₦airaland Forum

Ok, let me try another tact. Suposing I said to you:

                                               Light particles (photons) from the sun were detected in a mine that is 2km deep. In other words, the entire mine is being illuminated by natural light straight from the sun.

Would would be minded to (initially) accept or reject this claim and why?  How would you arrive at any decision you take?

pilgrim.1:
How?

Exactly, that is the manner of your argumentation.  You state an adhoc fact, and you claim that it MUST be so, because you have stated it.

Just look at your last but one post.

1)

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

2)

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:

and many more.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

Welcome, anytime.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:[list][/list]

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

Again, the same thing as in my reply just above. In real terms, neither of us has seen a man survive a year without a heart; at best, we could only make assumptions on the "norms" that people cannot survive without a functional heart. Taking that as our preconceived assumption (which is not unfounded), we progress to look at our immediate world through the scope of that concept.

Now, just imagine that the statement "I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart" then becomes an argument for informed deductions? Someone comes along and makes another statement:

     'Well, I know of someone who has survived without a heart for several months.'

Ordinarily, we might start out asking all sorts of questions; but the immediate reaction of some of us would be to bellow: "impossible!" Over and against such a reaction would be the simple questions:

       ~  How?

       ~  Who?

       ~  Where?

But the fellow calmly points us to reports such as these:

       US teen lives 118 days without heart

                   or -

        American Teenager Survives 4 Months Without Heart  (Medical News Today)


The basic thing here is that neither you, nor I nor even the gentleman who reported it to us were at the scene to witness the event for ourselves. But whatever our worldviews or preconceptions, it would not affect the report in any degree as to the fact that such even occured. I hope this helps?

I have managed to demonstrated that your a a man.

noetic2:
U said atheism is not science. fine.

The question is, if atheism is not science, what then is it? (from ur perspective). is that too difficult to answer?

Did you not see the definitions I gave above?

noetic2:
So whats the basis of ur atheistic beliefs?

Pardon me, but is that the question of the thread? What is wrong with you? Please, stick to the question of the thread or incur some caustic insults which I shall save until you try to derail the thread again.

pilgrim.1:
Gladly.

Please go back to the very page where you might've copied that from, and you'd see a link that takes you to the relevant page for such an argument. You'll see the link there as -[list][/list]

When you get to the relevant page, you'd read where I quoted William_C in saying that:
[list][/list]

And yet another: in one of wirinet's reply, you find he (or she) had argued:[list][/list]

Compare:

   (a) 'If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system' =
         then take as 'true';

   (b) 'if the information given contradicts with your own store of experience' =
         then reject the whole story.

The above is coming from an . . . atheist?


Now huxley2, do these examples (besides several others) not answer your query? Can we move on beyond your needless repetitions, sir?

OK, let me start with this:

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

Before, I start, let me say that I agree with the main thrust of the comment, although I would have worded it differently to make it more precise.

I put it to you that everybody does this - you do that, atheist, theists, scientist, etc, etc. Ignoring the few loose words, what is wrong with that comment?

Supposing I said the following to you:

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

Would you accept this as true or false and how you came to your conclusion? How is that different from the comment above.

Now supposing I were to say instead;

I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart.

Would you accept that as true or false and how did you go about arrive at your decision?

noetic2:
Since u are an atheist. Isn't it logical that u set the ball rolling.

Do u argue that atheism IS science?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity. No, atheism is NOT science.

And that is my final position.( On this one, I am dogmatic ).

noetic2:
This is ridiculous.

Why not state ur own opinion first. which of the atheistic groups do u subscribe to? and whats the basis for it?

is it in any way related to science?

Did you see anywhere in the question that my own opinion was required?

skyone:
@Huxley

spell out your own understanding/definition of an atheist and i will treat your post.

You can define atheism any number of ways

1) Simple or weak atheism

Is the view that there are on good evidence to belief in a god or gods

OR

The lack of a belief in god or gods (sometimes referred to as "no belief in god"

2) Strong atheism

A categorical assertion that there are no god(s) (sometimes referred to as "no-god belief)


Now, is any of this science? Over to you!

