Dismissing the Supernatural

[Furrowed Brow]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

[Furrowed Brow]

Edison had a huge problem making the lightbulb burn longer than the few seconds that it took that tiny wire to burn up. Then he got the idea to 'remove' something that cannot be seen (air) from the bulb, and walla!

His faith in the 'unseen' resulted in our ability to work, play and live in the dark. Sure, .. he knew it was 'cloaked in secrecy', but his 'faith' in that 'it can be done' gave him that ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
I think by the Time Edison invented the light bulb air

Er...the kind of difficulties Edison faced with removing air from his light bulb are exactly not what I mean by “cloaked in secrecy�. But to be explicit: I mean some claim that relies on a mystery for it to be believed. Rather than reveal how the claim works the claimer requires that we suspend disbelief. Edison never required we suspend disbelief. We know how and why light bulbs work. The supernatural by definition means it cannot and will not explain itself. The supernatural is anything like the vacuum in a light bulb.

Magic isn't a lie, it is truly magic. Only when 'magic' is used to represent a 'miracle', only then it is a lie, for it claims to be something greater than a trick, or magic. When a stage Magician performs a disappearing act, people don't feel fooled or cheated out of their money, because that is exactly what they paid to see, a good magic show.

Yes. There are some stage acts that pass themselves of as dealing with reality, Uri Geller for example. But to put it bluntly the supernatural is just some folk failing to note the trick they are playing on themselves.

Sure of what? What are we 'sure of', dark matter, black holes, or the size and age of our 'observable universe'??? Yes, I too am sure of those claims, .. I am 'sure' they are wrong, lies by what you would call; 'supernatural deities'!

I am not sure of dark matter, and I am reasonable sure of black holes, I am very sure that in every day circumstances Newtonian mechanics is sufficiently accurate for all purposes. I am sure quantum physics has made some of the most accurate testable predictions.

It seems we may be falling back on different criteria for what allows us to be sure.

[dianaiad]

<snip to>
I take you claim to be a Christian and speak on behalf of Christianity, am I right?

Yes to the first, though some might quarrel with that, but...
No to the second. I speak only for me. I certainly cannot 'speak for' mainstream Christianity.

I hear you, ... I try to sticking with 'Believer' instead of calling myself Christian, .. if you know what I mean?

as a Christian, how could you justify a mother taking the blame for something her child has done wrong, even to her death?

Where did I say I justified it? I simply used it as an example of someone dying for what someone else might think of as a lie, but that she/he might consider, perhaps, a lie in service to a greater truth. In the case of the mother, the 'greater truth' would be her opinion that her child's life was more important than hers. This example does not in any way indicate what I think about such an action, one way or the other.

]This defies all Biblical logic and teachings, where we are commanded to punish disobedient children.

Don't confuse an analogy/example with the point of the story, there.

Got it, .. sorry for the confusion my friend.

You label the action of the mother as; ".. she's dying to protect a greater truth"

No, I presented it as an example of the thought process behind her action. Not "I"m dying for a lie," but "My child's life is more important than mine, so I'll give my life for his."

It has nothing to do with whether I would do the same, or approve.

What greater truth? Is this like the Book of Mormon, the 'greater truth' as revealed by Jesus himself to Joseph Smith?

Wow, you ARE fond of non-sequiturs and red herrings, aren't you?

I see a good heart in you Dianaiad, and even saying that a mother would die instead of her child who has done wrong proves that. On purely human terms, I too would die in my kids stead, only by what I know of God, I now know it would be wrong for me to do that.
You have said nothing wrong, as you explained, it was just an analogy. I was just 'debating', I should have looked deeper, please forgive me.

There is only ONE truth, there is no 'greater truth' to override that, none.

You are quite right. However, just as the scientists are still on the trail of the 'theory of everything," so are the rest of us still looking for that one 'greater truth" that over-rides all things.

The upshot is, none of us have that.

Yet.

I agree with you on that too, but honestly, we must ask ourselves; "how would I know, or recognize that 'greater truth' if it came by me?"

Again, I am sorry. Take care my friend.

You are very gracious, Arian.

My apologies for snapping back!

My own personal opinion is that this 'greater truth' you speak of is something that truly can only be recognized within ourselves; logically, spiritually and emotionally, not necessarily in that order.

We are not machines, that we must restrict ourselves to binary thought processes, not allowing for leaps of intuition or faith. We are human beings, who operate on several different levels of understanding. I fear for us, if we throw out everything that makes us human in order to tie ourselves to one level and one level only. That 'greater truth' does leave tracks when it passes by us, I believe, and we CAN follow after it.

[arian]

So what you're saying is that you wouldn't think twice to lie to save your skin, and you save on body bags, while I would die not to hurt anyone, and would die for the truth, I cause more death???

Yes, if you die for a true claim, then more people will die. More people dying means more death. I say don't die for any claim—true or false. That way you can live on. Religion sadly puts beliefs above anything else including human well being and life. I don't agree with those priorities. It's best to live on as long as you can in this life. There is no other life, and it's the only life any of us have. Why throw it away on some belief?

You have just painted a picture of hell, quote; ... I say don't die for any claim—true or false. ... I don't agree with those priorities. It's best to live on as long as you can in this life. There is no other life, and it's the only life any of us have. Why throw it away on some belief

.. you rather die a lier?

No, I'd rather be a living liar than a dead martyr.

Yea, ... in a Christian/Bible based government. If everyone else thought like you, (only out to save their own skin) you would be dead a long time ago.

The Churches are full of Christians who would do anything to save their own skin.

Can you blame them?

Jagella

Is this what you teach your kids; "Do unto others before they do it to you, stick your neck out for no one, lie if it can save your skin, .."?? This IS the teaching that comes down from the 'powers of darkness' that you call 'supernatural', it is Satan who serves only 'me, myself and I'.

[arian]

Edison had a huge problem making the lightbulb burn longer than the few seconds that it took that tiny wire to burn up. Then he got the idea to 'remove' something that cannot be seen (air) from the bulb, and walla!

His faith in the 'unseen' resulted in our ability to work, play and live in the dark. Sure, .. he knew it was 'cloaked in secrecy', but his 'faith' in that 'it can be done' gave him that ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
I think by the Time Edison invented the light bulb air

Er...the kind of difficulties Edison faced with removing air from his light bulb are exactly not what I mean by “cloaked in secrecy�. But to be explicit: I mean some claim that relies on a mystery for it to be believed. Rather than reveal how the claim works the claimer requires that we suspend disbelief.

Who cares, if everything else fails, faith comes to the rescue. That is not some 'mystery', it is fact caused by the Creator.

So you believe Edison created the light bulb from the things already created, and yet you don't believe in God your Creator? How can you believe in one, and not the other? Did you watch Edison work and create the light bulb, or just read it in some old history book?

Edison never required we suspend disbelief. We know how and why light bulbs work. The supernatural by definition means it cannot and will not explain itself. The supernatural is anything like the vacuum in a light bulb.

I agree, The supernatural by definition means it cannot and will not explain itself. But the Spiritual Power that created the universe can, we are standing on it. Again, you are comparing magic (supernatural) with the Spiritual realm which is more real than the physical universe.

Magic isn't a lie, it is truly magic. Only when 'magic' is used to represent a 'miracle', only then it is a lie, for it claims to be something greater than a trick, or magic. When a stage Magician performs a disappearing act, people don't feel fooled or cheated out of their money, because that is exactly what they paid to see, a good magic show.

Yes. There are some stage acts that pass themselves of as dealing with reality, Uri Geller for example. But to put it bluntly the supernatural is just some folk failing to note the trick they are playing on themselves.

I agree, we can call 'magic' anything else we want, but it is still just tricks people believe in. Again, I am not talking about the supernatural, nor claim that what we now see as this physical universe is real. I am talking about the Spiritual Creator who we cannot yet see with this physical eyes, but KNOW that He is there, and we are IN Him.

Sure of what? What are we 'sure of', dark matter, black holes, or the size and age of our 'observable universe'??? Yes, I too am sure of those claims, .. I am 'sure' they are wrong, lies by what you would call; 'supernatural deities'!

I am not sure of dark matter, and I am reasonable sure of black holes, I am very sure that in every day circumstances Newtonian mechanics is sufficiently accurate for all purposes. I am sure quantum physics has made some of the most accurate testable predictions.

Where did the Newtonian mechanics, and the quantum physics come from, a vacuum, or by the observations of this already made-to-perfection universe?

It seems we may be falling back on different criteria for what allows us to be sure.

Yes, I believe you are right.
We can 'limit' ourselves to the already perfect universe and be satisfied to only 'begin' to explain it through quantum physics and Newtonian mechanics to be 'sure' it is there, or just 'believe' it is there without having to study all that.

But why stun our minds from going any further? To go 'beyond this physical realm where we can become part of an eternal, all powerful, all knowing part of a Spiritual realm, one with our Creator where we can see and experience and 'take part' in the miracles of creation, not just observe it?

It is so much easier to seek our Creator than to try to understand how He created all this we see. Even a lily, that is here today, and gone tomorrow is confounding to us, not to mention a human mind that controls every thought, and every cell in our body?

