|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:14 pm
is this the same as anti-creationism?:
i do not believe the ideas of god, and his creation of the universe because, not only is there no logical evidence to support it... but I just don't like the idea of believing in someone so much that i have more faith in them than people i do know. yet, despite all of this, if something were to show itself and prove to me the existance of a higher power, i would ignore logic, (so long as i was sure i was not being tricked), and believe in the existance of that greater power.
I was just curious if i would still be considered an anti-creationist if i would accept personal experience over logic. and if not, than what exactly am i?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:04 pm
Sounds like it. IF you see it and it isn't a trick then it isn't defying logic that that diety is real. So i see no reasons why it isn't anti-creationism....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:33 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:06 pm
Science is the only means through which we learn about the world, but all that we know about the world we know only through our experience. That's what empiricsm is all about. You must understand that when creationists talk about how they believe that God made the world in seven days, they mean a God of many different things. For example, there is no reason to think that a God that empowers Moses is the same as the creator of the world. There is no evidence that says these two powerful, and probably fictional characters are the same person.
So even if you had observed God in some form; and bear in mind, all humans are capable of having a divine experience; it wouldn't indicate anything other than the fact that you felt something.
Did you know that there is a part of the brain that controls religious experience? People with tumours in this part of the brain are given to excessive religious behaviour, such as great zeal and speaking in tongues. Indeed, they are the classic 'manic street preachers'. These people experience the same feeling as anyone who claims that they feel God. However, the feeling is nothing more than an activation of a part of the brain. God has nothing to do with it. It is important to remember that even though you know the feeling exists, it is impossible to be sure of the source of this feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:38 pm
k_gilmore is this the same as anti-creationism?: i do not believe the ideas of god, and his creation of the universe because, not only is there no logical evidence to support it... but I just don't like the idea of believing in someone so much that i have more faith in them than people i do know. yet, despite all of this, if something were to show itself and prove to me the existance of a higher power, i would ignore logic, (so long as i was sure i was not being tricked), and believe in the existance of that greater power. I was just curious if i would still be considered an anti-creationist if i would accept personal experience over logic. and if not, than what exactly am i? I suppose that accepting personal experience has something to do with how you view your sense of logic. But in itself, experiencing something that has been carefully examined to ensure its validity is using logic, because you think "I didn't wake up after that, and it seemed real. There are reasons to believe that what I experienced was supernatural and could not have been created by mankind. This means it's probably that there is a God."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:12 pm
Except that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron. If it happens, it happens in nature; all the universe is nature. Just because we don't understand the mechanism behind it, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:04 pm
gigacannon Except that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron. If it happens, it happens in nature; all the universe is nature. Just because we don't understand the mechanism behind it, doesn't mean that there isn't one. I think the term supernatural is meant to just be something that happens that's unexplained, so it seems extraordinary to us. Of course you could just go and say extraordinary is an oxymoron as well, but you get my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:46 pm
gigacannon Science is the only means through which we learn about the world, but all that we know about the world we know only through our experience. That's what empiricsm is all about. You must understand that when creationists talk about how they believe that God made the world in seven days, they mean a God of many different things. For example, there is no reason to think that a God that empowers Moses is the same as the creator of the world. There is no evidence that says these two powerful, and probably fictional characters are the same person. So even if you had observed God in some form; and bear in mind, all humans are capable of having a divine experience; it wouldn't indicate anything other than the fact that you felt something. Did you know that there is a part of the brain that controls religious experience? People with tumours in this part of the brain are given to excessive religious behaviour, such as great zeal and speaking in tongues. Indeed, they are the classic 'manic street preachers'. These people experience the same feeling as anyone who claims that they feel God. However, the feeling is nothing more than an activation of a part of the brain. God has nothing to do with it. It is important to remember that even though you know the feeling exists, it is impossible to be sure of the source of this feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:01 pm
Xander LeMagre gigacannon Except that the word 'supernatural' is an oxymoron. If it happens, it happens in nature; all the universe is nature. Just because we don't understand the mechanism behind it, doesn't mean that there isn't one. I think the term supernatural is meant to just be something that happens that's unexplained, so it seems extraordinary to us. Of course you could just go and say extraordinary is an oxymoron as well, but you get my point. That's the correct definition, but Gigacannon was saying that the word "surpernatural" itself is an oxymoron; the words "super" and "natural" contradict each other. How can something "natural" be "super", (or extraordinary) and vice versa. I'm right, aren't I, Gigacannon? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:46 pm
Kage_ookami_shonen Sounds like it. IF you see it and it isn't a trick then it isn't defying logic that that diety is real. So i see no reasons why it isn't anti-creationism.... I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:14 am
The supernatural is a logical impossibility.
Anything that can happen is by definition natural, everything else is impossible.
Usually I use the word supernatural to simply mean that it is something that has no evidence, and is probably impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 7:20 am
redem The supernatural is a logical impossibility. Anything that can happen is by definition natural, everything else is impossible. I suppose that's true. Even if there was, for example, some sort of spiritual force, or ghosts, or whatever, then it would be natural, if it was part of reality... Quote: Usually I use the word supernatural to simply mean that it is something that has no evidence, and is probably impossible. I usually use it to mean, "not part of the physical universe", as all "supernatural" things I've heard of are supposed to be on a different plane of existence than the physical one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:56 am
Mostly I use this argument to point out that even if one thing which we currently class as super natural is shown to exist....that cvannot be used as an argument for the existance of anything else which we call supernatural.
They must all be proven by their own merits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:33 pm
I agree with you there, redem.
If you've seen Shaun of the Dead, you'll know it's got zombies in it. Now, because there are zombies, does that mean that elves exists? What do the elves look like; are they tall or short? Are the human mutants; or might we be mutant elves?
Proving the existence of one thing, labelled 'supernatural', does not prove the existence of anything else that we might label supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
