Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

No seer, what you are saying is that we can't claim that this universe wasn't created without begging the question. But, this universe is all that we do know of, so we are justified in calling it natural as opposed to your alternative of supernatural. You on the other hand have no evidence of a creator, therefore it is you who is begging the question. Give it up while your behind, seer.

But there is no supernatural in my definitions Jim, and by my definitions of natural and non-natural you (we) do not know which this universe is. Tell me logically why you are justified in calling that universe natural. Apart from asserting an opinion? How would a natural universe differ from a non-natural universe? What would we look for?

[JimL]

But there is no supernatural in my definitions Jim, and by my definitions of natural and non-natural you (we) do not know which this universe is. Tell me logically why you are justified in calling that universe natural. Apart from asserting an opinion? How would a natural universe differ from a non-natural universe? What would we look for?

The point seer, is that your argument is that natural means uncreated, and you don't like the idea of the universe being uncreated, so you want to say that it is created and therefore that it is supernatural. In reality, that isn't what natural means, natural when refering to the universe, simply means the universe of our perception, of our experience. It has nothing to do with whether or not it was created. You can believe it was created if you want, but whether it was or not, it is still of the same "nature." Just admit it seer, this is simply a religious ideology you are trying to push. Call it created or supernatural if it makes you feel good. It doesn't matter.

[Tassman]

But there is no supernatural in my definitions Jim,

Yet you posit that a disembodied intelligence created the universe. 'Natural' bodies do not have an immaterial component, this by definition is 'supernatural'.