What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

Forums: Supernatural, Religion, Philosophy, Spirituality, Spirtual
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 6,479 • Replies: 52

[+8] - ossobuco - 05/08/2012Disbelieve is an active word. Many who have no belief in the supernatural don't put any energy into their lack of it, much less spend time coming up with "justifications". This is an...
[+5] - rosborne979 - 05/10/2012Disbelief in the supernatural is more of an assumption that it is something which needs to be justified. But if I had to try to justify the assumption I would start with the observation that there...

@hamilton,

A common justification for disbelieving the supernatural is the tendency to not believe in what cannot be seen. This, in turn, implies an unjustified trust in that what we see and how we understand it is correct.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

Disbelieve is an active word.
Many who have no belief in the supernatural don't put any energy into their lack of it, much less spend time coming up with "justifications". This is an absence or void, not some clever set of positions.

3 Replies

@ossobuco,

Good point.

0 Replies

Jamed Randi, an Engineering degree from Purdue, an understanding of the Scientific Method, and natural skepticism.

Rap

0 Replies

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

No excuse, sir.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

hamilton wrote:

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

I disbelieve u.

David

0 Replies

Quote:

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

If it exists, then it is natural, not supernatural (ghost or no ghost);
i.e., any ghosts who exist r definitionally natural,
whether thay r loitering around inside human bodies, or elsewhere.

David

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Couldn't have said it any beter! Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

hamilton wrote:

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

De Debbil made me do it.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Osso, that is the point of my disagreement with Frank. My "atheism" in an inactive one. I do not believe in a No-God (and worship Him); I simply ignore the false or absurd question of His existence. I wish I had put it as well as you did.

0 Replies

@hamilton,

Hamilton wrote:

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

Not enough evidence, hamilton, not enough evidence.

1 Reply

@hamilton,

Speculative Materialism

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Hamilton wrote:

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

Thomas wrote:

Not enough evidence, hamilton, not enough evidence.

Did u search for it??

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence ?

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence ?

Absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence of evidence... Wink

But puns aside, your point is a good one.

I think it has already been said, but the term "supernatural" implies something more awesome than nature, and if nature is all that exists, the supernatural, by definition, doesn't exist.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence ?

Not in general, no. In this case, it is because complex entities are statistically improbable. And an entity would have to be pretty complex in order to, for example ---

create universes,
intelligently design every celestial body in it and every living being on those celestial bodies,
listen to everyone's prayers,
obsess about everyone's sex lives,
selectively forgive our sins,
impregnate virgins,
have the thus-conceived son tortured to death to save us all,
resurrect said son, and
fix to destroy everything in the eventually-to-occur apocapolypse

to describe just the most prominent supernatural being that's purported to exist.

The statistical chances for the existence of any entity complex enough to achieve all those tasks is practically negligible. Unless there's credible evidence for it, and there isn't, it makes sense to assume it's fiction.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

But in all fairness, the complexity isn't being questioned. That the universe is more complex than any of us can hope to fathom in the near future is pretty clear. It's the entity bit that has people rearing.

Quote:

The statistical chances for the existence of any entity complex enough to achieve all those tasks is practically negligible.

Based on which numbers can you make that assertion? Do we know what the requirements are? We know to some extent, but not near everything.

2 Replies

I claim two justfications for "disbelief" in the supernatural: (1) the concept makes no sense to me, and (2) I am not obliged to believe in it.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I believe you are asking a question that is not answerable. It's impossible to "count" all the variables of what we don't know.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You are probably right.
I share the notion that a creator god is unlikely. But I have nothing in the way of facts to back up that notion. I just don't need an entity that is responsible for 'creation' to form an understanding of the world that I can relate to.

I think it is very likely that the complexities of the universe are so incomprehensible to us that we relate by means of anthropomorphism. God is an obvious one, but perhaps there are others hidden in the assertions of modern science?

1 Reply

What is your justification for disbelieving in the supernatural?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know