Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict.

[shawn001]

No, you using the term supernatural as natural is silly.

 

[shawn001]

If by that you mean the God that dualist theists believe in then yes, that is open to intelligent debate.

Okay here one for you George?


Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.

 

[George-ananda]

Okay here one for you George?


Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist

Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.

I watched it and don't see how it relates to this discussion.

 

[Sapiens]

If by that you mean the God that dualist theists believe in then yes, that is open to intelligent debate.

I've yet to see such a one, they are invariably foolish to the nth degree.

If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.

He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.

He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.

He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.

He would not boast.

He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.

He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.

There would not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.

There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles.

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
-- Mark Twain, Notebook

 

[shawn001]

By the way, I can show you a picture of a pink unicorn, but you cannot show me a picture of God.

 

[shawn001]

I watched it and don't see how it relates to this discussion.

So that's natural yes? Nothing supernatural going on there. But hundreds of years ago that would not have been considered natural but supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

I've yet to see such a one, they are invariably foolish to the nth degree.

If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop to ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better sort of man in these regards.

He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of eternity for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the better sort of man in this regard.

He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a wrong done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for forgiveness be required or desired or expected of that man.

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only Sinner.

He would not be a jealous God -- a trait so small that even men despise it in each other.

He would not boast.

He would keep private His admirations of Himself; He would regard self-praise as unbecoming the dignity of his position.

He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not issue from His lips.

There would not be any hell -- except the one we live in from the cradle to the grave.

There would not be any heaven -- the kind described in the world's Bibles.

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy.
-- Mark Twain, Notebook

I'm not a dualist so won't argue the case but I can say Mark Twain seems to be arguing against the 19th century view of God. Not of much interest to me personally.

 

[George-ananda]

So that's natural yes? Nothing supernatural going on there. But hundreds of years ago that would not have been considered natural but supernatural.

What would have been supernatural hundreds of years ago?. The guy might have been considered fickle or crazy. I still don't see anything relating to this discussion.

 

[shawn001]

What would have been supernatural hundreds of years ago?. The guy might have been considered fickle or crazy. I still don't see anything relating to this discussion.

Because through out history what was sometimes believed to be supernatural of course turns out to have a natural explanation.

 

[shawn001]

Again, there is a difference between paranormal and supernatural, so one one you going to go with here?

 

[Sapiens]

So that's natural yes? Nothing supernatural going on there. But hundreds of years ago that would not have been considered natural but supernatural.

Sir Arthur's Third Law.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[shawn001]

Again, there is a difference between paranormal and supernatural, so one one you going to go with here? Not much but some. Go ahead and give an example

 

[George-ananda]

Again, there is a difference between paranormal and supernatural, so one one you going to go with here?

I'm not clear on what difference you see between the two terms.

 

[shawn001]

Sir Arthur's Third Law.

The man was smart. I am actually involved with a new AI computer, although now its called Cognitive computing. Those are considerations for sure.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm not clear on what difference you see between the two terms.

Always an interesting challenge, differentiating between two nonexistent things.

 

[shawn001]

I'm not clear on what difference you see between the two terms.

For now go with supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

For now go with supernatural.

You're not making sense to me, sorry. Where do you want me to 'go'?

 

[shawn001]

You're not making sense to me, sorry. Where do you want me to 'go'?

Give me an example of something supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

Give me an example of something supernatural.

LOL, Brahman, telepathy, ghosts, reincarnation, and 47 other things.

 

[shawn001]

Well, we are just developing synthetic telepathy.

But lets start with ghosts. You believe in ghosts?