Question for Atheists...

[ppp]

The foundation of science is in metaphysics. It can't exist without it.

Metaphyics is a broad topic. Pick one thing in metaphysics that is required for us to do science?

 

[Yerda]

From this.

Yet I'm positive that you're able to tell the difference between "It is possible that x" and "I accept that x is true because it is possible".

 

[Yerda]

Metaphyics is a broad topic. Pick one thing in metaphysics that is required for us to do science?

Ontology. Existence. Cause and effect. etc.

 

[ppp]

"It is possible that x"

Is that the whole sentence?

 

[ppp]

Ontology. Existence. Cause and effect. etc.

You're joking. Right?

 

[Yerda]

Is that the whole sentence?

You can let x represent a phrase like, electrons have negative charge. Or, Jim was ten feet tall and ate thunderbolts for lunch.

We can allow a wee bit of shorthand, yes?

You're joking. Right?

Not at all.

Models of the world involve assumptions about what types of things there are, how they relate to one another and how they produce changes in whichever system we're looking at, don't they? These are all metaphysical features of our description of reality.

I'm not saying that you have to have a doctorate in philosophy to do science, but when you do science you're working on top of a lot of philosophical scaffolding - much of it metaphysics.

 

[ppp]

We can allow a wee bit of shorthand, yes?

No.

Models of the world involve assumptions about what types of things there are, how they relate to one another and how they produce changes in whichever system we're looking at, don't they?

No. The sciences are a methodology for the measurement of what is presented to us. There is nothing about science that requires that what is presented to us is some sort of objective reality. There is no solution to hard solipsism.

I'm not saying that you have to have a doctorate in philosophy to do science, but when you do science you're working on top of a lot of philosophical scaffolding - much of it metaphysics.

If I were going to try to argue your position, I would have considered epitemology a better tack. At least epistemology is a little more pragmatic and therefore ties better to science.

 

[Audie]

The foundation of science is in metaphysics. It can't exist without it.

Such twaddle

 

[Bird123]

I disagree. You do NOT have to be open to possibilities that have already been eliminated. If you have shown them to be false, there is no need to keep considering them (unless you modify the assumptions).

So, if I have considered the possibility that God exists and have eliminated it due to lack of evidence, I need not consider it *until* some evidence is presented.

Good. Now, how did you eliminate falsehoods?

So God *is* detectable. That means there *is* evidence.

Hmmm...that does not follow. Just because physics have fairly simple rules does NOT mean that humans do. Nor need human society 'add up' in the same way.

I suspect that you use 'adding up perfectly' in a different way than I do.

That assumes you attribute everything to God to start with. Why would someone do that?

Such is the claim. Any actual evidence that would convince a skeptic?

I agree. And one of the things I have discovered is that most concept of God are senseless and the others are simply unbelievable.

Sounds again like confirmation bias to me. You see what you are looking for and don't see what you are not.

Have you tried to prove your ideas about God to be wrong? if so, in what ways?

You do not understand. Everything leads to God whether you want it too or not.

A test. If God created the physics to add up perfectly, why would God have the people factor not add up? Where is your math? So you say God does not exist, but then why does the people factor add up along with the entire system?

You discount an interaction with God. This is something that can not be duplicated nor imagined. I certainly do not have the capabilities.

God is very High Intelligence. We are but mere ants. One is peddling just to keep up. This is why a certain amount of understanding is needed. I think most would just be confused by the experience. A few moments conversation with God might take an intelligent person weeks to understand all that is said. Who knows what was missed going over one's head?

Everyone already knows God. Names are never needed. Everyone already knows who everyone is. The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that. I work on mine every day.

God is a joy to be around. God does not value so many of the petty things mankind holds so dear. There is no baggage or garbage like so many people carry around.

Religions are created by mankind. That is who they reflect more than anything else.

God is about what is. It has never ever been about beliefs or non-beliefs. On the other hand, people can choose to limit themselves in so many ways which leads to a narrow view.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

And I have searched and found the concepts of God to be worthless and delusional.

Perhaps you should stop searching for concepts and search for God instead. You rely on the concepts of others. Have you been conditioned by religion that knowledge is something gained by being convinced then believed? Discover takes works. One must be willing to venture into undiscovered country to discover what is.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

Well it is true that a person can conjure up any God they want and don't need to follow an established religion. The issue is that this being a personal religion versus a collective religion is irrelevant, there is no reason to treat any God concept as real phenomenon. There is nothing to understand about a God in a religious way. Anyone can study the many concepts of gods and understand these as abstractions, but that is about it.

Well, others exist, so at least I'm pointing at real things, eh?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If someone makes a claims about a proposition they had better have evidence and a coherent explanation.

You assume there is something to find. Thus far what you describe seems more figments of your imagination than any actual destination for anyone. You might be trying to use others to validate your beliefs and unaware of this manipulation.

Vague.

I'm not confused, I follow facts and use reason. I don't assume the things you do and as a result I avoid the confusion that is exhibited in your comments.

Confused? Vague? Clearly, you lack even a rudimentary level of understanding of what I have been saying. That's ok!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

This is indistinguishable from self-brainwashing.
It also sounds like trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow.
It's sheer confirmation bias. An assumed conclusion.

It's pretending to have the answers before even knowing what the questions are.


So you want small children who engage in magical thinking and who have no clue about the world to answer these questions?

Do you know why such small children like the "piekaboo" game? Why they cry when you leave the room?
Because when you hide behind the couch or enter another room, their brain thinks you are leaving existence itself.
They don't realize that you still exist behind the couch or in the other room.

If that is the sort of magical thinking you wish to base your understanding of reality on, be my guest. But it's kind of obvious that you're going to walk away with false conclusions.

Have you been conditioned to say no before you even try it? Are you so set in your ways and thinking that you never question yourself?

There is more knowledge living in your view than you can imagine. Ask any parent. If children know nothing, how do they teach parents so much along the journey?

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Do you want too see the True Mosaic or are you interested in only what you want to see?

Those who seek always look for what they are missing instead of being satisfied with those beliefs.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

And I have previously done that process and found nothing.

So it is also very clear to me.

Now, how can the dispute be resolved so we at least know who is wrong? What *further* evidence would convince you that you are wrong? And yes, you can ask the same of me.

You do not Understand. My journey has not ended. There is always more to learn and discover.

In search for the truth as I became an adult, I had to come up with a starting point for my search. No one pointed the direction for me as I have done for you. How can you see nothing around you when so very much is going on?

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how? IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG!!!!

Is there anything you might be missing?

Feel free to give me your evidence. I will listen. Now if you say cancer and sick children, I will ask you to search out the results and the changes that occur. Widen your view beyond it hurts.

Eternity has purpose. What is your purpose??? Please tell me what you have discovered instead of what you yet have to discover.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Wait. Were you reading my post as I wrote it.

Then try asking for explanations. Oops!

 

[F1fan]

Confused? Vague? Clearly, you lack even a rudimentary level of understanding of what I have been saying. That's ok!

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Have you noticed that no one follows what you are claiming and advising? Only you get it? Have you not read any of the criticism of your posts, and why they are highly flawed? You don't even bother to respond with intellect and evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

The foundation of science is in metaphysics. It can't exist without it.

I was not too much into science but find some of it interesting. I'm glad now I didn't major in it because...I see so much of it is presumption. Shaky ground...lava burns up everything in its path...that seems pretty sure.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can let x represent a phrase like, electrons have negative charge. Or, Jim was ten feet tall and ate thunderbolts for lunch.

We can allow a wee bit of shorthand, yes?

Not at all.

Models of the world involve assumptions about what types of things there are, how they relate to one another and how they produce changes in whichever system we're looking at, don't they? These are all metaphysical features of our description of reality.

I'm not saying that you have to have a doctorate in philosophy to do science, but when you do science you're working on top of a lot of philosophical scaffolding - much of it metaphysics.

Yes. I had to memorize the designations in school to pass. But really...I always wondered...even if I got the right answers . Really?

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, but I'll barge in where I'm not wanted...



I don't think that I have stopped believing in the supernatural. Of course, the whole question revolves around what we mean by "supernatural".




I disagree with that. Explaining why would require a whole philosophical dissertation, but in a nutshell...

I perceive myself surrounded by mysteries at every moment. To take your word, what is 'rational'? Conforming to reason? What is 'reason'? Why does reason (whatever it is) seem to be necessary for proper understanding? What is 'understanding'? What is 'evidence' and what is its relationship to 'truth'? How do we know about logic in the first place? Merely by intuition? And why does reality seemingly conform to it? And on and on... we can do the same thing with any of our concepts.

We go through our lives convinced we have it all figured out, but any time we question any of our seeming certainties, any of them at all, we almost immediately slide down a rabbit-hole. (I expect that paleolithic people sitting around their campfires in the old stone age thought that they had it all figured out too.)

I try not to confuse our human understanding at any point in time with reality as it is in itself. Our understanding, with science as perhaps its foremost example, is just a model of reality. And given the finite nature of the human situation, (we aren't gods with a god's-eye perspective) and given the historical contingency of the concepts that we use, it's almost inevitably going to be imperfect. Hopefully in the future, scholars will have improved our understanding and brought it into increased conformity with the reality that it seeks to describe.

So given the incompleteness of the models and the ever-present likelihood of error and misconceptualization, I think that it's a deep and fundamental error to confuse our understanding of reality with the reality that our understanding seeks to know. Which suggests that reality will always exceed our understanding, will have the ability to surprise us and produce phenomena that are totally unexpected.

I'm inclined to believe that our understanding is an approximation, a work-in-progress, just as it was in ancient or medieval times. We have no problem laughing at medievals for dismissing things that we believe in today, just because those things contradicted their medieval expectations. We imagine that we are oh-so-superior to those benighted fools (whose intelligence was probably just as great as our own).



So getting back to the question I asked at the beginning: What does "supernatural" mean?

I guess that if we define "natural" to mean something like 'In accordance with our current expectations of how reality behaves' (whether our own expectations personally, or those of scientists) and if we define 'supernatural' to mean something like 'How reality really is, even the countless unknown-by-us bits', then I'm a huge believer in the supernatural.

It could also be said that I'm very much a naturalist, except that I have a far more expansive and transcendant concept of 'nature'.

Interesting question about supernatural. I have maintained and still do that God made the laws like gravity... light...darkness...but He can break those laws when He wants to.

 

[LuisDantas]

​

What caused you to stop believing in the supernatural?

Believing in the supernatural is not rational but at one time, I couldn't see that. It seemed the most rational thing in the world to believe in the supernatural. I did so without question. Rational meaning to develop your thoughts based on reason and logic. I suppose I lack a rational mind but didn't know it. The only requirement to be rational, I thought, was to have a brain.

Or perhaps you never believed in them. Good for you. You were born with a more rational mind.

I suspect I kept asking why and how. Perhaps that simply causes one's mind to become more rational overtime.

I don't know if I ever believed in the supernatural. I sometimes felt that I was expected to, or that it would be cool if it existed in ways that fit my convenience. To this day I like fiction about psi-powers, even interactive one.

But belief? No, I don't think I ever had it. It may relate to a general lack of ability to trust due to my raising. I don't really know.

 

[F1fan]

You do not understand.

You're incapable of explaining that is coherent.

Everything leads to God whether you want it too or not.

No it doesn't. God concepts are broad and lack evidence, so this is inaccurate. You don't understand this.