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

I knew somehow na shakara you dey do all this while, that's why I like to draw you in and waste your shakara. Glad to see you had not rest your case and want to be smarted yet again. School up.

if anyone was intimidated, it should clearly read: you. I clearly explained what I meant, and also pointed it out as a reminder when it was obvious that some like you probably didn't even take a good look. From all points considered, your complaint here is rather comical, for it should be clear I used "atheistic" as a qualifier (adjectivally) rather than giving an encyclopedia quote. If you had a clue about the "class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies", you'd not have been making the same repetitious arguments that go nowhere.

I just explained myself . . AGAIN . .  above.

Oh amuse me the more. You obviously are as ignorant as your pretences. Is his own position any less dogmatic? So, what am I to do with his arbitrary scale?

That is as dogmatic, huxley2. Someone who does not know would truly live his life as one who is not sure - more correctly an agnostic, not a "de facto atheist". An agnostic is not one that wants to push his dogmatism against theism; and I'm really sorry you're making matters worse for your own arguments. I hope you'd stand to defend his "de facto atheism" when I point you to his unintellectual crap?

I entertained you thus far on the assumption that you might surprise me with a spark of your pretended intelligence - I was wrong. If you only understood yourself, you probably would have made it easier for others to discuss with you. I don't do prisoners, huxley2, and i've said earlier on that my response would be a no-nonsense approach when you guys deviate from what is being discussed to unnecessary distractions.

Can you show me any of the atheists argumenst that is constructed along these lines?

3. Atheistic Logic
To that end, I would not use Christian theism as the basis of my argument, since the basic outlook of many atheistic logic is simply defined in terms of the "need to disprove" the belief of theists. Such atheistic logic was laid bare in my reply to William_C:

● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

Of course, any thinker would immediately see the fallacy in such types of wasteful arguments that only weaken the position of the person using them; and it also reveals the intellectual laziness of such debaters.

pilgrim.1:
Improbable is not the same thing as a categorical "there is NO God". Such semantics do not "PROVE" anything for your own atheism nor any one else's.

You have not given me that "uncontrovertible evidence for God" - you bring it forth, rather than using the usual atheistic logical fallacy to adduce "proof" for scoring cheap. I remain as dogmatic as Dawkins et al and owe no one any apology. You never considered atheists who are as dogmatic, but you have problems with a theist being equally dogmatic. Please amuse me more.

You seem to like to use the terminology "logical fallacy", probably thinking that you would impress or intimidate your readers.  But it is obvious that you do NOT know the meaning of this terminology.  The is no such thing as an "atheistic logical fallacy" amongst the class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies.  Of course, you are welcome to introduce a new logical fallacy if non of the existing ones quite address the issue you are addressing.

Can you define what an "atheistic logical fallacy" is, and why it fails to meet the rules of logic?


To further show just how ignorant you are, let me give you Dawkin's position, as describe in his book, The God Delusion. He defines a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being Absolute certainty that there is a God and 7 Absolute certainty that there is no God, Pages 50 and 51.

He defines himself as being on level 6, which means "Very Low Probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'"

Does this sound to you like a dogmatist?    I would have been surprised but I have come to learn that Your Ignorance knows no bounds, and as a result of your religiously derived benightedness, seek to malign the character of people and/or misrepresent them.

noetic2:
what then have atheists been hiding under?

This is idiotic. Make an argument, not just an assertion, stupid.

pilgrim.1:
The best you can say is that your atheism is not contigent on naturalism. Even so, that is a difficult one to take in, as the strain in your arguments thus far are tending to the very thing you tried to dissociate yourself from.

Such a priori arguments do not establish anything for atheism nor the fact that there is a supernatural reality.

You're skewing away from the basic premise I have repeatedly simplified for discussants like you. No atheist on Nairaland has a clear grasp on his philosophical assumption - I havent seen any as yet. Many of you guys talk about philosophy/philosophical and yet are very far from the meaning of that term. Can you maintain focus and not reharsh deflections in this thread, hmm?

etc. . . etc. . . etc. How have they dismissed the basic claim of theism: the supernatural - the very thing that many people's atheism reject out of hand? Such unphilosophical lagical fallacies are the things I outlined as unnecessary repetitions. These repetitions do not establish anything for atheism - NOTHING at all.

