Livia Regina

I think we've gone a little astray from the purpose of the thread. Can anyone start with the premise that I exist and you exist and the world around us exists and then argue up to the Christian God? I think that it's impossible and the furthest you can get is that something other than ourselves made us. So Christianity is, at best, wishful thinking about something we have no way of knowing.

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

martinguerre

Other than that line, i don't think anyone will be able to disagree with you.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Livia Regina

Just my opinion, you understand. I don't mean to offend.

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

martinguerre

understood. i happen to disagree with you, but i was just pointing out where precisely that disagreement was.

i agree that the "proof" is not a logical process.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Robaggio

The Christian god isn't true or false, not because it's stupid, but because the entire concept is unintelligable.

The Christians believe their god is a supernatural being. Supernatural, referring to that which is above and/or not natural. As natural beings, we cannot relate to unnatural things using natural examples. To correctly understand (or not understand) this, you must know that the term supernatural does not describe 'what we don't understand', but rather 'that which is unintelligable'. Therefore, the notion of the Christian god is unintelligable.

This description is quite an interesting path to travel. As philosophers go down this path even further, it only looks worse and worse for Christians. The end definition being that Christians believe in that which is nonsense. (Philosophy studies of unintelligable have this path: Unintelligable = nonsensical = nonsense.)

FoolThemAll

This was the link in the chain that I couldn't follow. Where does this come from?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Robaggio

The term "supernatural" is a misnomer. In fact, everything referring to the supernatural is a misnomer- even this sentence. It all stems from the fact that something supernatural is either beyond or not capable of being comprehended. So far to the point that if something were such (supernatural), then nothing natural could be used to label it. Words, being real, natural concepts cannot be directly related to a supernatural concept. Hell, the term "supernatural concept" is superceeded by the fact that supernatural is unintelligable in the first place.

If something is not capable of natural comprehention, then it is unintelligable. You cannot label all things 'incapable of natural comprehention' into a category, since, as they are unintelligable, classificaition is not applicable.

Livia Regina

If supernatural is something we cannot comprehend or have any thoughts about, where does the idea come from?

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

asaris

First of all, who says we can't understand the supernatural? I don't believe that for one minute, and I don't really think that there's any reason to hold that. Just because something is different from us doesn't mean we can't understand it. But of course, your main concern is with God, and traditionally we say he's beyond our comprehension. But we don't mean you can't understand anything about God, we only mean you can't understand everything about God. But that's not enough to run your argument.

Second, Livia argues: If we parse this, her argument seems to be that only things provable through logic should be believed in (otherwise they're wishful thinking). But, by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we can't prove anything. (Since we can't prove logic, and if we can't prove logic, we can't really prove anything else.) So we should believe anything. But this is clearly absurd -- it's obvious that I'm, for example, watching TV and typing a TFP post. So it must be the case that you can believe things you can't prove with logic.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Robaggio

"First of all, who says we can't understand the supernatural? I don't believe that for one minute, and I don't really think that there's any reason to hold that"

We cannot 'understand' supernatural simply because it would then be natural. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. This is a truth that has been proven. Even outside the context of god, this has been examined to be the case.

"Just because something is different from us doesn't mean we can't understand it."

This phrase assumes that the 'supernatural' can even be perceived as 'different' than us, when, in reality, applying such an adjective is not applicable.

"If supernatural is something we cannot comprehend or have any thoughts about, where does the idea come from?"

I don't know where the idea came from initially. I do know however that humans tend to believe a lot of things that are false or don't exist. For example, there's no such thing as 'good' or 'evil'. There's no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' (value terms, not truths). Society has built itself around these words, and, the words begin to take on other meanings. While there is no absolute 'right' or 'wrong' it can be said that such things are relative to the society. The term supernatural is no different than this. While the root meaning of the word is unintelligable, society has put certain constraints and values on the term in an effort to cope and make sense of it. It's quite a brain teaser to ponder 'supernatural'- few can do it, and therefore the original term was lost in society's framework built around it. Just like 'good' and 'evil', when analyzed absolutely, 'supernatural' can be seen in it's true light.

Livia Regina

The fact that you and I exist can't be proved by logic (at least not that I'm aware of). Since our existance is one of my premises I don't see how you get that only things provable though logic should be believed. Is there an argument that doesn't assume God and still argues that he exists? All the ones I have read seemed to assume that God exists and then try and find a logical basis for him.

Robaggio, you don't think that there are things which almost every human agrees are good or bad? Is there any society that has said that murder is not a bad thing? Is there any society that says that stealing is acceptable? I doubt it. We are all human, made pretty much the same way. We tend to agree on right and wrong even if we define them slightly differently. That means that right and wrong do exist.

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

Brooke

Also, she can kill you with her brain.

No, seriously, the germanic tribes had a concept of werguild - where revenge for a life taken was permissable, and even expected, but it wasnt based on any principle, except an eye for an eye, a tooth for a molar....whatnot. And today, even people who do kill, they are sentenced to life in prison (scott peterson being the recent exception)

Intrinsic Morality is relavant on some scale or another to each society. You are to some extent a product of that society and culture. Christianity shoots for something int he stratosphere - something trancendant and whatnot. Something above us. In benevolant authority. Something to appeal to when life no longer makes logical - semi logical - or even what was once vaguely recognisable as sense.

Alson, I eat meat. Tacos are neat. So are Feet. I want some Sleep.

__________________
And so its over
Your fantasy life is finally at an end
And the world above is still a brutal place
And the story will start again

Livia Regina

So what are you arguing? That they didn't have an idea of murder? It was a life for a life. If you murded someone you got killed, we still do this.

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

Brooke

Not all the time - the quality of justice has gone down a bit donchya think? - I suppose that I am arguing for ambiguity in logic. What was logical for them is not so much for us now, and it can be presumed that what is logical now will be just plain silly in 500 years.

So - why would you want someone to argue for christianity with logic? It is not at all a consistant concept. *yea the most convincing/ provable one* but still....not anything to build a lasting faith system on.

Just for you Livia. ... Hal is staring at me....I think he is killing me with HIS brain.
Either way - I will die by the end of the night. yea finals!

asaris

Livia - I just don't really understand, then, why you feel you require an argument to prove God exists, but you're willing to accept my existence on faith.

Robaggio - you still haven't explained WHY you think that the supernatural cannot be understood.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

martinguerre

it's arguement by definition. it's not a bad definition...and kind of makes sense. but i suspect there won't be a whole lot of why to go around.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

FoolThemAll

Robaggio: You seem to consider "can't be understood by humankind" and "can't be understood" to mean the same thing. Not that I can't understand that kind of thinking and its basis, but that's what prevented me from making sense of that link in our chain.

I believe that there are things that actually are, that we as humans cannot understand.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Robaggio

Not to be rude, but what's the difference? If humans can't understand the notion, then therefore it cannot be understood. As far as any other natural entity being able to understand, well, I don't think that's really a matter of consideration.

Reality as we know it is built up around our perception as natural creatures. Even the term 'natural' is only such that we can perceive with our senses. If something cannot be perceived with our senses, then it is nonsensical, or, nonsense. To take it another step further, we cannot use intelligent thought on anything that cannot be sensually perceived. Thus, something nonsensical is also unintelligable. - I'll try to dig up some of my sources or find an internet article for you to read. I know I'm missing out on some key aspects of the argument that would solidify it a bit more for you.

Livia: What you're describing is relative 'good' and 'evil'. Such is an opinion and thus lies in the eye of the beholder. Whether or not everyone believes a certain notion does not make it the truth. Therefore, although the majority of cultures belive killing to be 'evil' or 'wrong', it does not make it such. I can PM you about this if you like- since I don't know if the people in this thread want me to go on a tangent about good/evil & right/wrong.

Asaris: Read what martinguerre wrote. "Why" is not applicable.

FoolThemAll

I don't believe that human beings are capable of comprehending everything about the universe, even given an infinite amount of time in which to try.

For instance, how it is that existence exists. It always existed and had no beginning? Impossible, everything has a beginning. There was a first cause which did not have a cause itself, but always was? Impossible, everything has a cause.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

but if we can't get it, for all intents and purposes it is incomprehensible. if we ever see something that is so complex or advanced that it passes our understanding entirely, we would have no way of verifying that it is a natural phenomenon.

mystical or rational, we would have nothing better than guesses to tell them apart.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

bobophil

this is what faith is though, believing what you dont necessarily hear or see.

and christianity is based 100% on faith

Robaggio

Exactly. Just don't forget to leave out the part where faith equates to nonsense.

Livia Regina

I have communicated with you. I have a general idea of a being who calls himself asaris on TFP. There might be a lot of you pretending to be one person. You might be different from the way you present yourself. But from what I can see you have some sort of an existance. I can know some things about you because I can read your previous posts and I can see you are still acting in TFP. I also know that you are not something I have dreamed up. I have never had any communication with God. The only things I know about him were told to me by other people who had no direct experience of him either. I have never seen him do anything in the world around me that I could attribute to him.

Robaggio, by all means PM me or start a thread with this topic. It would be interesting to see what others had to say about it.

