Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Justify that distinction logically (without arguing in a circle).
    Seer - we're in the realm of language. Words mean what we define them to mean. There is no logical argument to be had for any definition for any word. You're being a bit preposterous.

    Why don't you try giving me a logical argument for the distinction between "soft" and "hard" without arguing in a circle.
    Or try "stupid" and "intelligent."
    Or "Living" and "Nonliving"
    Or "Logical" and "Illogical"

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So a computer is both natural and not natural?
    Depends on context, and which meaning you are using.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    When we say made by human hands Carp we are speaking of intelligence (or the rational) making something not found or made by the non-rational forces of nature (like our computer). Why you would disagree with this is beyond me.
    Seer, if we accept your definition and assume that "not made by a human being" is actually "not made by an intelligent force," all we end up with is:

    Natural (not made by intelligence): The universe is "not natural" if it arose from a god and "natural" if it did not.
    Natural (not investigatable by science): The universe is natural whether or not it arose from a god, because the universe we live in can be investigated by science (as far as we know).
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Seer - we're in the realm of language. Words mean what we define them to mean. There is no logical argument to be had for any definition for any word. You're being a bit preposterous.

      Depends on context, and which meaning you are using.
      So we don't have to define supernatural to mean non-investigatable? Thank you...


      Seer, if we accept your definition and assume that "not made by a human being" is actually "not made by an intelligent force," all we end up with is:

      Natural (not made by intelligence): The universe is "not natural" if it arose from a god and "natural" if it did not.
      Correct. I see no problem here.

      Natural (not investigatable by science): The universe is natural whether or not it arose from a god, because the universe we live in can be investigated by science (as far as we know).
      Only if we accept the assertion that that non-natural is not investigatable by science. I'm so glad we cleared that up!
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        So we don't have to define supernatural to mean non-investigatable? Thank you...
        We don't HAVE to. There is nothing NECESSARY about it. But that is how the word has been defined and how it is commonly used, as has been repeated now, ad nauseum. If the word bothers you, use a different one. You can call "things science cannot investigate" anything you wish. How about "burzenflogen?"

        And if you want to redefine "supernatural," to mean something else, knock yourself out. Just make sure you provide your new definition when you talk to someone - or they won't have a clue what on earth you're talking about.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Correct. I see no problem here.

        Only if we accept the assertion that that non-natural is not investigatable by science. I'm so glad we cleared that up!
        No - it's not dependent on this whatsoever. And "non natural" or "unnatural" or "not natural" is usually used as the opposite of "natural" when defined as "not made by human/intelligent hands," so you are again confusing the two definitions. The word for "not investigatable by science" is "supernatural."

        It would really help if you simply kept your terms/definitions straight.

        ETA: It might help you to realize that a given thing is "supernatural" because it cannot be investigated by science. It is not "not investigatable by science" because it is supernatural. This seems to be your consistent confusion.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-23-2019, 02:49 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          Umm.. I disagree. The concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" are opposites (by one definition), but the real existence of one does not require the real existence of the other, in either direction. By way of example, clockwise and counterclockwise are opposites. But there is no requirement for anything to actually spin clockwise in order for something to be able to spin counterclockwise. Likewise, one can conceive of a universe in which science can investigate nothing because everything is supernatural. If we were actually IN that universe, I doubt the concept of "science" would even be created - and the word "natural" would probably never exist. We have the words because we are speculating from the context of THIS universe.
          Yes, but I don't think that's really a very good analogy, carpe. I think it's all just a semantical game that seer is playing. Supernatural simply means other than natural, or beyond the natural, or, even, creator of the natural. Therefore, if there were no such thing as the natural then the term supernatural would lose all meanting. So in this case, the existence of the one requires the existence of the other. For instance why do we call god supernatural in the first place? Because he/she/it is beyond, above or distinct from the natural. Let's say that god was all that existed, then the term supernatural used to define he/she/it would lose its meaning. When you think of it, if anything, the term defining god should be natural, and the term defining the created, if it be created, should be supernatural. But we have no evidence that the world/universe is created, so we have no reason to call it anything but natural.
          Last edited by JimL; 07-23-2019, 07:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            The logic Carp, is the idea that the supernatural can not be investigated. There is no deductive or objective argument that can support that arbitrary assumption.
            It is not an arbitrary assumption. There is no logical argument to be made. A sound deductive argument requires a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion. And there is no way to establish the existence of a deity as a true premise.

            And there is no scientific way to investigate the existence of a deity because the scientific method, based upon methodological naturalism, precludes investigation of the supernatural. There is no way science can establish a hypothesis for the existence of a deity let alone test such a hypothesis.

            Let me ask you what I asked Tass, would a universe created by the hand of God be natural in your view? In what sense would it be natural?
            This is a hypothetical based upon the unsupported assumption of a supernatural deity existing. So let me ask you: Would an infinite multiverse that has existed eternally, as proposed by many physicists, be anything other than natural?
            Last edited by Tassman; 07-23-2019, 11:45 PM.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Yes, but I don't think that's really a very good analogy, carpe. I think it's all just a semantical game that seer is playing. Supernatural simply means other than natural, or beyond the natural, or, even, creator of the natural. Therefore, if there were no such thing as the natural then the term supernatural would lose all meanting. So in this case, the existence of the one requires the existence of the other. For instance why do we call god supernatural in the first place? Because he/she/it is beyond, above or distinct from the natural. Let's say that god was all that existed, then the term supernatural used to define he/she/it would lose its meaning. When you think of it, if anything, the term defining god should be natural, and the term defining the created, if it be created, should be supernatural. But we have no evidence that the world/universe is created, so we have no reason to call it anything but natural.
              I understand your position, Jim, but my observation stands. You are focusing on "supernatural" as the prefix "super" appended to the word "natural." As such, you obviously (linguistically) cannot have the word "supernatural" if you don't have the word "natural." I am focused on the definitions. Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding." In other words, not investigatable by science. The natural realm is the realm science can investigate, making the two words simple opposites. As previously noted, what science can and cannot investigate does forms two sets, and the existence of members of one set is not dependent on the actual existence of members of the other set.

              ETA: Actually, I did a bit more digging and am finding multiple definitions of "supernatural" including:

              Merriam Webster: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
              Oxford: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
              Princeton: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

              Several of these define supernatural specifically in terms of "natural," which supports your position. So I have to reverse my statement above. Since the preponderance of the definitions are rooted in "natural law" and "nature," I guess I have to agree that you cannot have "supernatural" without first defining "natural." The definition I was working from appears to have been only the first part of the Oxford definition.

              Don't you just love language? It's so precise.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                We don't HAVE to. There is nothing NECESSARY about it. But that is how the word has been defined and how it is commonly used, as has been repeated now, ad nauseum. If the word bothers you, use a different one. You can call "things science cannot investigate" anything you wish. How about "burzenflogen?"

                And if you want to redefine "supernatural," to mean something else, knock yourself out. Just make sure you provide your new definition when you talk to someone - or they won't have a clue what on earth you're talking about.
                How about this: Natural = not created or maintained by intelligence. Non-natural= created or maintained by intelligence?


                The word for "not investigatable by science" is "supernatural."
                I disagree, there may be many "natural" events that are not investigatable by science. That would not make them supernatural events. This is the way I look at it: someone one once said, if the supernatural exists, it isn't. I generally agree, I don't think God does magic. Manipulating matter and energy would be quite natural for God, and I do believe there are physical laws and processes that God uses in such case. It is that these laws and processes are beyond our understanding, and may or may not remain so.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  How about this: Natural = not created or maintained by intelligence. Non-natural= created or maintained by intelligence?
                  I will make every effort to remember that this is the "seer definition" of "natural" and "supernatural." You'll have to understand that your non-standard definitions are likely to create confusion. I don't have the mental bandwidth to remember everyone's unique definitions of words whose definitions they object to. Yuo may have to remind me when the discussions come up.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I disagree, there may be many "natural" events that are not investigatable by science. That would not make them supernatural events.
                  As noted in my previous post to Jim - the definition I was working from turns out to be only half of the oxford definition. A bit more digging and I find that most of the definitions of "supernatural" include "or beyond the laws of nature." The principles of nature are principles that can be investigated by science. They are "laws" - repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  This is the way I look at it: someone one once said, if the supernatural exists, it isn't. I generally agree, I don't think God does magic. Manipulating matter and energy would be quite natural for God, and I do believe there are physical laws and processes that God uses in such case. It is that these laws and processes are beyond our understanding, and may or may not remain so.
                  If the "principles on which god operates" turn out to be "repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles that can be investigated by science," then someone will eventually say "apparently god is not supernatural." As I have said from the outset - your complaint is not about the definitions of the words. Your complaint is about the application of the words to individual "things." (i.e., calling god supernatural).

                  So long as god remains outside of the ability of science to investigate, and outside the bounds of natural law principles operational within the universe, then he will be considered by most of us (who use the words as they are commonly defined) to be in the realm of the "supernatural." When you can demonstrate a means by which god can be investigated by science and conforms to natural law principles, then you will have demonstrated that god is of the realm of the natural.

                  As for "god doesn't do magic," that's a pretty odd statement. The entire world of the "miraculous" is exactly that: divine magic wrought on earth. Water does not "become wine" in a holding container without some exercise of "magic." It's not like water molecules can be manipulated into a new form to create wine. There are atoms present in wine completely absent in water. People do not "arise from the dead" after being dead for multiple days - especially before the advent of modern medicine - without some miraculous intervention. By definition, forces that defy natural law are "magical" and of the "supernatural." I don't believe such forces actually exist, but they have been the stuff of human mythology and legend for all of human history, AFAIK.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I will make every effort to remember that this is the "seer definition" of "natural" and "supernatural." You'll have to understand that your non-standard definitions are likely to create confusion. I don't have the mental bandwidth to remember everyone's unique definitions of words whose definitions they object to. Yuo may have to remind me when the discussions come up.
                    Since as you agreed these definitions are arbitrary mine is as good as any.


                    As noted in my previous post to Jim - the definition I was working from turns out to be only half of the oxford definition. A bit more digging and I find that most of the definitions of "supernatural" include "or beyond the laws of nature." The principles of nature are principles that can be investigated by science. They are "laws" - repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles.
                    Yet there may be very natural events that are beyond our understanding, and will remain so. We know that quantum entanglement works, good luck trying to figure how particles at a distance effect each other instantly. If our universe was born of a multiverse good luck figuring out the laws of that multiverse. The same for the rise of self-awareness. Our lack of knowledge would not make those events supernatural.



                    If the "principles on which god operates" turn out to be "repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles that can be investigated by science," then someone will eventually say "apparently god is not supernatural." As I have said from the outset - your complaint is not about the definitions of the words. Your complaint is about the application of the words to individual "things." (i.e., calling god supernatural).
                    An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable or predictable to be natural. It seems that the creation was a one off event (no matter how it came about) and we are not at all sure that the quantum world always follows your criterion. Yet we would not call them "supernatural."

                    So long as god remains outside of the ability of science to investigate, and outside the bounds of natural law principles operational within the universe, then he will be considered by most of us (who use the words as they are commonly defined) to be in the realm of the "supernatural." When you can demonstrate a means by which god can be investigated by science and conforms to natural law principles, then you will have demonstrated that god is of the realm of the natural.
                    I did not say that God could be investigated, but that His acts (what we call miracles) may be following physical laws and principles that we may not be aware of.

                    As for "god doesn't do magic," that's a pretty odd statement. The entire world of the "miraculous" is exactly that: divine magic wrought on earth. Water does not "become wine" in a holding container without some exercise of "magic." It's not like water molecules can be manipulated into a new form to create wine. There are atoms present in wine completely absent in water. People do not "arise from the dead" after being dead for multiple days - especially before the advent of modern medicine - without some miraculous intervention. By definition, forces that defy natural law are "magical" and of the "supernatural." I don't believe such forces actually exist, but they have been the stuff of human mythology and legend for all of human history, AFAIK.
                    Right, just because we don't understand how God turned water into wine, or suspended gravity as Christ walked on the water does not mean that they were done apart from the physical manipulation of natural law through greater laws and principles unknown to us. We are just ignorant.
                    Last edited by seer; 07-24-2019, 07:51 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Since as you agreed these definitions are arbitrary mine is as good as any.
                      No, they're not. The purpose for language is to communicate. In order for communication to be successful, people have to use the same definitions of words. That is why we have dictionaries. If everyone who doesn't like a particular definition simply creates their own, what we will have is a ridiculous level of verbal anarchy. You are free to redefine words if you wish. Perhaps you will succeed in convincing everyone to shift to your new usage, and the dictionary definition will shift. Until then, you'll have to deal with the fact that most people will have no clue what you're talking about because you have changed the definition of a word to one that is not in common usage.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yet there may be very natural events that are beyond our understanding, and will remain so. We know that quantum entanglement works, good luck trying to figure how particles at a distance effect each other instantly. If our universe was born of a multiverse good luck figuring out the laws of that multiverse. The same for the rise of self-awareness. Our lack of knowledge would not make those events supernatural.
                      There are things science can clearly investigate because they conform to known natural laws. We call those "natural." There are things science cannot investigate because they make claims that are unrelated to natural laws. We call those "supernatural." Then there are the things we don't know what to do with yet. We think they conform to natural laws, but we don't know what those laws are yet and we don't have a plan for how to investigate them. If we're being honest, we'd call these "indeterminate" things. They are not known to be natural OR supernatural. In most cases, scientists tend to assume these are natural and will eventually be investigated.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable or predictable to be natural. It seems that the creation was a one off event (no matter how it came about) and we are not at all sure that the quantum world always follows your criterion. Yet we would not call them "supernatural."
                      First, we don't know that the origin of the universe was a "one-off" event. We don't know if this is the only universe, or if this universe is cyclical and has always existed in one form or another, or any of a host of possibilities science still has on the table. There is relatively little we can say about the origins of the universe except that we know there was a singularity at the beginning of this known universe. And the world of quantum mechanics is one that we are just beginning to explore. It would seem that the principles in operation on that level can only be deemed "repeatable" and "predictable" at a statistical level - not at the level of individual events. We also don't well understand the "laws" operational at this quantum level, hence the absence of a grand unifying theory of physics (so far). So these things are in the "indeterminate" camp, IMO. And if we find that quantum events can only be described statistically, then the definition of "natural" will probably shift somewhat to encompass that reality.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I did not say that God could be investigated, but that His acts (what we call miracles) may be following physical laws and principles that we may not be aware of.
                      You are speculating about the actions of a being you cannot show to exist, and actions you cannot begin to place limits on because the only limit I know of anyone has suggested for this being is that it cannot contravene basic logical and mathematical principles. There is no reason to think this being (even hypothetically) cannot contravene the "laws of nature" since these laws are (presumably) created by this hypothetical being. In other words, you are piling speculation upon speculation, and somewhat in contradiction of your own theology. Science explores the principles of operation of this universe. Unless you are ready to claim that your god is constrained to act within those laws, then science cannot investigate this being. Ergo - supernatural.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Right, just because we don't understand how God turned water into wine, or suspended gravity as Christ walked on the water does not mean that they were done apart from the physical manipulation of natural law through greater laws and principles unknown to us. We are just ignorant.
                      So you are speculating that this god might be subject to other constraints besides logical and mathematical ones? Interesting - and not a particularly common position. Meanwhile, until you can show your god actually exists and acts on any principles that science can investigate, your god (and its actions) will continue to be classified as "supernatural," which is perfectly appropriate. After all - you are apparently talking about the being that CREATED the laws and principles that science investigates. How you can even begin to think that this hypothetical being is not "super" to this natural order is beyond me.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-24-2019, 01:55 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Since as you agreed these definitions are arbitrary mine is as good as any.
                        Your definitions are NOT “as good as any” because, definitions must have an agreed meaning to be useful.

                        Yet there may be very natural events that are beyond our understanding, and will remain so. We know that quantum entanglement works, good luck trying to figure how particles at a distance effect each other instantly. If our universe was born of a multiverse good luck figuring out the laws of that multiverse. The same for the rise of self-awareness. Our lack of knowledge would not make those events supernatural.
                        Nevertheless, science has a very good record in “understanding” natural events once thought to be beyond our understanding. There is no good reason to think there is a limit to this process.

                        An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable or predictable to be natural. It seems that the creation was a one off event (no matter how it came about) and we are not at all sure that the quantum world always follows your criterion. Yet we would not call them "supernatural."
                        But by agreed definition, God is a supernatural entity. Whether or not such an entity exists is a separate question.

                        I did not say that God could be investigated, but that His acts (what we call miracles) may be following physical laws and principles that we may not be aware of.
                        This assumes that “what we call miracles” are something more than merely anecdotal hearsay or delusional experiences. There's no good reason to think they are.

                        Right, just because we don't understand how God turned water into wine, or suspended gravity as Christ walked on the water does not mean that they were done apart from the physical manipulation of natural law through greater laws and principles unknown to us. We are just ignorant.
                        Yet again, you beg the question. We don't understand how “God turned water into wine” because there is no good reason to think that God exists OR that water was ever turned into wine via a miracle.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Yeah but with physics, God did create those. He could have changed the way gravity works for instance. That would change the "law" of gravity. But with logic, I can't see how God could make it so that A = Not-A in the same way at the same time.

                          I also don't think God created numbers. They also just describe basic reality. If you have one object and you add another one, you have two objects. That just is. Even if there are no objects the principal still exists.
                          There's supposed to be "quantum logic" which evades the principle of excluded middle, but I don't know if it really qualifies as being A =ing not-A in the same way at the same time.

                          There are three questions here as I see it:
                          Did God create the laws of logic and math?
                          Do the laws of logic and math have a separate existence from God or are they intrinsic to His nature?
                          Are the laws of logic and math real? Do they exist, or are they just ways of describing things that exist?

                          I think the answer to the first one is probably "No." I'm not sure about the second and third. I'm not even sure if they have clear meanings.

                          I tend to think that logic and math are real in some supersensible, Platonic sense, maybe in the mind of God.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            No, they're not. The purpose for language is to communicate. In order for communication to be successful, people have to use the same definitions of words. That is why we have dictionaries. If everyone who doesn't like a particular definition simply creates their own, what we will have is a ridiculous level of verbal anarchy. You are free to redefine words if you wish. Perhaps you will succeed in convincing everyone to shift to your new usage, and the dictionary definition will shift. Until then, you'll have to deal with the fact that most people will have no clue what you're talking about because you have changed the definition of a word to one that is not in common usage.
                            But Carp, you already agreed that most definitions are arbitrary. This is more so when we come to something we don't understand - the actual distinction between natural or supernatural. Saying that the supernatural is something that is not investigatable is an unknowable claim, a mere assertion with no rational or objective justification.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But Carp, you already agreed that most definitions are arbitrary. This is more so when we come to something we don't understand - the actual distinction between natural or supernatural. Saying that the supernatural is something that is not investigatable is an unknowable claim, a mere assertion with no rational or objective justification.
                              Actually, I agreed that ALL definitions are arbitrary. That is the nature of language. Your definitions are equally arbitrary. What differs, Seer, is that language is a tool for communication - so the basis for language is "common understanding of meaning." Words mean what they mean because we collectively use the words that way. "pwned" was a meaningless group of letters in the late 1990s. Then someone mistyped "owned" in a video game and it became a term used in the gaming community, from which it migrated to general usage and is now in many dictionaries. What it means is completely arbitrary - but because it is in common usage, we can use it meaningfully in a sentence. You want apparently want to arbitrarily assign new meaning to well known words as a solitary agent, so you'll have exactly one person to communicate with successfully: yourself.

                              Your objection to the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural" is noted. If you are successful in getting your new definitions into common usage, they will someday appear in a dictionary too. Until then, you'll be talking gibberish to most of us, because you will say "natural" with "Seer's definition" and the rest of us will hear "natural" with the common use definition, and you'll be talking past pretty much anyone you talk to.

                              The terms are pretty well defined, pretty well understood, and may or may not always be correctly applied/used. Language is what language is. You're not going to change it because you "want to." It's how we communicate. And I, frankly, find most of this discussion a little silly. I'm still not sure of what motivates it on your part, which is what has fascinated me and kept me engaged. It's like running your tongue over a sore tooth. You know it's a pointless exercise, but somehow that tongue just keeps hitting that tooth. As I said, I am used to your arguments being "non-arguments" because you tend to talk in content-free circles (i.e., like the morality discussion) - but this one strikes me as a new low.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-25-2019, 07:24 AM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Actually, I agreed that ALL definitions are arbitrary. That is the nature of language. Your definitions are equally arbitrary. What differs, Seer, is that language is a tool for communication - so the basis for language is "common understanding of meaning." Words mean what they mean because we collectively use the words that way. "pwned" was a meaningless group of letters in the late 1990s. Then someone mistyped "owned" in a video game and it became a term used in the gaming community, from which it migrated to general usage and is now in many dictionaries. What it means is completely arbitrary - but because it is in common usage, we can use it meaningfully in a sentence. You want apparently want to arbitrarily assign new meaning to well known words as a solitary agent, so you'll have exactly one person to communicate with successfully: yourself.

                                Your objection to the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural" is noted. If you are successful in getting your new definitions into common usage, they will someday appear in a dictionary too. Until then, you'll be talking gibberish to most of us, because you will say "natural" with "Seer's definition" and the rest of us will hear "natural" with the common use definition, and you'll be talking past pretty much anyone you talk to.
                                I don't care about common usage, I made my points as to why the distinction between natural and supernatural make no sense. Largely because we have no reference point, no way to compare. No way to categorize in any objective sense. The distinctions are not based on knowable criterion.

                                As I said, I am used to your arguments being "non-arguments" because you tend to talk in content-free circles (i.e., like the morality discussion) - but this one strikes me as a new low.
                                Nice ad hominem, and hypocritical since you have often been caught arguing in circles on moral questions. And where exactly did I argue in a circle on this issue? My basic objections are stated above, what is circular?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X