it was, but you'll get no apology from me about this. From your comments, you'd make a better christian than many who claim to be among the faithful, but you just won't accept the concept of faith. Why must you resent that some of us believe in a higher power? If you think that we, the faithful are enemies, then you need help...

 

@Late-Night

Yeah, it DOES sound like fun! My question to you is...WHY are you telling ME this?!? DO you think that people who do not believe as you do are incapable of enjoying the company of a girlfriend? That we are so caught up in this issue of God/No God that is is the hub which all other activities we engage in must revolve around?

This is my point. We both enjoy and appreciate the same things in pretty much the same degrees. My atheism does not in any way hinder me in this regard and yout theism does not grant you something you could not have otherwise(I cannot believe I am some superior specimen of humanity that is capable of appreciating "love" even after knowing the science behind it while others are not so able).
When you keep harping on this insinuation(or outright assertion!) that I am less capable of love or enjoying life because I understand a few things about how the universe operates and do not share your belief in a higher power, even though you don't intend to, you are making a bigoted comment. It is no different than assuming a black man is less capable of honesty or something.

@Gnarlfflinger

Here is what you posted in your first post:

Do you see it now? In the first sentence you make a declaration of having/living by "faith". Fine so far. You have not insulted anyone yet. In the same sentence you invite "all of US" join you in living by faith. Clearly identifying those of no faith as the ones you are speaking to.
Still no real problems yet. Tripe but inoffensive tripe.

Then you offer this:


"All you have to lose is your addictions, vices, but you gain a sence of purpose and a joy in something other than simply fulfilling your own desires..."

Here you identify those you are speaking to(the non-faithful) as people harboring adn dearly clinging to addictions, vices, and a life with no sense of purpose other than to simply fulfill our own desires.

Maybe you truly do not understand why what you said was so wrong. Maybe an analogy is in order.

Imagine an atheist of some sort came to a message board and said the following:

"I do not buy into "faith". I invite you all to join me in abandoning this "faith". All you have to do is get an education, let go of your hatred and prejudice, and learn to appreciate the life you HAVE. Enjoy REALITY..."

Do you see now? The above would be wrong and offensive because it assumes that everyone of faith is a hate-mongering prejudiced and uneducated person who refuses to let go of comfortable fantasy. It does not matter one BIT that I can find persons who fit that description if I look or that I HAVE met such people. It is the implication that ALL faithists(or even MOST) are necessarily like this that is offensive and stupid.

Same with your post about non-faithists.

What is your point? Do you want me to specifically address that nonsensical elements of YOUR religion? I can but I fail to see what it will accomplish that my general address to general Christianity does not. My point was not to attack every type of theistic religionist in existence. I was simply pointing out that athiests and non-Christians, generally speaking, are not atheists/non-Christians because they have vices or addictions or lack purpose or any other such silliness. Atheists specifically(and even more specifically naturalistic free-thought atheists) lack your belief for rational reasons. The same EXACT reasons we do not believe in fire-breathing magical dragons or genies. When someone comes along and tells us emotional anecdotes about how the great dragon father sacrifieced his only begotten hatchling so that I may enjoy not being burnt to a crisp in his wrath, they are doing nothing to help their case for the existence of dragons.

Yeah, I have heard the "God's hands are tied by the demands of justice" line before. Didn't make sense the first time.(More below)

Since when does mercy entail imposing conditions of obedience and faith on someone you have allegedly saved(but cannot seem to demonstrate this "saving" was actually performed or even that the "savior" exists or ever existed!?)? Mercy exists when one is in a position to exact retribution/wrath on another for a transgression and would feel justified in doing so but opts NOT to do this or enacts a lesser retribution on the transgressor. Period.

See my previous post on this matter. This is nonsense. If my hypothetical step-child were to answer the door one day to a traveling snake-oil salesman who managed to con my boy into giving daddy's check book and social security number to the man, then I -as a human being, may well be upset or angry. I would definately want to teach my stepchild better about the harm that can occur when one answers the door for and complies with strangers.
But even as a NON-omnipotent being, I have the ability to reason and forgive my stepson through rational thought and compassion. I would not decide that I must go impregnate some woman and when she gives birth to my biological son, I must sacrifice him throguh crucifixion to atone for my other son being conned by a con man who was better at his con artistry than I was at preparing my boy! If anything I would track down the "snake" and beat on HIM!

You guys get too caught up in the forest to see the trees. You are so enamoured over recalling details of your mythology(mythology does NOT mean "fable" or "falsehood" BTW. Just "Story about us") that you cannot even see the obvious.

People who watched The Passion and came out of the theatre in tears were so overjoyed that someone else shared their beliefs and put those beliefs onto the big screen that they did not bother critically evaluating the movie itself! They did not understand that humans cannot lose 10 gallons of blood(Hell, they cannopt even lose several pints without losing consciousness)! That Romans never crucified ANYONE by driving nails through the hands(just takes a simple self-examination to reveal why this is stupid!) and that Aramaic was NOT the language of that day(Greek was with Latin being reserved for elites) etc.

How can an all-powerful GOD "suffer"? How was the alleged crucifixion a sacrifice? Unless God himself became mortal weith NO WAY of regaining his divine status, then he was not mortal and cannot know what it is to be so. Part of teh experience of being mortal is having the knowledge and experience that you are NOT immortal or all-powerful and cannot be so. God could never have had this. For an omnipotent divinity to go through the motions and pagentry of a crucifixion may make for stirring morality tale to some but does not accomplish much else.

It isn't even a simple matter of having faith or not. Before one even wonders if he or anyone else might have "faith", one must first decide what "faith" IS! I have never, in all my years of having this debate come across a definition of faith that made sense, even to the advocate of said faith. Usually they start out certain enough, spouting some oft-parroted stuff about "love" or "hope" or "trust" and by the end of the discussion they dart out making disparaging remarks and threats of damnation.

If faith is saying you believe something that does not make sense to your mind, then no...I do not have faith. I cannot lie(even if I wanted to) and say God sounds at all reasonable and besides, if he did exist he would know I was lying and he would have known this millenia before I was even born(so "free will" is right out!).

*Chuckle* The Free will defense. Pops up at least once a week even though it has been more thoroughly debunked than the notion of a flat earth.
There is only ONE WAY you can even make a case that free will exists in concert with the existence of your God and that is to say that your God is NOT all-knowing or all-wise. If your God IS all-knowing then he himself cannot have free will(let alone US!) because he would have always known for an infinite span of time before any decision, what the outcome would be and what events would transpire. If God KNOWS that he will create humans 10 million years ago then he cannot EVER ponder a decision to create humans. No matter how far back you try and place his decision, his certainty of knowledge will always precede it!

Your God is becoming less "Godly" with every defense of him .

Right and wrong are subjective notions. Militant Muslims learn to do right by their standards of morality. Fundementalist Christians(OUR version of the Taliban) learn much the same lessons about morality. Progressive Abrahamic religionists learn a completely different doctrine.
My question here is why must someone have faith in Jesus Christ? I am not looking for "because the Bible tells me this" or "because my mom said so" type reasons. I mean rationally, why should one have to have "faith" in someone else?
My mother never hid herself from me or sent me letters through mysterious couriers that told me I had to have "true faith" in her before she would reveal herself! And still I have free will and still I do what is right and do not lie or steal or harm others. I live life joyously and do not harm myself or do drugs or what have you.

If I can do these things and, I assume, YOU can do these things and I do them without need of "faith" then what does that tell you?

Now you tell me what is the more likely source for and reason behind "temptation":

1)Temptation is rooted in physiological drives such as hunger and sex and general comfort. At it's most ridiculous imagined extreme(being tempted to own Bill Gates' mansion to the point of plotting his murder and assuming his identity), it is still emergent from basic primitive urges(comfort, security, sustenance/survival) and perhaps insanity.

or

2)Temptation is an "evil" force or tool of some personification of evil(Satan?) that an all-loving and all-powerful God imbues us with because he cannot manage the universe without putting us throguh such Hell.

Not only that...I find it hard to accept that a man named Jesus was ever tried or crucified by the Romans! All credible historical evidence we have points to Appolynus of Tyanna as being a likely source for the myth of Christ. The Romans were nothing if not great record-keepers. They kept detailed records about a whole lot of people they that were tried and crucified. Among these was a man who the common folk were rallying around, who was reported to have healed the sick and performed miracles. This man preached of a single, all powerful and all-loving God and the ideals of peace and love.
He was tried for sedition and crucified by the Romans and was later reported to have risen from death.
His name was Appolynus and he is detailed in the Roman records. We have NO mention of any "Jesus" anywhere in those same records aside from an obviously fraudulent insertion into the writings of Josephus as well as Tacitus' parroting of commonly held beliefs long after the alleged life of Christ.

It is not a "decision". A decision involves making an conscious and probably rahter arbitrary choice between two or more possible outcomes of similar appeal(e.g. "Should I have apple pie or pumpkin pie?"). My inability to assent to extraordinary existential claims when they are not warrnated by extraordinary evidence is beyond my ability to simply "decide". It is not a matter of a veritable coin toss between "Should I believe in Jesus or not?". It is a simple matter that the claim sounds ridiculous to rational minds and rational minds react accordingly.

Also I do not "refuse to accept" anything! This is pure hyperbole on your part designed to paint me as someone who will reject the blueness of the sky just becuase I am stubborn.

I know that you say you don't put much stock in rationality as you believe there are some 'other' types of reality that are not rational. That is fine but I have no need for this hypothesis.

I knew a guy once. He was one of the most easy going, nice, "love-all-human-beings-like-they-were-your-own-brothers" type guy you would hope to meet. Had a grating habit of using the word "N*ggers" to refer to blacks. When I told him that my father was black and would likely beat him into an unrecogniszable pulp if he heard that, he responded "Your daddy's a n*gger? Woah! That's cool!". After some discussion it occured to me that this guy I worked with was not a racist. He truly did not understand the orgins of the word "N*gger" and why some would feel offended by it's usage. Where he grew up the word was so often used by everyone around him to refer to blacks and since his own parents did not teach him that blacks were distrustful or enemnical, he had no idea. He listened to R&B and rap. Watched sports and rooted for black atheletes as heroes.

You may not realise that refering to people who lack your faith in Jesus as people with out of control vices and hedomistic/nighlistic tendencies is wrong. You may never even learn why it IS wrong considering people don't tend to do PSA's or speak out on prejudice against atheists or harmful stereotypes of atheism.

You can be as "stick to your guns", thick-headed and stubborn as you care to be and I am not much interested in whether you ever overcome your prejudice(so long as you are not out lynching atheists, I have more important concerns).

I still have not been presented with a sensible concept of faith to accept. At best I get an excuse for why the concept must be nonsensical but that does not help me, a human being with a human mind to understand or think it has any value.

I don't. Remember, when you assume....

I don't. I think that SOME of you "faithful" sure go out of your way to act like and claim to be my enemies but I am pretty sure that most of the faithful do not knock on my door on Saturday mornings and threaten me with an omnipotent leg-breaker in some divine extortion racket. Hell, most of my relatives and loved ones are "faithful". We never even discuss religion! They know I am an atheist and I know they are not and we all get along fine!

[ March 28, 2005, 13:37: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

I couldn't bother to finish reading your last post. You claim you're not trying to offend us, but you clearly keep trying to denounce our faith!

You keep calling us fantasizers. You equate our beliefs with mythology. You're generalizing who we are.

When I saw the comment Gnarfflinger made the yous in the sentences came across as impersonal and it didn't (to me) imply that he was talking to un-believers, agnostics, and atheists. It came across to me that he was talking to EVERYBODY. I don't know why I'm sticking up for him - but it's probably because I'm feeling some personal attacks from you.

You claim it's not so, but in virtually every post you practically condescend to us. This started out as a civilized discussion... but it doesn't look that way anymore.

 

This reminds me of a class I had in college -- Classical Mythology. The instructor started by stating:

In this class we will conduct an academic evaluation of all mythologies. I will not discriminate between beliefs and all beliefs will be treated equally as mythology. This will include Egyptian, Greek, Budism, Judaism, Muslem and Christian. If you cannot objectively participate in such an academic discussion, I will accept your drop card at the end of the class.

The first time he started comparing Prometheus with Jesus Christ as examples of cultural heroes, the protests started. He silenced the protesters by announcing their drop requests would be accepted at the end of the class. I think only one or two out of two hundred dropped.

My sisters are highly religious and very happy. I'm mostly agnostic and very happy with my life. I think how a person lives their life is more important than any belief they claim to possess. Anyone can achieve happiness if they live according to their beliefs.

 

I apologize about my last post. I reacted to a comment that (most likely) wasn't even directed at me. You're right, I shouldn't have opened my mouth because I felt I was being put down.

Again - I apologize.

 

@Cryo

What exactly are you talking about? WHo is "us" that you claim I am denouncing? The quote function is your ally here.

Again, where did I do this? Please provide the quote so I can exaimine whatever I allegedly said and what the context was. Usually these sorts of charges are the result of someone reading into what the other is saying.

1)Mythology does not mean "obviously false" or "fairy tale". Mythologies can be true OR false.

2)What you likely mean by "mythiology" is something that you mistakenly feel is "obviously false" that has been found to be much less supported by fact and evidence than your beliefs.

As I said before, if you can show me ONE SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE that makes your bgeliefs more likely than, say belief in Zeus or Santa Claus, then I will NEVER again compare these two(or three) things.

you are under the mistaken impression that Christianity(or whatever monotheism you likely subscribe to) gets a "free pass" over other mythologies because of the number of people who believe in it today.

No, I am not.

Now think about this for a second(actuall go back and read where I explained to him why his post was in error): He starts off proclaiming his own chocie to live by faith(fair enough. Nothing wrong with that). If he had stopped there, there would be no problem. but he goes on:

"I invite all of YOU to do the same."

Still nothing wrong here but here is wehre YOU make an error in not understanding that he can ONLY be refering to non-faithists here. You do not invite someone into your house who is already in your house! He was not inviting people of faith to join him in having faith!?!

Now do you see why the comments refering to the identified non-faithists as people full of vices and self-centeredness was wrong? or is it impossible for you to step into another's shoes adn see wrong unless it is being directed at your specifically?

WHAT "PERSONAL ATTACKS"???

You know what I think is going on? The same old same old where a theist can offer to "save" everyone different from him and pity them for not being like him and other theists(re:Christians) take this as some admirable and charitable act but if an atheist says so much as "no thank you." the theist responds with "What the Hell is the matter with you? Why the hatred?!?"

There is simply a double standard amongst most people. For example, if I did not mention what I am about to mention here, within the next several posts SOMEONE would chime in with "Wow! You must be a hard-headed/hard hearted militant atheist! Look at all the posts you made in this thread!". They conveniently ignore the fact that I have a number of their own challenging me on a number of froints adn asking me a number of questions(well the nice ones ask questions) adn I am simply RESPONDING. I NEVER start threads about religion or theism and I NEVER use blanket generalizations of the "You theists are all fantasizers/uneducated/hate-mongers".

I have engaged in no such generalizations in THIS thread(contrary to DMC's assertions which I will get to next)!

AGAIN, please use the quote function, rather than engage in baseless allegations designed to make me look like a jackass without ever substantiating these charges. Where did I condescend to you? If I did such a thing unwarranted then I will happily apologise.

Started out as civil? Perhaps. I did not take offense(not should I have) to the OP's assertion that God could nopt be proven or disproven. I simply countered this claim and denstrated that this was not necessarily so. You will note that it was not an atheist(and not me specifically) that turned things towards incivility.


@dmc

So far so good. I can accept that these discussions can be difficult.

Just an aside here. I NEVER contended that Gnarlfflinger said all atheists were addicted fiends. I poionted out HIS OWN WORDS which were that people not of his faith were welcome to join his faith PROVIDED they lose their addictions, vices and self-centerdness(paraphrased). YOU may not have taken offense at this. For all I know most atheists or buddhists or Zorathrustrians might not even notice or care.
But whenever I see a statement like that, i try and mentally replace the persons identified with another person like "jews" or "blacks" and see how the statement reads then. In regards to Ganrlfflinger's statemetn I went so far as to replace 'people who do not share my faith" with "people of faith(period)" adn re-wrote the statement from the POV of a militant(and bigoted) atheist to show how offensive the statement was.

It disturbs me that even though I go to such lengths adn though no onhe is able to disagree with me or show my reasoning to be flawed, i am still relegated to the "pile" of people who are unecessarily offended or "just as guilty as..."(see below) the offending theists.

It is NOT impossible. ANYTHING which has an independent existence CAN be proven. The ONLY things which CANNOT be proven are imaginary things.
Furthermore, it is not necessarily impossible to prove that a God(particular the transcendent variety) does not exist. You simply must use logic rather than strict empiricism.

Good advice...UNLESS one side IS "putting upon" and another IS unfairly being "put upon". Also note that I was NEVER making a big civil rights issue out of the offending statement. My sole intention was to show the fallacy of Gnarlfflinger's 'argument'(for lack of a better term).

Do I personally care what he thinks of me/us? No. Will I lose sleep if he claims we are all self-centered, vice-clinging addicts? No. Will I ignore such logical fallacies when they are presented in defense of or in contrast to a particular position? No. Nor should I.

With all due respect(and I DO respect you), I can understand why you say this if it is simply to appease those who would think you unobjective or unfair otherwise but if not then I am curious as to where my "side" was so guilty? Was there a point where I identified all theists or all people of faith with a qualifier than only applied to a portion of such?

Full agreement here but basing one's "arguments" on erroneous generalizations is a no-no and SHOULD be called attention to.

 

dmc was addressing my post in response to yours. I promptly apologized, if you'll notice, upon reading his post.

I could go through and quote - what I believed - were attacks and/or generalizations but, of course, I don't know what your intentions behind them originally were. It would be a waste of your time, the admins/mods time, and mine just to point them out because it was simply assumptions on my part (of which I apologize for). We all know what happens when a person assumes (and I often learn it the hard way).

I went through and read the post that I said I stopped reading, and I did get more out of it. I jumped to conclusions that were unfounded, and for that I apologize. After all... I am posting in the Alley of Dangerous Angles and controversial issues are going to be discussed of which I have to just accept and learn to not take offense at.

That said I do have to say a lot of what you talk about is over my head.

 

@Cryo


Your sincerity and genuine effort to be respectful/amiable are not lost on me and I thank you for this. Also I AM sorry if, regardless of my intentions, I rubbed you the wrong way.

Cheers.


@dmc

But that is not what I said! I said the only things which CANNOT BE PROVEN are imaginary things. The implication here is that, logically speaking, if you are trying to characterize an entity as something BEYOND proof or verification, then it is YOU(as in "you" the claimant) who are characterizing your God(or whatever) as imaginary.

It is akin to someone saying "My brother constantly argues that probability suggsts that evolution is impossible!". I then come along and report that this oft used "probability argument" is based on a misuse of statistical probability in retroactively assigning such 'odds' to an event that has already occured and is very frequently if not always rooted in ignorance of evolutionary mechanisms.

A theist then chimes in "Why are you calling all believers ignorant?".

In the above analogy, I simply stated a fact(that probability cannot be retroactively assigned to determine the likelihood of an event that has transpired and doing so is done in ignorance of this fact) and the theist concluded that, since he was insistent on relying on his misunderstanding that I was guilty of broad generalizations.

It is something of a cart before the horse exercise.

The defining characteristic of "imaginary things" are things that cannot be objectively verified/proven/substantiated. Therefore when someone claims that God cannot be verified/proven/substnatiated, they are in essence saying he is imaginary(or indistinguishable for the imaginary).

Gotcha.

No, no, no. I would be the last person to make such a circular argument. What I was pointing out was that it was the THEISTS(who were using the "cannot be proven" defense/claim) who were in essence saying God was imaginary. I was not myself making a bald assertion about God.

Woah...are you insinuating that I have claimed to know everything? That is the clear implication when you address the above to me. I realize you probably did not intend such but look at what you said.

The thing is that "supernatural" is of no more meaning to US than "splingdrok". Everything in our universe is natural in that it would be part of nature to exist here. We humans have no frame of reference for asserting the "supernatural" and doing so is not better than saying "God cannot be known because he is 'splingdrok'!

Here let me try an analogy:

In my bedroom is naked, horny, invisible and intangible Angelina Jolie-Spirit. She demands that I make sweet love to her(using telepathy of course since she can have no voice). Problem is that I must use my hands to 'get off'(sorry about the colorful terminology) since she is intangible.

Now, I can claim that she is "supernatural" or whatever, all I want but the fact is that to the unfortunate observer of our love-making, she is indistinguishable from an imaginary thing or product of my delusional mind. In essence and by every standard that can possibly matter, she IS imaginary. IF she does somehow "exist" then her existence has no more import or impact than her non-existence.

Read about Sagan's "Garage Dragon" sometime. HE makes the point clear(and without invoking disturbing imagery) in that article.


EDIT: Also note that if you invoke "supernatural" as an attribute then ANY characteristic, no matter how nonsensical, is excused adn we are left with a meaningless statement that "God exists!/God MAY exist!". God could eb a round square as long as we say "supernatural".

This does us, as rational thinking beings(in that our briasn can ONLY think rationally as a process), no good at all.

 

Hm, I'm not convinced. Anything sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic - nice. But how does this compare to God? Even if it was "magic" (meaning we can't understand how it is done/how it works), we would at least perceive an effect. Where exactly is the divine effect one would observe with the hypothesis of God as an only explanation? There is nothing, not even one single phenomenon we need to introduce a "supernatural being" for. That's what RuneQuester is aiming at with Fairies and Dragons. There's not even a need for a proof or disproof.

And what if god exists and no harm is done in going through the necessary ritual motions? Well, the thing is that it is not only a binary problem of God or no God. It is a matter of no God, Jahwe, God Father, Allah, Vishnu, Odin or Darkthrone. Each of them with a full set of different rituals and motions. Oh, and incense. Why "Basmala" instead of "In the name of the Father"? If God is not Jahwe but Elohim, well, you could bet on the wrong horse, right?

It is about culture. Not about logic or science or proof or belief. We share the same rituals because they are welding us together, because they transform us from individuals into a group, into a society. That was the only reason and entitlement for God for a long time.

Nowadays we are more concerned with our identification process, self-discovery and self-realization. Accordingly, the meaning of God has shifted from a group-defining entity to a self-defining entity ("What is the meaning of life?", "What is my purpose in life?"). That is the need people have for God today. God's task is to be there for everyone - to love and accept everyone. Nobody ought to be alone, but man is not up to the task of offering everyone comradeship and acceptance. The concept of God is needed for this.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with logic. You can't be a logical thinking person and a believer at the same time without reserving a blind spot somewhere you don't dare to look. In this regard you choose to have this blind spot for God, you choose to leave reason behind - what RuneQuester calls lying to himself and Late-Night Thinker calls choosing love.

And why shouldn't you? Logic may make yourself feel comfortable as much as esotericism may. It depends a bit on your socialization and on your character. And principles.

There is no law that dictates you to think logically in every area of your life. Just don't pretend you could combine God and reason.

 

That's very well said, Darkthrone. Especially this part.

It is an abstract concept that provides comfort, security and direction for the individual.

 

@dmc(with multiple apologies)

I knew that. I am still trying to force myself into the habit of using "smilies"(for years I refused to do so) and there should have been one after that bit I posted and since there was not, what I posted(despite my intentions) was lame and b-holeish.

My apologies.

I understand this. Believe me, I was tempted to go edit the post but by the time I noticed what I had posted(and NOT posted ), it was too late.

I appreciate your patience here because if I had been the one to read that the way it was written, I would have probably told myself to "F*** Off!".

Yeah, I got that but my point is that, shorthand or no, "supernatural", "magic", "splingdrok", "beyondification" and "transcendent" are all meaningless since we have no frame of reference to understand them.
To ask "What if God is supernatural?" makes no more sense than asking "What if the square were round?". Supernatural's closest translation is "imaginary" as far as human beings are concerned.

Here is an anology I will borrow(once again) from Charles Fiterman(aka Gaius Ceaser at Belief.net):

If we discover and capture a vampire, it becomes a member of a natural species of non-reflecting, hemoglobin dependent, garlic allergic, nocturnal creatures called Homo Nocturnis. We then set about studying it to understand the mechanicsms by which it's traits persist and function.

There is nothing found in nature that is "unexplainable" given such time and study. If it exists and we can say this, not as speculation, but as observation, then it is NOT supernatural because it is within our natural universe in order for us to say it exists.

As soon as we discover a single entity that does NOT jive with physical laws in some way then we are forced to rewrite those laws(or theories).

"God" is such an extraordinary claim that if he existed, we would be forced to throw away ALL of what we know. Every theory, every law, every observation (including the ones that lead to "God") because his very existence would point conclusively to an "anything is possible universe". In the "Anything is possible" universe there is no statement of truth. You cannot say anything about anything because whatever your conclusion is, there is an equal chance that you are completely wrong. You could think you are feeding the children and actually be slaughtering them in the 'anything is possible-verse'.

Exactly. When theists claim that one or more "gods" exist, they generally mean one of three things:

1)They are simply renaming some natural entity, like the sun or the universe itself, "God".

2)They mean something "transcendent"/"supernatural"/"beyond our ability to know or understand".

3)They refer to some conceptual idea(l) or principle such as charity/love/hope/ etc/ as "God".

#1) and #3) are easily dismissed because I have no need to rename things and doing so is a form of "bait-and-switch" where the theist usually employs two completely different usages of "exists"(and sometimes "belief") and then asks "Do you love your mother/trust you children/believe in hope?" and if you answer "Yes." they respond with "Welcome to my cult!".

#2) is the one relevant here. #2) essentially asserts contradictory traits. It asserts that God is "beyond our ability to know and understand" to escape the obvious challenges of skeptics who point to rules of inference and such but doing this backs them into a paradox because they are simultaneously making a positive assertion of his existence! In essence, denying all of the reasons one could have to say a thing exists while simultaneously asserting existence.

Fine. I only ask to see the bunsen burners and beekers he used. A claim that lacks such substantiation is, logically, FALSE by default(not "possible" or "maybe", contrary to what some assert) because it is an extraordinary claim.

The claims for God's literal existence are not akin to a claim such as "I have a mother" or "My sister works for the movie theatre." These last examples are ordinary claims which can be supported by mere anecdote because they are regularly observed as norms and do not violate natural laws.

But we have no need of such a hypothesis. It is every bit as valid as "Maybe a genie wished us into existence!". If we run into an area or phenomenae that can ONLY sensibly be explained by "God" or a "Designer" then so be it but right now this is , to be generous, unwarranted speculation.

And therein lies the rub... . If he/she/it "nudges" ANYTHING, it produces a measureable physical effect. If it does NOT produce such an effect, it is indistinguishable from an imaginary thing.

I was once having a debate with a theist who asserted that he had spopken with and been spoken to by God(and then of course demanded that I prove him wrong ).

So I asked him: "Did God speak in an audible voice or was his voice only inside your head? Could others have heard the voice?". He seemed to sense the implications of saying the voice was inside his head and so opted for the former.
"Fine." I said. "Then God's voice is a physical effect...an audible vibration. There is no reason you cannot record it for us on a tape recorder and allow us to study it to see that it is not something easily producible by humans(with the possible aid of technology) and thereby conclude that God has spoken?"
Of course he ran away from that one offering threats of damnation adn assertions about how bitter and longing for love I must be.

The point is that theists cannot have it both ways. They cannot assert, as HUMANS that they have rational justification for their claims adn also assert that such is impossible. The claim is either rational or irrational.

Yeah but why stop there? Such a being could easily cause things to move toward you while getting further away, could cause things to be both "round" and "not-round"('A' and Not A') simultaneously adn both "impossible" and "certain" at once.
Problem is, by whatever bizarro logic one says these things could be true, it bears no relevance on US because we do not live in "Bizarro Universe".

Theoretically possible? Not at all. What's more, such a thing is not even imaginable or concep[tually possible for human beings. That is precisely WHY you cannot prove it. The only things which cannot be proven are things that exist solely in our own minds or only as meaningless statements(e.g. Invisible & intangible Angelina or "Florks have %b#oinG!")

I disagree. It cannot POSSIBLY exist unless we are talking about theists who simplky rename natural things as "God".

Ah but this is simply Pascal's Wager revisited. it is an argument for devil or emperor worship(this latter because a human emperor can readily provide tangible benefits or carry out definite threats if he is worshipped or denied worship). And it is not a simple question of "Does God exist?" it is "Do ANY gods exist and which ones?". If you go through the "Christian motions" and Allah(or Satan) is the one true God then you are in deeper s#!t than the atheists! Even if you grant the weak atheist consolation that God MAY exist but is highly unlikely(as in so miniscule a chance that it is not deserving of consideration), you STILL are left with a one in INFINITY chance of appeasing the CORRECT God!

The wager fails miserably.

But that is a bait-and-switch/equivocation argument. It is akin to someone arguing that "Killing is wrong!"(meaning murder or taking lives) adn someone else responding "Hey, I made a killing at the casino the other day and it was GREAT!".

"Exists" when you assert that a tree exists or a God exists means one thing. A literal, independent existence. "Beauty exists" or "Hope exists" is anotehr thing entirely! The latter is a dependent existence(or conceptual existence).

If theists claim that God only exists as a concept or in their own minds, they will get no argument from atheists.

Never planned to. Bashing one's head against dogmaticsm is a fruitless activity.

But see this observation is somewhat misleading. It(perhaps unintentionally on your part at least) equates belief adn non-belief as if they were equally valid propositions. They are not. The theistic claim is a posiotive assertion that bears little to NO likelihood of being "True" while the atheist non-assent is simply the logical/rational default to such claims.

Get it yourself. It is in that big box in the back along with the gods, fairies, garage dragons, homeopathic medicine and perpetual motion machines.


EDIT: @Darkthrone. Good post! I see you caught the Pascal's Wager thing before I did.

[ March 30, 2005, 19:20: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]