__________________
Rule 37: There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'I need to reload.'

FoolThemAll

I've been looking at rob's argument the wrong way, and I understand what you and rob are saying now. Yes, we have no real way of telling what's nonsense and what's seemingly nonsensical beyond-our-comprehension truth. And I'm talking about an unfalsifiable alternative to robaggio's argument, of course.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

asaris

No it's not, MartinGuerre. The closest thing to a definition in the post is the following But that's either not a definition, or a really bad one. What Robaggio might want to be doing is arguing from some definition of 'supernatural' (like 'beyond natural') to its incomprehensibility. This argument might run something like this:
What is supernatural is, by definition, beyond what is natural. But we are natural creatures; everything we know is built up on information we receive from our senses. Therefore, we cannot know the supernatural.
That's a halfway decent argument. But it's unsound. First of all, it ignores the possibility that we might have some sort of 'sixth sense', such that we can sense the supernatural. But since I don't really believe in a sixth sense, let's go to objection two. Second, this argument ignores a priori knowledge. I know that 2 + 2 = 4. And I could know that without having ever seen two objects being placed with two objects to make four objects. I know that a round square is impossible, but I've never seen a round square being impossible. Thirdly, it ignores the possibility that the supernatural might present itself to our senses, by, say, taking on a body or giving us a book to read. While this would not be sufficient for comprehension of the supernatural, it would be sufficient for saying some true things about the supernatural ("Look it says here God is like a mother hen. Therefore, God must be like a mother hen.") Fourthly, it ignores the possibility that I could use the natural to deduce things about the supernatural, in much the same way I can use one sense to deduce information normally gained from a different one (I hear someone in the next room, therefore, there is someone in the next room; the universe requires a cause, nothing natural could be its cause, therefore there must be supernatural). I suggest something like this in the 'faith' thread, when I mention Kant and Kierkegaard.

So, am I getting your argument right, Robaggio, or is there something I'm missing?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

martinguerre

If we could sense it, it wouldn't be supernatural anymore. Furthermore, our senses don't define rational. UV or infrared light is invisible to us, but we understand us. If all of a sudden, a wormhole began depositing bricks in my backyard, and we couldn't understand the wormhole, i might think that something supernatural was happening.

<i>From my frame of reference</i> there wouldn't be a way to tell. A non-human observer who did understand the wormhole might know it was natural. I couldn't tell, becuase i had no foundational knowledge on which to base that distinction.

I don't understand how a priori knowledge alters the arguement. I'm talking about collective human wisdom, and i don't think we as humans have a priori knowledge, at least in terms of the physical realm.

if we saw an incarnation, we would by definition misunderstand it. an incarnation is a limited and kenotic form that reduces what God /the supernatural is so that we can see and otherwise interact with it, with out blowing our minds out our ears.

in your 4th arugment, you're still leaving something open.

what if the wormhole was depositing invisible and air-soluable bricks in to the room. we hear them, and can't find a natural cause. but the wormhole is just a cosmic anomoly, passing our understanding. we say it's ghosts, but that's only becuase we don't understand it.

i think the definition is still solid, and actually fits well with my understanding of the doctrine of revelation.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Master_Shake

Supernatural is really an antiquated word, it doesn't have any real meaning anymore. Of course it previously referred to ghosts, angels, god, all that nonsense that can't be directly observed. We now know that stuff is fiction, and the current stuff we don't understand like wormholes and invisible bricks, are just phenomena to study.

I think Arthur C. Clarke wrote that any civilication sufficiently advanced beyond our own would seem like magic. It wouldn't be magic; it would just be the application of scientific principles that we don't yet understand.

Long live the krell.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

asaris

I'm starting to suspect that we're using different definitions of natural here. By natural I just mean "Stuff like rocks and trees and animals"; it is opposed both to 'artificial' and to 'supernatural'. The problem is that if you just define supernatural as 'the stuff we can't understand'; well, then Robbagio's argument isn't very interesting.

Of course we have a priori knowledge of the physical realm, whatever you want to call it. I prefer the Kantian idiom here, because I think it's the simplest way to describe it. But the idea is just that there are structures to the mind, like time and space, which order our experience. Without these, experience would be totally random and we would be utterly unable to organize it. Moreover, the fact that 2+2=4 is certainly relevant to the physical world. How often do physicists use mathematics to describe this world? What this has to do with the argument is that it refutes the second premise, that we only get information from our senses.

You say that if we saw an incarnation, we would necessarily misunderstand it. In a way, I don't disagree with you. But this is just part of my general point that we can't completely understand God, and since failure to completely understand something is, in a sense, misunderstanding it; yeah, sure. But certainly we can know something about the supernatural through revelation. Say some supernatural being, whom we suppose to be trustworthy (let's call him Jed), gave us "The Book of Jed". Reading the "Book of Jed", we read that Jed is a nice guy. Given these premises, we can deduce that Jed is a nice guy. Certainly there are problems of evidence and the like here, but to think that in this case to believe Jed is a nice guy would be to misunderstand him would be to have a really wierd definition of 'misunderstand'.

Your response to my fourth argument misses something. I'd hardly deny that we could be mistaken about whether or not a given phenomenon is supernatural. But likewise, we could be right about a given phenomenon being supernatural. If I hear the sound of bricks dropping, it might be a random wormhole. But it might actually be a ghost. The problem is again an epistemological problem, and so can't give Robaggio his conclusion, which is a metaphysical one.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche