Evolution

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Take it up with the cliched phrases department shuckfunt.

poohbum

Originally posted by Starrman
This sentence is false. It does not follow that assumption of the natural world, percievable by the senses, allows an assumption of the supernatural world, impercievable by the senses. In a world in which you assume senses to be enough to constitute reality, they ONLY constitute reality, they lend no weight to the insensible.

That's incorrect, many people feel filled with the Holy Spirit on a regular basis. Are you telling me that their feelings are some how less valid than your own? If I perceive God exists and I perceive that my keyboard exists, why is one more valid than the other. You have made a false assumption with your statement that the supernatural world cannot be perceived.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
That's incorrect, many people feel filled with the Holy Spirit on a regular basis. Are you telling me that their feelings are some how less valid than your own? If I perceive God exists and I perceive that my keyboard exists, why is one more valid than the other. You have made a false assumption with your statement that the supernatural world cannot be perceived.

And tell me, how can the supernatural (i.e. above and beyond the natural world) be percieved with natural sensory apparata? Are you suggesting that we have a supernatural sensory organ? What is it? Where is it? Do atheists have them?

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
That's incorrect, many people feel filled with the Holy Spirit on a regular basis. Are you telling me that their feelings are some how less valid than your own? If I perceive God exists and I perceive that my keyboard exists, why is one more valid than the other. You have made a false assumption with your statement that the supernatural world cannot be perceived.

Perception of something is not enough to conclude that it exists. Optical illusions are common and all the senses can be fooled in various ways. Also not understanding what we are percieving can often lead to the wrong conclusion of what is actually there.
However by sensing something in various different ways and performing tests or experiments we can determine whether or not it is 'highly likely' that something is or is not the way we percieve it to be. In general when somethings likelyhood of being what we percieve exceeds a cirtain threshhold then we call it fact.

Originally posted by Starrman
And tell me, how can the [b]supernatural (i.e. above and beyond the natural world) be percieved with natural sensory apparata? Are you suggesting that we have a supernatural sensory organ? What is it? Where is it? Do atheists have them?[/b]

The complete form and function of your brain and much of your central nervous system is only guessed at. There is so much we don't know. I would propose that your brain is a supernatural sensory organ. You didn't specify that said sensory organ needed to perform the function well (Oh and by the way, I assume that athiests have this organ just as Christians do).

Consider this, supernatural forces are, almost by definition, weak and difficult to detect. If this wasn't the case, humanity, with its drive to exploit natural resources, would surely have found a better use for them. Examples include that sudden feeling that makes you turn your head if someone is watching you. We've all had this feeling and I'd challenge you to explain why it triggers our fight or flight instincts? Surely this is an example of supernatural sensory perception? Deja Vu is always a favorite and there are dozens of other easily documented examples that you must have experienced in your day to day life.

If I get a warm feeling in my chest, a perception of 'rightness' and an increased energy level when I perceive that God has touched my life, this is evidence of a poorly defined sensory organ processing sensory information.

Going back to my initial premise, can you prove that others exist outside of you? Can you prove that your perceptions are not flawed? You simply have no verifiable standard to compare your perception of reality against. You can't assume that your perception of reality is correct to prove that its correct.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, believing the evidence of your senses is clearly that. Belief in god is disbelief in your senses.

This is an invalid arguement. Simply stating that your senses are finely calibrated scientific tools does not make it so.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
The complete form and function of your brain and much of your central nervous system is only guessed at. There is so much we don't know. I would propose that your brain is a supernatural sensory organ. You didn't specify that said sensory organ needed to perform the function well (Oh and by the way, I assume that athiests have this organ just as Christians do).

Please provide some evidence to support such a proposition.

Consider this, supernatural forces are, almost by definition, weak and difficult to detect. If this wasn't the case, humanity, with its drive to exploit natural resources, would surely have found a better use for them.

I am unaware that we had discovered any supernatural forces whatsoever. Are you suggesting these things have been measured? Astounding! Can I read a paper on this?