Take care my friend.

[arian]

[/url]

You are very gracious, Arian.

My apologies for snapping back!

Oh, no problem, same here. Actually if you think about it, it makes our debates more 'real', no?

My own personal opinion is that this 'greater truth' you speak of is something that truly can only be recognized within ourselves; logically, spiritually and emotionally, not necessarily in that order.

YES! That's it, and we can help each other, and others to reach this, to trust in that truth that the physical mind cannot define. We KNOW it is there, for we know the opposite is there, which are lies that is out to destroy, to corrupt humanity.

What is truth? The Word of God in its entirety is truth. Once we 'know the truth', it is easy to imagine dying for it.
It is worth dying for the truth even for the sole purpose of leaving a legacy behind for our children. But if we have doubts, it is not the truth.

I know indoctrination can stun those feelings of faith and cause doubt that clouds our minds to the truth. But thanks be to God, we have His Word which we study and practice till all the doubt vanishes and are ready to do HIS will, according to His Word whatever the Lord asks of us. I mean just look at the Georgetown story of Jim Jones; sex, drugs and cyanide-laced cool aid for a finale. Now how can anyone say that that was Gods will? Talking about indoctrination... !

We are not machines, that we must restrict ourselves to binary thought processes, not allowing for leaps of intuition or faith. We are human beings, who operate on several different levels of understanding. I fear for us, if we throw out everything that makes us human in order to tie ourselves to one level and one level only. That 'greater truth' does leave tracks when it passes by us, I believe, and we CAN follow after it.

Amen to that.
The truth does leave tracks, I know, ... I see it manifesting itself everywhere, in the world, in my life, in the Bible, and I just know it does to everyone else too, only we have to bring it out to the open to be seen for them.
Of course men will hate us for it, but that is the cost to be a light in this darkened world.

[JoeyKnothead]

This IS the teaching that comes down from the 'powers of darkness' that you call 'supernatural', it is Satan who serves only 'me, myself and I'.

And here I thought it was the holy trinity that did it.

[Goat]

Edison had a huge problem making the lightbulb burn longer than the few seconds that it took that tiny wire to burn up. Then he got the idea to 'remove' something that cannot be seen (air) from the bulb, and walla!

His faith in the 'unseen' resulted in our ability to work, play and live in the dark. Sure, .. he knew it was 'cloaked in secrecy', but his 'faith' in that 'it can be done' gave him that ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
I think by the Time Edison invented the light bulb air

Er...the kind of difficulties Edison faced with removing air from his light bulb are exactly not what I mean by “cloaked in secrecy�. But to be explicit: I mean some claim that relies on a mystery for it to be believed. Rather than reveal how the claim works the claimer requires that we suspend disbelief.

Who cares, if everything else fails, faith comes to the rescue. That is not some 'mystery', it is fact caused by the Creator.

If it is a fact that is 'caused by the Creator', you will be able to present some actual evidence rather than rhetoric. Can you show that 'faith' is reality, rather than just an excuse?

[Flail]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

There is no coherent premise upon which to make any logical progression toward any viable claim in option B. As a truth claim, premise B is dead and meaningless, having no rational context in which it could be valid.

[fredonly]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

Your basic problem is your blind acceptance of your premise. There's no direct testimony of anyone who claims to have seen a resurrected Jesus. You are placing blind faith in the Gospel accounts, accounts that were written in a different place, within a different culture, and in a different language than the alleged eyewitnesses. Furthermore, there's no evidence that any of the alleged eyewitnesses actually died, or expressed a willingness to die, for this belief. Finally, while the reputations of the eyewitnesses may indeed be "unsullied," it's also true that we know next to nothing about them. Our only knowledge of these eyewitnesses is from these indirect Gospels accounts. If the accounts are even partly fictionalized, then this implies everything written in them is suspect, including the sketchy data about the disciples.

Christian apologetics has historically conflated the persecutions of some Christians in some locations at some times into the assumption that the disciples themselves were persecuted, and that this persecution was a direct result of a belief in the resurrection. The is not what the historical record shows.

[dianaiad]

In a sense, time travel is supernatural in that it is beyond the laws of physics. On the other hand, why couldn't a so-called supernatural world of spirits and demons actually exist within other dimensions, and be part of nature? It's actually one of my little pet peeves that believers always insist on placing the supernatural completely beyond all imaginable science.

My pet peeve isn't that BELIEVERS do this. Mine is that NON-believers do this. That is, they insist that God, in order to BE God, (and thus a proper target for criticism and mockery) do everything in a way that shatters the very laws of nature He created to run things.

That one has never made any sense at all to me, frankly.