No supernatural, no gods.

[Sonny]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Many "sophisticated" theologians argue that metaphysical naturalism must be false. The theological literature about naturalism's falseness is immense. Often the argument is not to demonstrate supernaturalism is true, but that naturalism is false. Thus leaving a gap where God can exist. One theological approach here is presuppositionalism. God is responsible for everything including logic, truth, and other metaphysical necessities. Lots of shifting of the burdens of evidence.

 

[Politesse]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

What do you mean by "supernatural"? Not all theists are Newtonian Christians. I know a fair few polytheists who reject metaphysical dualism, considering the gods to be simply an as yet unexplained natural property of the universe.

 

[Learner]

Many "sophisticated" theologians argue that metaphysical naturalism must be false. The theological literature about naturalism's falseness is immense. Often the argument is not to demonstrate supernaturalism is true, but that naturalism is false. Thus leaving a gap where God can exist. One theological approach here is presuppositionalism. God is responsible for everything including logic, truth, and other metaphysical necessities. Lots of shifting of the burdens of evidence.

Interestingly, do people here see naturalism as materialism? Logic as humans fathom, through human experience, doesn't explain everything. The argument or proposition could be made (for or against), within our means of comprehension, if we are looking at materialism. Is the existence of all things all physicalness etc.?

 

[Trebaxian Vir]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist.​

Numbers possess a certain independence from the natural physical world. Their reality is incontingent upon the existence of any particular object or phænomenon, & their properties & relationships can be studied & comprehended irrespective of their manifestation in the surrounding environment. The axiomatical statement, “A=A,” is an immutable truth which transcends the constraints of the natural order, & stands as a testament to the transcendental nature of logico-mathematical realities. Numbers are not bound by the constraints of physicality. They have no physical properties. They are nonlocal & nontemporal. The objective truth of a mathematical proposition subsists, as it were, in a “realm” beyond the physical sphære, unbounded by the limitations of physical being. They are not mere abstractions, or thoughts,—ætherial realities in themselves,—but embody a reality that transcends Nature, subject only to the laws of logic. In this sense, numbers are truly “supernatural,”—“existing,” if one may be permitted to employ so crude an expression, beyond Nature. It is this independence of numbers from the vicissitudes of the physical cosmos that makes them invaluable to us in our quest for sapiential knowledge.
 Of course, the verasimilitude of this assertion is contingent upon one’s perception of the word ‘Nature’. If one were to equate Nature with the material universe, as is commonly done by those who adhere to a materialist philosophy, then the “existence” (reality, validity, objectivity) of logico-mathematical truths necessitates the recognition of a supernatural realm. If thisl realm were not subject to the laws of logic, it could not be considered a reality. If, however, the term ‘Nature’ be dempt in the manner wherein it has been traditionally employed by metaphysicians, philosophers, & theologians of yore, as in the phrases ‘the Nature of Things,’ or ‘the Nature of God,’ then there would be nothing beyond this Nature, & even the concept of Deity would be subsumed therewithin; which would the afore-quoted proposition incorrect. For God and what you call the supernatural would in such case fall within the delimitaitons of “natural,” and the only thing outside of, or contrary to, nature would be pure nonbeing. ​

 

[Wiploc]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

I don't see why that's necessarily correct.

You could prove that cars exist without first proving that highways exist, and you could prove that highways exist without first proving that cars exist. I don't know why we should insist that one come before the other.

If you were to prove the existence of supernatural gods, that would prove the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Jarhyn]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

I think it's more a matter of perspective.

Imagine a human creates a tiny little universe: they figure out how to make a switch, and put together switches until a matrix of cellular automata are deterministically acting from initial conditions in a time series of steps.

From the perspective of the inside of that system, all our experience and universe, all of that is supernatural to the inside of that simulated microcosm.

Obviously, being a god by that one definition, and the clear and immediate reality of their existence gives the god no leverage over their struggles except which skills the otherwise meaningless task of acting as a god imparts through indirect education. Management skills, maybe?

Wondering over whether gods exist or what that means for us when we are literally exactly that thing doing exactly that thing, at least in part, is just silly.

The question is whether this is happening around us through another layer or more, and there's no way to know that. At best we have proof that isolated sets of interacting fields CAN be contained and isolated within other such field sets, but no actual evidence that they are.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Operative terms are physicalism, or metaphysical materialim. Monism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?

It's just as Cheerful Charlie says. Generally speaking people associate gods and souls and spirits and heaven and hell and devils and ghosts with supernaturalism. The supernatural world is the world of abracadabra and magic and mystery where any manner of imaginary beast can abide, including gods. It's a very unsophisticated and childish world that gets a lot of "sophisticated" attention from these doctors of divinity. And it ought to be called out for the infantile, imaginary sophistry that it is.

If I had to posit an evolutionary explanation for its survival it would be that the brain loves a mystery. But more importantly it would be that in thinking about such things it's great mental exercise, one might even say necessary for cognitive development. The questions and the possibilities are endless as is any fantasy. And it's easy. One doesn't need scientific instruments or to test ideas.

The reality that is not the supernatural baloney is its own revelation if one has the cognitive skillset. But the pseudo world of magic and spirits where logic and reason and evidence can be invented to suit the plot is much easier to swallow.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some mentally ill shaman has a dream, and all of a sudden the Aztecs are sacrificing thousands of innocent humans to the non-existent god, Xipe Totec. Claims about supernatural entities can have far reaching consequences. This sort of thing matters.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Some mentally ill shaman has a dream, and all of a sudden the Aztecs are sacrificing thousands of innocent humans to the non-existent god, Xipe Totec. Claims about supernatural entities can have far reaching consequences. This sort of thing matters.

Absolutely. As does splitting the atom or knapping a stone into a spearpoint with a razor sharp edge.

 

[bilby]

Some mentally ill shaman has a dream, and all of a sudden the Aztecs are sacrificing thousands of innocent humans to the non-existent god, Xipe Totec. Claims about supernatural entities can have far reaching consequences. This sort of thing matters.

Absolutely. As does splitting the atom or knapping a stone into a spearpoint with a razor sharp edge.

Exactly.

Fantasy can be used to extend our capabilities, and that's its selective advantage - dreamers are the reason we don't all still live in caves along Olduvai gorge. They're also the reason why millions of people were rounded up and murdered across Europe in the early 1940s.

"I have a dream" is inspirational - if you're fighting against apparently endless oppression. Not so much so if your dream is one of being the god emperor of the world.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The realization that sharpening a sapling with a sharp rock to make a spear to kill hyenas when they attack is far different than dreaming up Xipe Totec and need for human sacrifices.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The realization that sharpening a sapling with a sharp rock to make a spear to kill hyenas when they attack is far different than dreaming up Xipe Totec and need for human sacrifices.

But how do we know they first sharpened the spear to kill a Hyena and not to kill another hunter gatherer?

I agree, of course, that there is something undesirable about human sacrifice and the whole mysticism schtick. It's a mental condition that humanity could do without.

 

[bilby]

The realization that sharpening a sapling with a sharp rock to make a spear to kill hyenas when they attack is far different than dreaming up Xipe Totec and need for human sacrifices.

Is it? How?

Both are someone fantasising about a world that is different from the one they currently inhabit, and then acting to attempt to make reality conform to their imagination.

 

[Jarhyn]

The realization that sharpening a sapling with a sharp rock to make a spear to kill hyenas when they attack is far different than dreaming up Xipe Totec and need for human sacrifices.

Is it? How?

Both are someone fantasising about a world that is different from the one they currently inhabit, and then acting to attempt to make reality conform to their imagination.

One is different in that it recognizes that physical principle is not alterable. It was always the same world they inhabited, wherein a sharp stick would pierce skin.

I imagine no stick would be sharpened without having the factual relationship that this stuff, when pushed with an exceedingly narrow surface, will penetrate this other stuff.

One accepts that such mechanism is immutable, and thus reliable, and the other poses that mechanism varies by intent.

It can be observed simply that a spear point works when an animal or person falls on a pile of sticks and splinters, what commonalities exist between the splinters that get them and the splinters which do not, and that the method of producing the shape is inconsequential to the effect.

The former is taking principles observed and tested oftentimes by direct experience.

The latter is madness.

 

[bilby]

Superstition isn't madness. It's just misattribution of effects to coincidental prior actions.

It's a fundamental way in which brains work.

The real world is messy, and if a desired outcome occurs a few times in a row after a particular action is undertaken, or observed unrelated event, it's easy to mistakenly assume cause and effect are at work.

Even pigeons are superstitious. If you set up a lever that (entirely randomly) might produce a food pellet or might not, the pigeons will teach themselves to enact irrelevant rituals that happened by pure chance to coincide with "success" (such as turning around a full circle, or standing on one leg) - and the rewards can occur with less than a 50:50 chance and still cause this behaviour.

Human gamblers exhibit the same behaviour, believing in lucky rituals, charms, or conditions that have no possibility of actually changing outcomes.

Very little in a palaeolithic environment is reliable; If you imagine that a stone-tipped spear would reliably kill a hyena, that suggests you lack direct real-world experience of flint blades, wooden spear-shafts, hyenas, or some combination of these three things.

If your mother in law says "You're not going to kill a hyena with that silly contraption", and then that evening your spear breaks at the critical moment and your infant son is carried away by the beasts, you wouldn't be insane to start thinking that she might be a witch whose blessing is as essential to success as a well chosen spear-shaft, or a high quality flint. You would just be making an unjustified but plausible leap to conclusions.

If being berated by her coincides with a failed spear three times in a row, it's perfectly reasonable to become convinced that you must avoid her ire as an essential prerequisite to success.

It's notable that religion is more common and more virulent in communities with greater exposure to the random fortunes of nature. Farmers are more religious than factory workers, all else being equal.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's notable that religion is more common and more virulent in communities with greater exposure to the random fortunes of nature. Farmers are more religious than factory workers, all else being equal.

The theme of the TV series JACKASS is that the dumber you are the stronger you have to be in order to survive. That actually makes a lot of sense and I can see how evolutionary pressure would select for same. Obviously the best case it to be both strong and smart. Superstition is a kind of clever survival adaptation. The rituals, though impotent no doubt have a calming effect and are a source of pseudo understanding that brings psychological closure.

When the latest Tsunami devastated coastal communities some native populations headed for the hills and survived because they interpreted the receding ocean superstitiously. They knew to get out of harms way even though their reasoning for doing so was bonkers.

 

[bilby]

They knew to get out of harms way even though their reasoning for doing so was bonkers.

Evolution doesn't care if your reasons were sound. Only whether or not you survived.

 

[No Robots]

Spinoza famously declared that God and nature are one and the same. Of course, this does not mean that Spinoza was a physicalist. He was a true monist, meaning that he understood mind and matter as two aspects of a single continuum. As Spinoza's twentieth-century expositor, Harry Waton, explains, "[w]hen absolute thought slows down, it becomes light; and, when light slows down, it becomes matter."