Examples include that sudden feeling that makes you turn your head if someone is watching you. We've all had this feeling and I'd challenge you to explain why it triggers our fight or flight instincts? Surely this is an example of supernatural sensory perception? Deja Vu is always a favorite and there are dozens of other easily documented examples that you must have experienced in your day to day life.

Nope, sorry to rain on your parade, but these aren't examples of the supernatural, but of coincidence. Humans always like to find patterns, even when there are none present. There is evidence to suggest that deja vu is merely a shorter feedback loop in the neural network (I can't find anything about this at the moment, but I'm sure if you're interested you can do some research).

If I get a warm feeling in my chest, a perception of 'rightness' and an increased energy level when I perceive that God has touched my life, this is evidence of a poorly defined sensory organ processing sensory information.

Or far more likely; misinterpretation based on cultural bias and a need for questions answered.

Going back to my initial premise, can you prove that others exist outside of you?

No, but I refuse to accept a purley skeptical view of the world, it yields absolutely nothing in the way of answers, merely replacing one problem with another. I prefer to reside in the common sense world; reality is merely what you percieve and why should it need to be anything different? In this perfectly reasonable world I can prove others exist by merely seeing them, can you offer anything to suggest that they are not there and that it is in fact an illusion?

Can you prove that your perceptions are not flawed?

And if they are? What then? Have you gained anything at all? Or have you merely confused the issue further?

You simply have no verifiable standard to compare your perception of reality against. You can't assume that your perception of reality is correct to prove that its correct.

So we all agree to forego this as unprovable and non-sensical. A common sense view of the world is the only one which the you that you wake up as every morning can endure. Any question of surreality lends nothing beneficial to your being. So why should your surreal proposition be considered?

For pity's sake...natural / supernatural argument is simply a case of terminology gone wrong...throw away the words and what are you left with?

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
[b]The complete form and function of your brain and much of your central nervous system is only guessed at. There is so much we don't know. I would propose that your brain is a supernatural sensory organ. You didn't specify that said sensory organ needed to perform the function well (Oh and by the way, I assume ...[text shortened]... ing beneficial to your being. So why should your surreal proposition be considered?

There's no reasoning with you obviously. You persist in disregarding the physical evidence that I put forth and poo poo my arguement by refusing to accept its basic premise. Refusing to accept the premise doesn't make it wrong. You can't use your senses and perceptions to 'prove' that mine are wrong.

This arguement goes back to the fundamental nature of reality. I would suggest that we need to examine how we measure/sense reality as a starting point of any discussion. Your evasion of this topic is evidence of your unwillingness to accept that you might be wrong. If I wanted to have that kind of discussion I'd talk to Xanthos.

God is Good and Might Makes Right. Plonker.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
For pity's sake...natural / supernatural argument is simply a case of terminology gone wrong...throw away the words and what are you left with?

A common sense view of the world.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
There's no reasoning with you obviously. You persist in disregarding the physical evidence that I put forth and poo poo my arguement by refusing to accept its basic premise. Refusing to accept the premise doesn't make it wrong. You can't use your senses and perceptions to 'prove' that mine are wrong.

This arguement goes back to the fundamental n ...[text shortened]... at kind of discussion I'd talk to Xanthos.

God is Good and Might Makes Right. Plonker.

Stop playing the fundy, I know you're just doing it to wind me up.

Originally posted by Starrman
Stop playing the fundy, I know you're just doing it to wind me up.

Who me?

In all seriousness though, you should have a look at some of Berkely's arguements regarding the nature of reality and, ultimately, his implied proof of an omniscient being.

Originally posted by Starrman
A common sense view of the world.

A surprisingly large amount of people find God's existence to be a matter of common sense. "There must be a creator--it's only common sense! Can a watch wind itself up...?"

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Who me?

In all seriousness though, you should have a look at some of Berkely's arguements regarding the nature of reality and, ultimately, his implied proof of an omniscient being.

Berkley is a misguided simpleton with a talent for prose.

Originally posted by Starrman
Berkley is a misguided simpleton with a talent for prose.

Which is why they named a university after him right?