• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

No supernatural, no gods.

You're saying ... what are you saying?

Theists have non-supernatural gods, but atheists don't?

Is that your point?
 
Wiploc said:
You're saying ... what are you saying?

Theists have non-supernatural gods, but atheists don't?

Is that your point?
Click to expand...
I don't think that was the point, though it is certainly true. "Supernatural" is a much contested term in theological circles, but almost universally popular among atheists.
 
bilby said:
"Supernatural" means "not known to exist". Anything that is known to exist is immediately promoted to "natural".

Gods are supernatural unless there are any, in which case they're a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Hence why atheists are very attached to the concept.
 
Politesse said:
bilby said:
"Supernatural" means "not known to exist". Anything that is known to exist is immediately promoted to "natural".

Gods are supernatural unless there are any, in which case they're a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Hence why atheists are very attached to the concept.
Click to expand...
Sure, some are. Personally I don't really care for it.

I'm struggling to think of anything that I would describe as "supernatural", rather than "imaginary" or "fictional".
 
bilby said:
"Supernatural" means "not known to exist". Anything that is known to exist is immediately promoted to "natural".

Gods are supernatural unless there are any, in which case they're a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
I have no issues accepting this statement, with the conceptual view that.. if God or god's are then understood, (and therefore exist), then one could profess the 'knowledge claim', that God or gods are 'natural phenomenons', since 'all' things 'natural' has an explanation. (Keep in mind we are 'still' looking for other, and new explanations for other phenomena)
 
Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?
 
Supernatural is derived from Latin Supra Natura. Above nature. This term started to be used during the era of Thomas Aquinas. William Of Okham championed the concept of secondary causes. God created the material world and the laws of nature and let these laws run the Universe. Nature. With only rare miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. God the Great Clock Maker of Descartes.

Western theology traditonally supported the concept of supernaturalism. It is still a part of theological claims, not just Thomists by from presuppositionalism.
 
bilby said:
"Supernatural" means "not known to exist". Anything that is known to exist is immediately promoted to "natural".

Gods are supernatural unless there are any, in which case they're a natural phenomenon.
Click to expand...
The actual combination of the words as the operate on each other of "super" and "natural" does not say "not known to exist", however. Super is a hierarchical term.

Software engineers among us observe: a program can run on bare metal.

A program can run independently of the implementation of the operating system running on bare metal.

An operating system can run independently of whether on bare metal or hypervisor.

Each of these defines a systemic nature.

Each of these can have a super-systemic nature.

The OP is more yet another bold wager that they do not.

I propose that it is wiser to hope it is there and to find new horizons beyond such discoveries.

The evidence has not found anything yet beyond the fact that the mind is a thing exploring a very solid and mechanically bound vastness that gives nor asks for explanation except in the utility offered in figuring it out from observation.
 
Jarhyn said:
Each of these defines a systemic nature.

Each of these can have a super-systemic nature.
Click to expand...
But, crucially, whether or not they have a super systemic nature cannot be known at the systemic level.

That is, to the system, the super-system is by definition not known to exist; If it is (from within the system) demonstrably a thing that exists, then it's a part of the system.

Or to put it more succinctly:

"Supernatural" means "not known to exist". Anything that is known to exist is immediately promoted to "natural".
Click to expand...

It's pointless and useless to speculate about the existence of things that cannot by definition be detected in any way, nor have any effect on anything real.
 
In the sophisticated theologian world, the theologians try to demonstrate naturalism must be false. So supernaturalism. Theology of the gaps. Some of these efforts are quite amusing.
 
Is nature included in supernature or is supernature included in nature? Inquiring minds want to know. Seems like people observe something natural, and then claim to know something supernatural, meaning not something found in nature. So shouldn't we have another name for supernatural, something more descriptive? Maybe call it bullshitnatural or fakenatural or something along those lines.

I also have some comments and questions about the superdupernatural but I'll hold them for now. Lets get supernatural ironed out first.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Lets get supernatural ironed out first.
Click to expand...
The religionists can't even agree on what's "natural".

Paley says it's absurd to assume that a watch found on a heath is natural; As a made thing, it stands out as fundamentally different from the natural plants and animals that surround it.

Therefore, he goes on to explain, we must accept as absurd, the possibility that those plants and animals are not made things, because they are fundamentally the same as the watch.

So by Paley's reasoning, plants, animals, and watches are both natural, and simultaneously not natural. Therefore creationism.

And this is considered one of the creationist movement's most compelling arguments. :rolleyesa:
 
bilby said:
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Lets get supernatural ironed out first.
Click to expand...
The religionists can't even agree on what's "natural".

Paley says it's absurd to assume that a watch found on a heath is natural; As a made thing, it stands out as fundamentally different from the natural plants and animals that surround it.

Therefore, he goes on to explain, we must accept as absurd, the possibility that those plants and animals are not made things, because they are fundamentally the same as the watch.

So by Paley's reasoning, plants, animals, and watches are both natural, and simultaneously not natural. Therefore creationism.

And this is considered one of the creationist movement's most compelling arguments. :rolleyesa:
Click to expand...

Paley also considered, and then dismissed, the concept of machines creating machines. Today we have large industries like that, for example CPU and Microchip foundries. Often designed with much help from computers to create layouts and masks.
 
Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
 
Learner said:
Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
Click to expand...

I see you have created a Christianity shaped hole. Good heavens, would you look at that. Only Christianity fits into the hole. Who would have thought? It's a miracle. Praise the lord.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?
Click to expand...
If God is eternal, this would be an interesting perspective...

God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural. 'Always existing' would mean, to always be 'expected to be repeatable", in a manner of speaking. Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.
 
Learner said:
Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
Click to expand...

We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom