andrewducker | Belief

That would be "language" for you...

So if an alien existing in this universe is not supernatural, but the creator who can change those laws¹ is supernatural, then an alien who created the Big Bang would be supernatural from our perspective, but not from his own (and indeed he might think of the alien who created his big bang or whatever as supernatural but again that alien wouldn't)?

So, for you, supernatural is a kind of placeholder here for the thing outside of the 'laws' of the system? An AI living in the matrix would be natural for it, but Neo not being bound by the rules of the matrix due to an exploit (or a programmer on the outside looking in) would be supernatural?

¹ another term that is misleading

Absolutely.

Seems to be the standard definition of the word:
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil"
"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature"

What I'm trying to get at is whether it's system specific. If I make an AI and run it in an AI world I control, am I supernatural from the AI's perspective?

What about the example of Neo? He's not the creator, but he found some buffer overflows in the implementation of his world. Is he supernatural?

So the term supernatural for you does not have all that much to do with the nature of stuff, but the degree of control over a system?

A problem with viewing it in that way is that it doesn't seem to say very much, or at least doesn't say what atheists tend to want it to say. If I create an AI that doesn't make me supernatural, it just means the AI is incapable (in practice or in theory) of reaching out to determine things about the stuffness of the higher level (or prior) domain in which I live. It becomes more of a statement about cause and the inability to determine things.

Similarly "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe" is a pretty crappy definition. I would assume that you, like me, consider there to be things which exist beyond the visible universe, but if you wrote a astronomical paper about such things you'd be laughed out of town for using the term 'supernatural'.

The second definition isn't very useful either. Lots of things have departed from what is usual or normal so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature, but then the laws have been expanded as we've understood them. So the issue has been limitation of knowledge again, not that the things are actually 'supernatural' whatever that means.

It seems like to me that some things will forever remain outside of the ability of humans to determine (and may be theoretically outside of our ability to determine, if they're outside of our light cone for instance), but it would be silly to say that makes them 'supernatural'.

It is interesting - I certainly took part in the rituals and went to services and so on; but I grew up in a distinctly non-religious household (mother non-practicing Jewish, father not much of anything but CofE at a push by way of upbringing) and was taught to be questioning and sceptical. As I young child I am sure I must have believed, but once I seriously thought about it - and as I learned about biology and geology and science generally, lost that belief - no trauma at all, same as Father Christmas...

"a meaningless distinction that falsely claims a difference between unbelief and nonbelief"

But as long as you're incorrectly conceding the rhetorical possibility of "believe in a negative", I'd call that an atheist.

"What do you call someone who likes football?"
"A fan"
"But what if they like football AND really like Man U"
"They're a fan."
"But those things are different!"

I think Carrier's argument boils down to saying that substance dualism, if true, defines supernatural things (human souls/spirits, as well as gods).

To me, "mental" means "stuff I experience in my mind", and I'm pretty familiar with that, even if I don't understand how it occurs. Similarly, I'm not aware that substance dualists themselves have a watertight definition of "mental", yet that doesn't stop people from being dualists.

I don't think Carrier has implicitly assumed that minds arise from matter (if that's what you mean by assuming certain things about the nature of mentality), he's just said that if there are minds which don't, that's what makes them supernatural.

Interesting. It sounds to me like you're assuming you believed rather than remembering believing. Why do you assume that?

You may find it meaningless - I find it incredibly important.

I cannot disprove the existence of God, and I would find it insulting and inapprorpriate for someone to think I was insisting that God definitely did not exist. And so I do not use the word atheist about myself, because that it how people seem to use it.

at least doesn't say what atheists tend to want it to say.

It doesn't?

It seems to capture what most people think of as supernatural events - i.e. spooky ones which act in ways we would not normally consider possible.

To go back to a previous comment of mine - we live within a system of "natural laws" - if God, or other supernatural beings exist then they do not obey those laws - they are above/beyond them. To an AI, the creatures which created its "artificial" universe are as Gods. To me, a being which can tweak the laws of physics to its whim, or ignore them entirely, is a god.

Interesting one! Thanks!

I know I believed in God as a young child, because that is what school and teachers taught me; I can't remember when I stopped believing, but it was around the age of ten.

But I am not sure that simply blindly accepting what one is taught is really believing: there is no real choice or decision for a five or six year old. That comes later!

Aaah. My teachers told me about God, but it didn't make me believe.

I wonder why.

But do we ever have proof for anything? I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, or that gravity will continue to apply tomorrow, but I don't have proof. I do, however, have probability, though that might also be questionable (what if I believe in probability?)

I agree with this.

I deliberately excluded the time where my mother's decrees that God would listen & related admonishments held any weight.

I know I was formally questioning religion when I was 'trained' for my first communion aged 7. I know I have not believed since.

The previous period I do not remember my beliefs, but don't think it's hugely relevant as I may have also believed in the Tooth Fairy.

Out of curiosity, I wonder why you would find it insulting / inappropriate to insist that God did not exist?

I can understand why it would not be scientifically verifiable, but in a world where it's acceptable to claim existence of a being based on the evidence of select texts, I don't see why it should be insulting to strongly argue that God definitely doesn't exist.

That is to say, I cannot prove my assertion that God doesn't exist, but I am more than happy to go toe to toe with those who are willing to insist that he does and to argue with equal fervour.

I would find it insulting to _my_ intelligence, not to the other people. I would not want to be associated with that view, and I correct people who say that I believe it.

I'm happy to argue that there's no reason to think God exists, and that assertions that he does are without grounds. Just not to assert that God is impossible.

I was brought up as a JW and as a kid I definitely believed. As I grew older I still believed but didn't like a lot of it. The whole 'living forever on a paradise Earth' scared the crap out of me and would induce feelings of anxiety and panic. I'm not entirely sure why. Probably because I couldn't stand the thought of having to spend an eternity with only the rest of the congregation. While they weren't bad people they weren't much fun. It sounded so dull and boring. I still believed whole-heartedly up until the age of about 16 when I started questioning but still went along with all the beliefs. Creation, no Christmas, no celebrating birthdays, no blood transfusions etc. It was only when I started university that I let that lot go. I went from JW to agnostic to wiccan to atheism. I'm much happier with regards to the whole belief front now.

Coming in a bit late on this one. After reading the prior comments, I probably fit best with the agnostic theists. I've had some personal experiences that seem to me as fitting with the idea that there is some sort of Supreme Being. But I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of enforcing my ideas of said Being on anyone else. Plus, there's the whole thing of my ideas of said Being seem to change on a semi-regular basis.

I was raised very much US Southern Baptist, and my mother's family is primarily Pentecostal (yes, with the whole speaking in tongues & women not being allowed to wear makeup, cut their hair (unless it's severely damaged), wear pants or short sleeves, etc.). But my parents weren't really church-goers. My paternal g-mother was the one dragging me off to every church event she could find, and my parents would go for weddings, funerals, etc. Although my mother is Definitely a Christian, she doesn't seem to subscribe to any particular denomination or to care much about others' faith as long as they behave in a manner that seems moral & ethical to her.

Somewhere around the age of... 14? 15? ish? I really started thinking about where I fell on the whole religion question. At the time, I was just coming out of the above strong indoctrination (although it never truly bothered me if I found that someone I liked believed differently), & so couldn't quite classify myself as non-Christian. At the time, I settled on "non-denominational Christian." In college, it became "agnostic, but more-or-less Christian" & eventually "err, Wiccan? Sort of? But Definitely Pagan." And now, it's come around to Agnostic Theism. *shrug* It's all good, I guess? AKA, whatever works? Heh.

Have tried to fill this in as best I can but for several of them I found it difficult to pick an option. I have arguably always had a broadly Christian outlook. But having said that, my beliefs incorporate a whole lot of other supernatural aspects that aren't necessarily Christian, or viewpoints that don't maybe fit into the stereotypical Christian worldview. Also while I am usually (if not always confident of basics (eg existence of God), I am a lot less certain on details. And this is partly self-encouraged havering (though certainly not entirely so) as I think 100% certainty can be dangerous in any believer. See the old Quaker proverb: "Always consider that you may be wrong..."

Belief - repost

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject