[Ghostavo]

I assume the "unknowable" Herra refers to is an antonym of provable or falsifiable.

Most (all?) current religions have non falsifiable claims.

[Herra Tohtori]

First off, you are fighting a strawman every time you complain that religion claims to know something about the unknowable. The definition of "supernatural" is not "unknowable". No religion defines it this way. Check wikipedia for goodness sake: "The supernatural is that which is not subject to the laws of physics, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature." "Unknowability" is not part of the definition of "supernatural", or the definition of "God". If you want to convince someone of something, you have to argue against what they actually believe.

Of course religions don't define supernatural as unknowable, that would make it obvious that the religions can't actually contain any knowledge of it.

However, that's what the essential definition of supernatural is.


Something existing "above and beyond nature" would have to be fundamentally of the unknowable variety. If it isn't, the moment we gain knowledge of it, our perspective of it changes and we consider it "natural".

Laws of physics are not what defines nature. Laws of physics are an approximation of nature - they are not a complete set of what exists in nature and how, and might never be. Describing "supernatural" as "beyond laws of physics" is to invoke the God of the Gaps, which is doomed to recede further and further every time our knowledge of nature expands.


We should concentrate on finding an agreeable definition of supernatural before proceeding with any other aspect of this discussion, or at the very least make sure we know what the other actually means when using the word.

Second, I entered this debate on the assumption that you had rational arguments for your beliefs, and were firmly and honestly convinced that said arguments were true. I now find out, after the discussion bogged down, that you did not share that assumption with regards to me. I consider your beliefs "wrong", that is I'm convinced that you made an error in your reasoning somewhere along the line. Luis, evidently shares that approach to my beliefs, and for that reason I'd be willing and eager to discuss the issue further with Luis, if he's interested in doing so in the future. You, however, make the claim that my standpoint is not only wrong but "irrational", namely, you claim that I'm committing some form of intellectual dishonesty by holding the beliefs I hold. (And up until I called you out on it, you treated the word "irrational" as having this meaning.) This is contrary to the principle of arguing in good faith. For this reason, unless you change your approach, I'm not interested in debating with you further.

I think there has to be some sort of error with whatever path of reasoning led you to believe in the existence of a supernatural God. I think it is an irrational position to take. I wouldn't necessarily say you're committing intellectual dishonesty; for that to be the case you would need to be aware of the problem, or that the problem is one of communication.

At the moment I suspect the problem is that the definition of "supernatural" you are using is more liberal than the definition I'm using, and that means the God you're describing as "supernatural" may actually be natural being in my definition (and, therefore, not a God at all in my view but that's a different issue). In that case my assessment of your position being irrational may be revised, but it would probably still require some fairly extraordinary evidence to convince me that your belief in a natural god is not irrational.

[Phantom Hoover]

people

people

stop with the endless point-by-point replies

[Scotty]

people

people

stop with the endless point-by-point replies

Thank you, PH.  I was just about to chime in with this myself.

[Charismatic]

This is called seeker friendly. Making the masses happy. Compromise.

Everyone can believe everything and still join the church! Everyone's right!

And what the pope said is all wrong.

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:13-14&version=NKJV

Wasent that refreshing? A Pro God post on this forum.

[watsisname]

When faced with a large quantity of material that you disagree with throughout, and are expected to respond to, it is easy to become convinced that the most efficient method of response is by attacking it sequentially, fragment by fragment.  “I have a problem with the terminology you are using in this sentence.”  “This claim right here is wrong and here is a lengthy description of why.”  “Your tone here is deplorable and you should do better.”  Now for your next section…

This inflates the size of the post, which also inflates the amount of material the other side must respond to, and so they are also more likely to do so in a similar line-by-line fashion.  Thus discussions like these tend to turn into tl;dr prepare-your-scroll-button-finger quote wars.  This is also the moment that rational discussion and healthy exchange of ideas goes out the window, because neither side is actively reading.  Effort is wasted on responding to as much as possible as convincingly as possible, instead of being applied toward actual comprehension of the material and where its strengths and flaws lie.

How does one break this cycle?  Stop contemplating posts line-by line.  Read them in their entirety before you even begin to think of what you’re going to write in response.  Actually try to understand in full what the other person is saying to you.  Mentally break it down into its fundamental concepts, claims, and supporting arguments.  Once you’ve done that, it should become clear how to respond in a concise manner, in a form that looks like a series of well thought out paragraphs instead of a nightmarishly hideous “quote-reply-quote-reply-quote-reply-quote-reply” chain that goes on for pages.  You should only ever need a few quotes to properly capture the content you want to address.

Now I will freely admit that I’m guilty of this same behavior in the past.  It is very difficult to avoid it.  Perhaps it also takes a huge amount of effort, but I think only initially, and the trade-off is worth it in the end.  You end up writing less, hopefully more clearly, and you are definitely more likely to be read, understood, and taken seriously by other forumites.

[Herra Tohtori]

This is good advise and I will attempt to improve my posts using it.

[Luis Dias]

You're really getting on my nerves Herra, so I am going to make an extra effort to make this the last response, because clearly this is really being unproductive.

You're the one stating that god is "unknowable". Christians heavily disagree with you here.

Unknowable is practically synonymous to "supernatural", because any other definition of supernatural simply falls apart when enough information is acquired on a supernatural subject.

You have been doing this for far too long and far too annoyingly. You redefine words to suit your agenda. That's not conversation with good faith. That's weaseling your way to win an argument. If you don't know what "Supernatural" means, then ask. If you are confused on how "Supernatural" can intersect with "Naturality" without becoming the latter, ask. Search, google. You have no excuses for your continuous ignorance, especially if you keep espousing it as "Truth". If you are going to say that "Supernaturality" "simply falls apart when X happens, you must show this and compare it with what the best apologists tell you about Supernaturality. Handwaving these half-assed wisdoms from above as if you're some kind of Oracle is terrible communication on your part.

Thankfully, forum posts are not legal documents where you have to include an entire category for DEFINITIONS before you actually get to the point. "Religious beliefs without evidence to support them will be hereafter referred to as FAITH in this document."

Seriously.

SERIOUSLY? ****ing hell! A "You're right, I'm sorry about that" would ****ing suffice!! What immature way is this of discussing **** where when you are shown to be wrong you come back and tell me this isn't a courtroom so you should be excused for saying silly things? Concede and move the **** on, Herra. You were wrong, I showed you why, correct and forget it. Jesus, is this so hard? Do you understand again why you sound so condescendingly arrogant? You keep adding to it!

Strawmans are fallacious, you know? No one ever said that you can support unknowable things through rational inquiry. You believe they are unknowable, InsaneBaron clearly does not. It is only irrational if you assume they are unknowable. But that's not their assumption.

True. It's only irrational to think you know God if God is unknowable.

Now please give a definition of "supernatural" that isn't synonymous to "unknowable", and doesn't fall apart the moment you acquire information on a supernatural subject.

Because, you know, supernatural things become natural when you learn about them. I thought that was kinda obvious, really.

LMGTFY is probably too harsh, but hey, why the **** not? I'll give you a headstart, with the wikipedia definition of Supernaturality, you seem to have a big time problem with semantics! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

I'm not sure if there's some linguistic barrier affecting things but you seem to be fixated on equating "irrational" with "idiot".

I'm not using the term as an insult or to describe a person. I'm using it to describe a position that is not rational. Belief in supernatural things is irrational, whether the belief itself is right or wrong (which we can't know). Trying to defend such a belief with rational methods is irrational.

Unlike you, Herra, I have no semantical problems with the words I use or read. When you say "Irrational" I understand "Irrational". I understand BOTH the definition of the word and the CONTEXT of the usage you put in there. This is why I have REPEATEDLY referred to the existence of rationalities for the existence of a theistic God, and didn't refer to the word IDIOT. ****, read what I am saying please? ****ing hell.

Also, I can respect a person perfectly well even if they're being irrational about a particular thing in their lives. It's not like religion defines a person, it's just one aspect of them. And I don't need to respect a person's beliefs to respect the person.

You are not respecting a person if that person tells you they reached a conclusion through rational means and you simply say that is not true, they are delusional, what really happened is that such person got emotional and then rationalized his emotions into the belief. This is not respect, it's the opposite of respect. You are generally confused about semantics and respect. Work that **** out.

[Mars]

It doesn't seem like you're actually reading the posts involved. The advice to "Search Google" for the definition seems an insufficient response to

"Something existing "above and beyond nature" would have to be fundamentally of the unknowable variety. If it isn't, the moment we gain knowledge of it, our perspective of it changes and we consider it "natural".

Given that the definition Google gives is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
'a supernatural being'," Herra's post displays a good understanding of the word "supernatural" Something existing outside of nature "the phenomena of the physical world collectively" would obviously fall outside of our understanding, as we only have an understanding of the physical world.

[InsaneBaron]

Herra, your last large-scale post seems to indicate some willingness to look into the matter further. And that's good. Unfortunately, at least for now, things have pretty much gone out the window. Rather than try and keep up with this mess I'm simply going to pass you some further reading suggestions. Instead of arguing with me, why not go striaght to the horse's mouth?

C. S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity"
C. S. Lewis's "Miracles"
Father Amadeus's "The Truth is Out There"
Anything by Deitrich von Hildebrand

These are just a few of my favorites, feel free to search for more if you want.

None of these are very long. Also, look at Patheos. It rarely convinces anyone, but it is THE antidote to the war on straw where religion is concerned.

Reading these apologetics with an open mind could have two results. A. It could change your mind. B. If it doesn't change your mind, it'll make you a far better atheistic apologist. Either way, you'll at least gain some respect and understanding of Theism.

InsaneBaron out.

[Turambar]

You know what they say, Herra.  You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into.

[The E]

I think this topic has run its course.