I'm not the one cross-breeding atheism with science - that infact is the very fallacy that I've been trying ever so many times to expose. So, glad to know you stated the highlighted part - so that any atheist assuming a reference (directly or indirectly) to the idea that atheism = science is making a non-starter.

Dawkins has his onions confused - we all know that. I hope you won't start yelling out of breath if I constantly reference him for typical atheistic hollow assumptions? In other ways, it does not take any intellectual gymnastics to understand that science has also made it possible for one to be an intellectually fulfilled theist.

Oh, impress me!   I wonder why you nearly shot down the roof the first time I brought that to your notice! Lol, huxley2 dear. . . make we discuss, not dance around, eh?

Is atheism not as dogmatic? Oh yes, I already saw this point and noted in my brief 10 points:

       8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

I deliberately used the term "naturalism" instead of "atheism", because the former is what undergirds many atheist positions. Whether I used 'atheism' instead of 'naturalsim' makes absolutely no difference in that observation.

[size=18pt]Absolutely NO. Hypothetical or not, I'm a dogmatist in thsi regard and offer no apologies for it. If there are atheists who think it their birthright to be as dogmatic and unyielding, why should I owe any atheist a baulk for my own worldview?[/size]

I've been addressing your arguments and questions. I don't see you do the same. My observations stand as they are until I see a change to move me to strike a number of them out.

Uhm, did you not just refer to Dawkins? He makes his atheism seem like it is equal to science. You may not like that, but it's not my call.

I gave given you the various a priori arguments for atheism (or against theism).  Non of these is a PROVE for the non-existence of god, but they are evidence, when taken collectively makes the case for the Judeo-Christian conceptualisation of God improbable.

I should really rest my case here as there no point debating with a ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST as you declare yourself to be.  I don't know of any atheist who will not change their position upon being given uncontrovertible evidence for God.  If you know of any, please I would like to see what they said.  Here are some of the comments that I know some prominent atheist have made, which for them would prove uncontrovertibly that there is a god and they would change their position.

1)  If bad things only happen to bad people. (May have been Victor Stenger or Sam Harris)

2)  If there was a loud voice from the sky declaring that he was god. (I think this was Christ Hitchens)

3)  If he see a large deposit in his bank account (Woody Allen, slight tongue-in-cheek)

There are many more but I cannot think of who or what they said right now.  My position is closer to 1) above.

There is no point in debating an ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST like yourself, for absolute dogmatist is the pinnacle of benightedness.  I am glad you have admitted to your dogmatist.

I rest my case.

Would you change your positions with regards to the resurrection of Jesus if his bones were discovered in some grave today and it was proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these bones belonged to Jesus?

Do any atheists argue that Atheism IS Science?

Please, discuss.

pilgrim.1:
If atheism is not contigent on naturalism, what is its contingency? Please just let me know that one, and then we can take it from there.

Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism as these are two different philosophical positions.  Atheist arguments from time immemorial have been contingent on pure a priori reasoning.  Take for instance Epicurus's arguments about the problem of evil:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?  Epicurus

This is simple a priori reasoning and uses none of the tenets of science, but is such an effective argument no theists have been able to address it satisfactorily.

In fact, in pre-scientisfic societies, many of the arguments againsts theism (by implication for atheism)  were contingent on such a priori reasoning and on simple logic and coherence. Arguments like:

1)  How to tell which god(s) amongst all the various gods was/were the true god.

2) Arguments for incoherence and inconsistency of the message of god

3) The problem of evil (which I referred to above)

4) The ontological arguments

5) Arguments from the hiddenness of god(s)

etc, etc, etc.

Non of these arguments are contingent on naturalism, or on science, yet they are very effective arguments.   So to say atheism is contingent on naturalism (or science) is simply wrong for one can be an atheist without having a clue about science.  Epicurus and the epicureans were atheists with little or no knowledge of the knowledge that science gives.

Now, modern atheists are in the fortunate position in that they can now add the results of scientific methods to their arsenal of arguments against theism.  To paraphrase Dawkins, "Science has made is possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

pilgrim.1:
Please stay focused - we're done with that non-starter. Naturalism is a doctrine, and we've been through that in several other threads. The first time I pointed it out, you got riled up, remember?

On what contingency, huxley2?

Absolutely, naturalism is a DOCTRINE, in the general philosophical sense of the word doctrine, according to which a doctrine is a point of view.  But there is a difference between naturalism and religion or supernaturalism.

