Steve wrote:

I want to know why there is a presumption (insistence even) that there is something there, rather than the more commonsense presumption that there isn't. Certainly there are unknown things. Why suggest that the supernatural is one of them?

I wanted to comment on this earlier.

There is a propensity to explain the unknown as instinct. A cat has instinct. Bears hibernate due to an instinct. Birds fly south because of an instinct to due so. And humans have an instinct to fear the unknown, to fear squirmming flying and crawling creatures and loud noises. So if you come across something described as instinct, please read into it :I don't know.

The supernatural seems to have something to do with the development of a "higher brain" -- 'I can't explain it , something must have caused it and it is not rational' --Fire and events with fire and bright light may explain the nomenclature of "supernatural". I'm also proposing that there most be some sort of authority involed in pronouncing something 'supernatural'.

--doug

Religion is institutionalized lying. Especially christianity. Liars, all.

ok real critical thinking here.[/quote]

edit: oops, nice typing kenoki that's what i get for trying to be a bastard

not that i am really involved in this argument at this point but i also wanted to again point out that the supernatural can still be what we don't know, things that are mysterious and it is ok to allow that mystique to exist. why the hell not. and, again, once science proves the supernatural as perfectly natural, people can move on and wonder about the next thing -- keeping it ALIVE TO WONDER AND RESEARCH ABOUT. see? holding hands... i agree with scott to a point about the natural instinct to wonder. birds migrate, and on. i guess i was trying to illustrate that point very poorly yesterday. as in, i am curious of the unknown (NOT FUGGIN GOD, but the unknown provides endless questions and imaginative answers for all people) as everyone has been throughout time because it is natural. to wonder about the nature of life since the first time you can remember wondering. the biggest enemy are people who are incapable of understanding necessary change in regard to an instance (as opposed to the whole dang lot since you are too lazy to come up with a gripe other than... religion... religious people... and the millions and millions of things that go into that word, the millions of people throughout time, including all those personal, unwritten "religions" that you will never ever know about). sort of like when i get a burger with pickles... i have no problem with the burger, it's tasty, i'm hungry, there's nothing else open. but i hate pickles. am i going to slag the burger? no, i'm going to toss the pickles to my dog, resandwich, and then make sure it doesn't happen again. if they continue to give me pickles i will call them retards and move onto another burger joint, one more appropriate. does not mean burgers are lame all around. they do have a purpose, one that can happen while i am writing a post or driving down university ave. it's fuel. it's just, intelligent design folk who are fuck-sure there is a god, and atheists who are fuck-sure there isn't, and both who think they can't comingle, are morons.

When you wonder as a child it emotes a response. When you find yourself wondering as an adult, you need to step inside and check it out, figure out how it works and then move along quietly. No need to call bullshit after the fact. A nod and a knowing smile is enough to realize all that is intended.

El Protoolio wrote:

kenoki wrote:...intelligent design folk who are fuck-sure there is a god, and atheists who are fuck-sure there isn't, and both who think they can't comingle, are morons.

Why bring the Mormons into it?









Oh, wait.

I see.

kenoki wrote:...it's just...folk who are fuck-sure there is a god, and atheists who are fuck-sure there isn't...are morons.

Well since there's a good chance there is a god and and a slim chance that this god is a just god, I'd prefer to believe in this god rather than not. Pascal had a good point with that wager bit: when in severe doubt, go with the the less risky alternative.

Agnosticism doesn't work. It's really sophistry in the end. I've tried it. It's like taking a long drive to no particular place: you end up somewhere, but you don't know how you got there and you don't know where you are.

matthew wrote: I've tried it. It's like taking a long drive to no particular place: you end up somewhere, but you don't know how you got there and you don't know where you are.

David Coverdale called. he wants you to stop stealing Whitesnake lyrics for your arguments.

matthew wrote:Well since there's a good chance there is a god and and a slim chance that this god is a just god, I'd prefer to believe in this god rather than not. Pascal had a good point with that wager bit: when in severe doubt, go with the the less risky alternative.

God, being omniscient, would know your shallow reasons for making this choice, and send you to hell, or something.

steve wrote:I want to know why there is a presumption (insistence even) that there is something there, rather than the more commonsense presumption that there isn't. Certainly there are unknown things. Why suggest that the supernatural is one of them?

Why is there a bias toward magic and against reason?

Reason informs the biologist who examines the cell that there are parts and functions within the cellular body that are far too complex and specified to be a happenchance occurance. Furthermore, the DNA code within each living cell is just that: a code. As we all know, codes are rules for converting information from one form to another. The fact that there is information (about a reality) to be converted in the first place implies an order, since there must first be order in something (the reality) for there to be information in the first place. For example if I spoke the phrase "I am drinking Maker's Mark Bourbon", this is an ordered set of information, and in turn my utterance is the utilization of a code that informs someone of a reality. I am using my reason and knowledge of the code (the English language) to inform someone of this reality to someone. If I were to suddenly blurt out in place of that phrase "Thread cymbal but wire know three" it means nothing within the context of normal English (code) and is thus unintelligibile (and probably means I've had a little too much Maker's Mark!). So whenever we see things that are intelligible within the appropriate code or context that the thing is in, there is an implied order to the thing and thus an orderer.

Regarding your "commonsense": Since the natural sciences are more and more discovering out just how vast, intricate and ordered the cosmos is- by cosmos I mean the entire natural world around us from the tiniest observed piece of matter to the rest of the universe at large beyond the earth- it would therefore be sensible and reasonable to says "it's likely that's there's an orderer behind all this intricate order" to even though the senses cannot directly perceive this orderer. This common sense and consequent reasoning then will lead one to the conclusion that there must be a supreme, utterly unique intelligent agent who made an orderly world that we can perceive.

The notion of an intelligent orderer or agent is not therefore irrational or unreasonable.................or unscientific for that matter. In fact I'd go so far to say that any science that does not have the notion of an intelligent orderer/designer at least in the distant background is doomed to confoundedness and even irrational speculation.......we can see both of these things happening even now with in scientific circles which are totally consumed by atheistic evolutionism (note the "-ism").