What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

@Frank Apisa,

Wait, so these other beings would not (or could not) be a part of the "nature of existence?"

Why?

E.g. - The idea that things get misplaced, and some mythological creatures are said to "hide" human belongings.

This would be a part of the nature of existence. If you only want to talk about the "reasons" (read: "origins") of existence, you're still omitting numerous other world religions that attribute existence to beings that would fail most definitions of "god(s)."

A
R
This is more arbitrary pick-and-choose.

1 Reply

@Tapout89,

Tapout89 wrote:

While this discussion is meant for those who believe in gods, ghosts, and the like, this discussion is (of course) open to anyone who wants to participate.

I know what I am about to say isn't really a direct response to your question but I still think it has relevance to the over all topic.

I say, what good is discussing something that can't be proven with a good amount of certanty? Gods, ghosts or even aliens lack so much evidence that would other wise be there but isn't. There just isn't enough credible evidence to honestly say. But that all a side, what good is it all?

I think a person who doesn't believe in any gods or ghosts and is a good person is actually better than a person who believes in gods and ghosts and alters their behavior because they think a god are real. If you are only behaving in such a way to obtain some kind of reward, then you are really not worthy of that reward if you ask me. A person who is good becasue they see the value in people and don't do it for some reward or fear of punishment, then they truely are worthy of some kind of praise.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Art, get real, will ya!

If you really need to have the difference between gods and those other things in a discussion about existence and how it is that it IS...then I cannot be of help.

Are there gods?

Do you know?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are there gods?

Do you know?

Many people think the answer is yes and then there are others that think it is bull ****.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4973850)
Quote:
Are there gods?

Do you know?

Quote:
Many people think the answer is yes and then there are others that think it is bull ****.

Yeah, I KNOW that.

I was wondering about Art, though.

So Art...are there gods?

Do you know?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I don't need anything here. But, I'm not trying to add all sorts of qualifiers and categorical distinctions.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Much of your post, failures, is just repetition of what you've already said elsewhere. But let me deal with this:

Quote:

A definition of "God" (<--capitalized) is beyond the topic. Additionally, such a definition would inherently monotheistic, and would bias any exploration of the topic. If we then start defining 'gods' (<--lower case) we'll be here forever. Moreover, why then would we exclude defining all other supernatural beings?

So, then, if I understand you correctly, you propose to debate the subject of the existence or non-existence of something which you decline to define???

No wonder you try to get away with saying whatever comes to your mind. We are, after all, debating an undefined (perhaps undefineable?) subject. Neat trick, that.

1 Reply

@failures art,

I think that Gods are infinite, For every god there has to be one to create it because a God is so complex, much more complex than things just existing and we Know that something as complex as a God could not exist without a creator therefore I think that all Gods are infinite. Drunk

0 Replies

Regardless of how one defines the word "god," Frank is subjectively picking and choosing what he is willing to be agnostic about. He dismisses fairies, leprechauns and Saturnal CPA's but hangs on to the possibility of "a higher power" that he terms "god." For other people "god" as "a higher power" is equally dismissable as fairies, leprechauns, and Saturnal cPA's. Frank has his own criteria for his subjectivity. The error lies in believing that this subjectivity is objective. It is not.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

No, I'm interested in exploring the justifications people have for believing in any supernatural thing. Defining a particular god, or set of gods or beings, is not nessisary for a person to justify their belief, so we can proceed without. I suppose if we were discussing with a particular believer their personal beliefs, such a definitions might add an additional layer.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

I notice that nobody has come up with a definition of 'God' on this thread.

The personification of the wisdom of the ages and anathema to Hasty Henry, flavour of the century merchants, pornbrokers and assorted barkers of the quick and novel fix using selective science as justification as a cover up for pantsdown special pleading. Aaaaah! Nothing new in that.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Regardless of how one defines the word "god," Frank is subjectively picking and choosing what he is willing to be agnostic about.

I am agnostic always...about everything.

I have defined my agnosticism dozens of times...particularly as regards the existence of gods.

I do not know if gods exist; I do not know if gods do not exist; I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess on the issue.

As regards unicorns: I do not know if unicorns exist (could be herds of them on one of the planets circling the nearest star to Sol; I do not know if unicorns do not exist (there may be none anywhere); I do not have enough information to make a meaningful guess about the issue. And if unicorns are defined as invisible and unable to be detected by human senses...I do not even know if the exist or do not exist here on Earth.

Uhhh...I forget what the other things were, but the answer will probably be similar to these.

Since my main area of interest is considerations about how existence IS...I usually do not discuss those other things except when some atheist wants to bring them up. Gods are one of the things I cannot rule out when talking about existence.

Can you?

3 Replies

@failures art,

So, Art, do gods exist?

Do you know?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I have defined my agnosticism dozens of times...particularly as regards the existence of gods.

Hundreds Frank. And that's just on A2K. Thousands if social discourse is taken into account.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am agnostic always...about everything.

Are you still agnostic about the invisible flying spaghetti monster? Shocked

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank... After reading the "explanations" you deliver to the intelligent posters on this subject... Your initials of FA in Australia, would bring to mind.... F-ing A-rsoul , and that wouldn't be a myth.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am agnostic always...about everything.

This means that you can never be sure that any event will not be supernatural. You are effectively denying cause and effect. So for you literally anything could happen at anytime. This as I've said before is absurd. During you lifetime uncountable actions have taken place many witnessed by you and they are all attributable to cause and effect... yet you are agnostic about all future events.

The statement you've made above makes your philosophy untenable. We have pushed you into saying this because you have realized that that is the consequence of your argument when taken to its logical conclusion. Now you've announced it you've shown that for you anything could happen at any time for no apparent reason. The rest of us will rely on cause and effect i.e. the evidence of each and every present moment.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I think that you're an atheist Frank but don't care to admit it because you know that most people consider atheists to be odious creatures.

At least atheists know what to do about religious institutions. As do believers. You must not know what to do about them.

Do you know what to do about the regulation of the relationship between men and women? What proof have you that any one system of regulation of that relationship is right?

Doesn't all non-biological human action derive from a belief of some sort? Where would we be if universal agnosticism had been practised throughout the last 2,000 years. Or 50,000 years.

Prof. Dawkins identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position,

"Well, he would, wouldn't he?" as Mandy Rice Davies might say if she knew he is on his third wife.

The quote made it into the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Hundreds Frank. And that's just on A2K. Thousands if social discourse is taken into account.

Quite right.

0 Replies

What is your justification for believing in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know