Religions and supernaturalisms tend to be dogmatic in their approach to explaining the nature of reality.  They have a prescribed dogma, adherence to which is required for votaries of the religion.  Few religions, in any, change their position in the light of better evidence.  This is dogmatism.

Let me test out your level of dogmatism with the following question:

Would you change your positions with regards to the resurrection of Jesus if his bones were discovered in some grave today and it was proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these bones belonged to Jesus?


YES or NO?  (I know this is a hypothetical question, but it is also a simple question which should admit of a simple answer)

pilgrim.1:
I could very well say so, because that is what MANY PEOPLE say when self-identified as atheists.  I gave you wirinet's example earlier to buttress this point, and if you have quarrels with that, then please address you ire accordingly towards wirinet. This is why again I said that many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing.

Who are these many people?  Face up to the arguments I put to you and leave the subjective stuff like "many atheists do not have a clue what they're arguing".  Why you you think you have a clue and others do not?  Address the arguments and let them speak for themselves.  I have warned you before about your tendencies to dwell on personalities - this is not a way of argumentation.

pilgrim.1:
Atheism is NOT science; and whatever adjective you add to it or not does not take away from the basic premise. If your atheism is not contingent on naturalism, please tell us what it is contigent upon.

Who said atheism is science?  Who implied atheism is science.  Why did you have to say that?  This is the sort of mischaracterisation is has become a habit with you, and it smacks of dishonesty.

Pastor AIO:
Would we say Lucretius was a Naturalist?

Oh yes, that is how he described himself and on current evidence he turns out to be right, in my opinion.

The major difference between Lucretius and a modern-day Naturalist is the standard of justification of the naturalist position.  Lecretius did not have the epistemic tools to justify his position as much as a modern-day naturalist has.

Lecretius and the other Epicurean belonged to the school of thought called Atomists - essentially these people believed that there were entities called atoms. Obviously, they lacked the tools to justify their position.

Note that holding a position is not a big deal - the big deal is actually justifying that position.

So Lucretius position was speculative, based on what he had observed, but he lasked the tools for justifying it.  To distinguish the Lucretius type of Naturalism from the Naturalism founded on modern science, I used the adjective "modern".   Modern naturalism is justified by science.  

Of course, that does not mean that Modern Naturalism is ultimately correct.  It simply means that, being contingent on science, we have not yet seen a contravention of its tenets.

Well done Pastor.  Am glad you know about Lucretius.  How about Democritus?  Check him out.

Ah, yes.  I saw this one but skipped it because it made absolute no sense; not that all you other post which I address make sense, I hasten to add.  Ok, let's give it a go now;

@huxley2 (and any atheist who might be interested),

Let me outline what I mean by this 'elusive approach' (as one of my 'friends' called it). It's because I'm very interested in continuing this dialogue that I would once again attempt to make things simple.

1. The basic premise:
If you notice, the basic premise in my discussions funnels down to just one thing, which has well been captured in William_C's oft-repeated quote: to present some kind of "evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view''. As a necessary assumption therefore, I understand that 'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people. This is exemplified in wirinet's assertion earlier that: "the atheist assumes all things must of necessity be narrowed to his naturalistic worldview". That is the very thing I'm challenging by the various posts submitted so far.

We have been through this many times before.  Atheism is not contingent on Naturalism.  Example, I have got about 15 textbooks on my text right now and none of them discuss naturalism at all.


Naturalism is a philosophical position that gets is inspiration primarily from science and the scientific method  and is a relatively new worldview and by necessity post-dates science.

Atheism addresses the existence and belief in gods or deities.


Is is possible for one to be an atheist (usually a simple atheist) and also a supernaturalist as there is no contradiction in these positions.  It is really hard to get a sensible debate when you constantly and dishonestly mischaracterise these positions.  (This is called the straw-man fallacy, but we shall come to that later)

Atheism has existed probably since humans developed cognitive powers, BUT naturalism is only about 200 - 300 years old.  How the hell could say "'naturalism' is the underlying principle in the atheism of many people"?

Now, to acquit yourself, please address these questions:

1)  How old is atheistic philosophy

2)  What is modern naturalism and how old is it.  (note I added the adjective "modern" to stress the naturalism derived from modern science as opposed to other forms of naturalism)

It is hardly worth continuing if such elementary concepts pose you sucg difficulties.   I shall address the remainder of this post when I see your response to my questions above.

pilgrim.1:
Hi huxley2,

I am almost in shock that you would ask such questions! Infact, amused as to even consider them a waste of time to reply to them! Have I not explained them previously? Did you ever check the links I left that point to the page where I ALREADY explained them? No offence, but if this discussion is not going anywhere, the atheist should retire and save us all this needless repetitions.

Can you point me to the link?

pilgrim.1:
@skyone,

How body?  I can well understand your concerns. On the other hand, the reason why I joined the discussion is to point out that very thing: that atheism as held in many atheists' mindset is simply a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position" (borrowing from Pastor AIO). Often, after sitting back to watch atheists discuss their worldview, I then discussed my approach in engaging atheist thinking in this thread, and then repeated the 10 points that their logic could be summarised to -

      1. not all atheists have the same outlook on the world

      2. some atheists tend to believe in what 'strict atheism' rejects or denies

      3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

      4. we haven't found any 'proof' or 'evidence' for most atheist assertions

      5. atheism means more than the simplistic definition held by the average typical atheist

      6. atheism does not "disprove" theistic claims

      7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our known world

      8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

      9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue

    10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments.

It turns out that we're seeing the same thing repeatedly; and so far I'm inclined again to agree that it is a "reaction based on a bias. . rather than an objective position".

However, we should be sensitive to other people's feelings, though. Just like Tùdor observed just above, this subject is a very sensitive one for many people, both theists and atheists alike. We'll do our best to bring them round to consider something about their position that many of them may not have previously given good thought to.

Cheers.

What do these words mean?

1) Objective

2) Dogma or dogmatic, or dogmatist

3) fallacious logicum

It would help tremendously if you could illustrate you response with how each word or terminology applies to the atheism and theist worldviews.

Thankz

Pastor AIO:
Yes we are truly crossing wires because your 'really simple questions' is in no way going back to basics. However I'll answer them (as a leisurely diversion from the main issue).

1) For me, Spacetime is the field in which natural events occur. These events are separated from each other by various degrees of space and time. For instance London is separated from Lagos by about 6,000 miles of space. Dawn is separated from dusk by about 12 hours of time. I do not include matter and energy in my most basic definition of Spacetime although I believe that matter and energy can influence spacetime, they are not aspects of Spacetime.

Like I said before, if I have a precognitive vision of tomorrow's news then that would flout the Natural Law that says that influence/impressions have to travel across space and across time in a futureward direction.

2) Question 1 is pretty much the same as question 2 so I'll deal with them together. Afterall to transcend the limitations of spacetime is to flout Nature (as defined as occurring within spacetime).
The very idea behind Sympathetic Magic requires that such Nature be transcended. If I have a Doll named Huxley and I get a nail and drive it into my Huxley's arm, a certain other Huxley in Manchester ought not to be aware of that. If however at the very moment I drove the nail into my doll's arm Huxley2 felt a sharp pain in his arm then somehow my act has been transmitted across space to have an effect on your arm. also the effect of my act could be instantaneous which means that there has been no time for any influence from my act to have travelled all the way to manchester across spacetime to you. According to our definition of Nature what happened happened through supernatural means.

Now you can dismiss this all as voodoo rubbish so I'll provide another example from the annals of scientific enquiry. I'm sure that you've heard of the EPR experiment. Imagine two particles travelling many miles apart. What would you say if we altered one of them and observed an immediate change in the other many miles away? How did the other know that an alteration was taking place in it's partner? How did the information travel all those miles faster than the speed of light (a physical impossibility). The experiment and it's implications are better explained in these quotes:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward148.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality

3) a lump of rock is an object that exhibits Natural properties and possibly also Supernatural properties.

Pastor, thankz for the EPR references. I had come across this many years ago, and until I read your post could not remember it. In fact, the EPR illustrate the key thrust of my position - which is that;

How do you know that what you have observe does not obey a law(s) currently unknown to us?

Are we aware of ALL the possible FIELDS that envelops the universe of space-time? Could these particle be influencing each other along such unknown fields?

You are probably familiar with the multi-nation multi-billion dollar electron accelerator (Hadron?) experiment to investigate the Higgs field, are you not? Could these electrons be interacting along the Higgs field.

Can you think of any phenomena that were previously unexplained and consequently thought supernatural before electro-magnetism was discover? The Northen Lights comes to mind.

wirinet:
Healing is a misunderstood word and the healing process is still poorly misunderstood by many people, even some doctors. The most fraud perpetuated by modern day Christianity is through the use of healing as a tool for deceiving Christianity.

Faith healing is an aspect that medical science had not studied but which had served humanity for thousands of years before modern medicine. But is is vaguely recognized that the secret to a speedy recovery from a deadly decease sometimes requires some level of faith or inner strength. It may be obtained by religious convictions, by a believe in a loved one or a strong will to live. Because the extent to which the mind has power over the body had not been fully analyzed medically. That is why when new drugs are being tested a placebo is given to a second set of test patient with the same condition being analyzed to cancel out the effect of faith healing. If you give out cockroach eggs to 100 people with malaria, chances are that at least 5% would record a cure.

I had practice faith healing in my youth days and a lot of times it works. The mechanism by which it works sometimes involves hypnotism, a certain state of mind had been known to produce endomorphines and other chemicals in the body that aids the healing process. But there is a dangerous aspect of faith healing is where the body is deceived into not perception of pain in a region of the body. Pain is usually the bodies warning mechanism that something is wrong, then comes fever and other signs. Now if these signs are not perceived as a result of faith healing, the condition would deteriorate till the point that by the time the actual condition is perceived it would be too late to treat. That is why i think medical profession should look into faith healing.

Problem with healing by pastors is that they have very poor healing statistics. If you have a 100 people requiring healing, at best 10 people might be healed after their shenanigans, the rest are given the usual excuses of God's time is the best or they do not possess enough faith. That means success rate of less than 10%. Contrast that with a doctor that is only able to heal 10% of his patients. If his success rate is not up to 90 %, i am sure his license would be withdrawn, no excuse would be entertained.

Interesting. Can someone be healed of, say sicklecell anaemia of the fullblown variety?

Pastor AIO:
Huxley, for someone that can be quite astute and intelligent at times, there are also times when you can be quite obtuse.

I thought that we had already discussed about whether Nature referred to Stuff or to Processes.

anyway sha, no, a lump of rock is not space or time. It exists in space and time. It has position and is extended in space and also exists over a span of time.

How do I fit objects into my conceptualisation of nature? For a start objects that are masses give off gravitational force. This gravitational force field is a projection into space. So Objects will have natural effects on other objects.

I hope all this is not like your forgetting the meaning of existentialism.

I apologise for appearing to be a nuisance, but I think you ideas are far too loose and I reckon they need tightening up. That is why I am asking all these questions.

Now suppose we are trying to build an ontological domain of existence. Under your conceptualisation you would have the following categories:

1) Nature (Space-time)

2) Objects in Nature (or matter eg lump of rock, coal, goat, atom of carbon, etc, etc)

3) Supernatural ( whatever they are)

Do you agree with this? Why don't you have objects as part of nature. Where would you categorise things like energy, processes, events, numbers? If you do not agree with this, please, can you provide the main categories within your preferred ontological domain?

Thankx

Pastor AIO:
3) a lump of rock is an object that exhibits Natural properties and possibly also Supernatural properties.

Pastor, is a lump of rock space or is it time? Where does it fit in your conceptualisation of nature? In fact, where do you fit OBJECTS in your conceptualisation of nature?

Pastor AIO:
I can't believe that we are still on different pages.

I'm not trying to play semantics.  I'm  not making any object contingent on its semantic definition.  I'm making a CONCEPT contingent on it's semantic definition.  There is a vast different.

Nature is not an object.  Nature is a concept of one way the world works that is contrasted with the super-natural.  In order to know what you are talking about when you say Nature we need to have it defined well.  Do you get that?

I don't know if it was on this thread or the other one about 'what is supernatural' that I said that even the word Everything makes a distinction from somethings, or Nothing. 

So Existence is defined against another concept called Non-existence.

From the definition of Universe I know that the statement "The Earth is The Universe" is wrong. Can you tell me Why?

No Huxley, being a mystic does not mean that you called everything that you don't understand supernatural.   I wonder if my points are going totally over your head. 

Once you have a definition, then what determines how you classify events rests on whether or not they fit the definition.  It is an arbitrary definition but the one we are working with at the moment.  Nature relies on Space and Time and it's influences traversing space and time.  Armed with this definition there is not way that Newton would think that modern technology were supernatural. 


First I want to make sure that you are aware that we are using a working definition of Nature at the moment.  We can know that it is not obeying another natural law because it does not require space or time to operate.  Since all natural laws require space and time to operate it is easy to check if a phenomenon seems reliant on space time.  IF not then it cannot be a Natural phenomenon.

OK, it is obvious that we are just crossing over each other.  But I think it would help tremendously if we go back to basic and try and answer some really simple questions, some of which you have been avoiding:

1)  Give examples of things that do NOT operate in space-time.  ( I wonder if you included matter/energy in your definition of space.  If you don't, can you justified your definition of space?)

2) Give examples of things that are constantly flouting the laws of nature.


To address one point from above - you said Nature is NOT an objects.

3)  What is a lump of rock, according to your definition of Nature?.

What is the Christian view of Polygamy? Is it an immoral act and is it outlawed in the bible. What did Jesus have to say about polygamy or any form of multiple marriage?

Pastor AIO:
I glad you said the above first because it shows that you haven't yet quite got what I'm getting at, so I know more explanation is necessary.  What I said doesn't tie in with what you said earlier, neither can it for a number of reasons.

First the word definition.  Definition,  by definition ( ) puts a limit around something.  De - Fine.  -Fine is the end, the limit, the boundary.  In-finite.  Is without boundary, without limit.  So when you define something, you give it boundaries.  Not only do we know what it it but also we know what it is not.  We know that beyond certain boundaries what we find is no longer a part of the de-fined thing.

A definition does cannot include everything that exists.  Your definition of Nature is not a definition at all.

Ah, you are now try to play semantics now, aren't.   "Definitions" encapsulate our way of understanding the world and reality.  "Defintions" do not instantiate reality.  So by making the object contingent on its semantic definition is wrong.  You approach would suggest that an entity only comes into existence after it has been defined.  This is clearly absurd.

You say a "definition" cannot include everything that exists -  how about the definition of the words "existence", or reality, or the universe, or the multiverse?

How would you fit these word and concept with your concept of definition?

Pastor AIO:
Funny that you should use Newton as an example.  I don't think Newton would be that phased and I know he certainly won't think our modern technologies were supernatural.  Newton was a lot deeper that many people imagine.  Principia Mathematica was only the tip of the iceberg. 
Now, if Newton were to use our definition he might be amazed at the wonderful things of nature but he would not think any of our technologies were supernatural.  They all employ forces and effects that traverse space and time. 

If newton were however, using our definition, to see a glass dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere he would call it non natural.  If by definition, in nature bodies have to travel through space then such vanishing and reappearing elsewhere could be occurring according to some Law of the Universe but it wouldn't be a Natural Law.  A spiritual or divine Law perhaps but not a Natural law.

I used Newton here for illustration.  In fact, Newton was a mystic, so in that frame of mind, if he were alive today, for the first few hours or days of his ressurection, it is likely that he would consider our modern technology as mystical (or supernatural) products.  Obviously, as he catches up with modern science, he will soon learn that these are the products of naturalistic science.


Anyhow, the substantive point was this - IF something flouts currently known laws of nature, how can we know that there is no other laws of nature that it obeys?  This is the questions you keep avoiding and I keep asking.  Please, if you respond to nothing else, attempt just this one.

Pastor AIO:
Laws of Nature are flouted all the time and it has been evidenced.

Can you oblige us with some examples of the flouting of the laws of Nature, stating specifically what particular laws of nature were flouted?

I bet he has been to see his doctor and he got some bad report from the doc.

Pastor AIO:
Okay let me try again. Under a natural regime (according to my definition of Natural) in order for influence to pass from one body to another it will have to do so across space. In order for the influence of the Sun's gravity to pass to earth it does so across space.
In order for light from the Sun to brighten up your day the light has to travel across space from the Sun to the earth. This trajectory of influence across space fits in with Nature's requirements.

So far, I agree. That ties in with the definition of nature I gave earlier, according to which nature is matter, energy, time, space, events, experience.

Pastor AIO:
If however a glass of water on my table were to disappear and instantaneously reappear on a shelf without seeming to travel across space then that would flout the laws of Nature. It would be non natural.

Agree also. To flout the laws of Nature would be non-natural. But here-in lies the problems. Do we have knowledge of the full sample space of the laws of nature.

For instance, if you were to ressurrect Isaac Newton today in the mindset of a 16/17th century man, in the first few hours or days of in this "new" world, he would probably consider all our modern technologies as flouting the laws of nature. Newton was unaware of quantum physics, of electronics, of electrons, of genetics, of strong/weak nuclear force, etc, etc. In the eyes of 16/17th century man, the modern world is non-natural.

If your glass instantly dematerialises and rematerialises at a different location, how are we to know if it is not obeying some yet-to-be-discovered natural law?

Pastor AIO:
Not only do bodies and their influence have to travel through Space in a natural regime, but also they have to travel through time. They must travel through time in a futurewards direction. Influence cannot pass from the present into the past. Only from the present into the future.

(By influence I mean something that Flows from one thing to another. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/influence

What I'm saying is that in nature all influence passes through space and also through time in a futureward direction. If we have any indication of influence passing otherwise then we have an instance of the non-natural.

Further, of the main natural laws that we currently know, how often do these get flouted?

1) Have you ever seen the law of gravity flouted?

2) Have you ever seen a half-duck half-crocodile creature?

3) Have you ever seen contravension of the law of conservation of energy?

Pastor AIO:
I have offered a definition of Natural that says that influence passes from one event or object in a futureward direction across space.

Perception is nothing more than an impression made by an event upon the senses.

The impression cannot precede the event in a Natural world.

ie. I cannot perceive something before it occurs. I cannot see rosy fingered dawn before the sun is about to rise.

If I do see it (ie receive an impression of the dawn on my senses) accurately prior to the sun actually rising then it could not have occurred by natural means.

Pardon me. Can you try again? What is the SUPERNATURAL, according to your definition of the NATURAL?

Pastor AIO:
Perception is nothing more than an impression made upon the brain by something else.  that something else, for example a meteor, can make other impressions.  To stick with the example of a meteor an impression can be made on the earth in the form of a crater. 

The laws of natures say that the crater is formed subsequent to the impact of the meteor, never before. 

Similarly according to the laws of nature an impression can not be formed on the mind prior to the event that causes the impression. 

Whether or not there were minds then (another interesting idea but miles divorced from the trend of this thread now) the fact of nature is that impressions were being made by objects upon each other.  The laws of nature tell us that marks of water erosion upon landscape cannot have been formed prior to water being present on that landscape. 
So it seems that whether or not there is a mind to perceive events those events are still believed to interact according to the laws of nature. 

When I say prescience or precognition is a sign of supernatural I don't mean that as something special to minds and cognitive faculties. What is supernatural is the fact that the impressions from the future can travel across time in an nonnatural direction and make an impression on my mind. It is the travelling of the impression that is non natural not the perception itself.

I just don't get it. Your definition seem too loose. So far what I have gathered from your comments is that supernatural is inherently related to perception. Is that a correct characterisation?

Pastor,

Am still waiting to see your response on this one. As the only voice of reason and wisdom in the camp of the supernaturalist, a lot rests on your shoulders, you know? Just kidding.

Pastor AIO:
It is not the state of mind that is supernatural, but rather the manner of perception. Natural vision sees events via light waves that travel across space and time. Any sort of visual perception of reality that doesn't depend on lightwaves travelling across space/time would, according to my definition of Natural, be considered non-natural.


Something can either be considered natural via aspects of nature that we are as yet unfamiliar with or it can be supernatural. Yes. But there is a school of thought that says that the easiest explanation is the best and most elegant.

According to a definition of nature that says influence has to traverse space and time (in a futureward direction), precognitive visions has to be supernatural.

Or can you think of how a future event can naturally make an impression on a mind without destroying the definition of nature.

Is this definition restricted to entities capable of perception? Like I said ealier, was there a natural world 10 billions years ago? How would you answer that in the light (pun intended ) of your definition?