@moonbus said
I don’t need reasons for not believing in the Tooth Fairy, kobolds, elves, ectoplasm, magic, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, Zeus, Quetzlquatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Osiris, Shiva, the God of Abraham, or supernatural causality in any other form whatever. The burden of proof is on those who believe such fantastical things exist.

Where natural explanations fail what is left is something that must transcend the
natural world.

@kellyjay said
Where natural explanations fail what is left is something that must transcend the
natural world.

Yes, certainly. And that is where this thread started. What are the psychological underpinnings of beliefs which concern things which transcend the natural world? Quoting a book you hold to be the word of a god I don’t believe exists doesn’t get any traction. Claiming the beliefs are true doesn’t get any traction.

@moonbus said
Yes, certainly. And that is where this thread started. What are the psychological underpinnings of beliefs which concern things which transcend the natural world? Quoting a book you hold to be the word of a god I don’t believe in doesn’t get any traction. Claiming the beliefs are true doesn’t get any traction.

Anyone can claim anything; simply saying you must accept this because I or
someone else does isn't reasoning. The premise is if there are no natural
explanations, then something that transcends the natural is the cause; we don't
have to dive deeply into scripture or go anywhere near the Bible to look at
that. Linking the two when it is not necessary doesn't add to or take away from
that notion that something supernatural is required; with or without the Bible,
that would still be the question.

@kellyjay said
Anyone can claim anything; simply saying you must accept this because I or
someone else does isn't reasoning. The premise is if there are no natural
explanations, then something that transcends the natural is the cause; we don't
have to dive deeply into scripture or go anywhere near the Bible to look at
that. Linking the two when it is not necessary doesn't add to or tak ...[text shortened]... at something supernatural is required; with or without the Bible,
that would still be the question.

You are assuming the conclusion, that there must be transcendendental causes. Just because we don’t have naturalistic explanations for every observed phenomenon, it does not follow that only a transcendental explanation would suffice. There might still be a naturalistic one we just haven’t discovered yet.

@moonbus said
You are assuming the conclusion, that there must be transcendendental causes. Just because we don’t have naturalistic explanations for every observed phenomenon, it does not follow that only a transcendental explanation would suffice. There might still be a naturalistic one we just haven’t discovered yet.

Who doesn't assume what they think is true is true? That said, it isn't anything I'm
asking you to look at internal to me or you, the premise is, if nothing natural can
explain the universe, its material, and its immaterial properties than something that
transcends the universe is necessary, not just a possibility. This is the point for
a supernatural cause, only something along the lines of a natural explanation
in my opinion, can dispel it, you have one?

You could look forever for something not there; at what point do you think its
time to consider something else?

@kellyjay said
Who doesn't assume what they think is true is true? That said, it isn't anything I'm
asking you to look at internal to me or you, the premise is, if nothing natural can
explain the universe, its material, and its immaterial properties than something that
transcends the universe is necessary, not just a possibility. This is the point for
a supernatural cause, only somethi ...[text shortened]... ok forever for something not there; at what point do you think its
time to consider something else?

And you can look forever for the transcendent, which might not be there either.

The relevant question for this thread is: why do you not believe in the Tooth Fairy, kobolds, elves, ectoplasm, magic, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, Zeus, Quetzlquatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Shiva, whereas you do believe in the God of Abraham? If you say 'because it's true' -- that's option a), shallow as it is.

@kellyjay said
They can build their views around what they dislike
instead of simply figuring out what is correct.

When you are here mentioning “dislikes” and presumably “likes” are you talking about people using their moral compass in a rational way to make decisions?

When you are here mentioning “correct” and presumably “incorrect” and people “figuring out” isn’t that people also using their moral compass in a rational way to make those decisions?

@moonbus said
And you can look forever for the transcendent, which might not be there either.

The relevant question for this thread is: why do you not believe in the Tooth Fairy, kobolds, elves, ectoplasm, magic, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, Zeus, Quetzlquatl, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ahura Mazda, Osiris, Shiva, whereas you do believe in the God of Abraham? If you say 'because it's true' -- that's option a), shallow as it is.

Well, I and millions of others are witnesses to have been saved by a transcendent
One, but that isn't the question again, now is it? The premise remains if there are
no natural explanations for the creation of the universe and, for that matter, life,
then we are looking for one that transcends the universe.

Changing the subject to the Tooth Fairy and whatnot is avoiding the only question
here that matters. Millions of beings are real and unreal, and none of them at the
moment are specific names here; we are only looking at what is required.

@kellyjay said
The premise remains if there are
no natural explanations for the creation of the universe and, for that matter, life,
then we are looking for one that transcends the universe.

So is this, do you think, the reason why all theists believe what they believe with regard to what they see as reality?

Is it because they feel they MUST have an explanation and so they subscribe to a theology that offers them one?

Is this your stance on the OP question?

@fmf said
So is this, do you think, the reason why all theists believe what they believe with regard to what they see as reality?

Is it because they feel they MUST have an explanation and so they subscribe to a theology that offers them one?

Is this your stance on the OP question?

Another separate question from my premise, if no natural explanations are there,
then is something that transcends the natural required?

Each individual will be shaped; differently; some will look to this, others another
that, "all theist' or "All anything else" is using a broad brush and, more times than
not, doesn't always apply across the board. Some are Theists because of
experiences; there is a gambit of things, and what draws one may repel another.

Finding what applies to all questions doesn't apply to this premise.

@divegeester said
When you are here mentioning “dislikes” and presumably “likes” are you talking about people using their moral compass in a rational way to make decisions?

When you are here mentioning “correct” and presumably “incorrect” and people “figuring out” isn’t that people also using their moral compass in a rational way to make those decisions?

What does this have to do with, if no natural explanation can account for everything
then does an explanation that has something transcending the natural required?

Like or don't like what you want.

@kellyjay said
Well, I and millions of others are witnesses to have been saved by a transcendent
One, but that isn't the question again, now is it? The premise remains if there are
no natural explanations for the creation of the universe and, for that matter, life,
then we are looking for one that transcends the universe.

Changing the subject to the Tooth Fairy and whatnot is avoidi ...[text shortened]... l, and none of them at the
moment are specific names here; we are only looking at what is required.

Millions and millions of people have the feeling of having lived past lives and of being here to work out previous karma, under the guidance of multiple deities and minor spirits, according to an immanent principle which operates within causal chains in nature. Why should I believe you instead of millions and millions of Hindus? After all, the Hindu religion is several thousand years older than yours and therefore much closer to the mind of the original man in paradise, compared to your johnny-come-lately myths about Adam and Jesus concocted long after man left paradise.

The premise remains that we should keep looking for naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. Given two possible explanations for why a candle burns: a) it's oxidation of fuel, and b) Goddidit, a) is more plausible and verifiable, whereas is b) is neither (unless one is predisposed to believe in magic).

@kellyjay said
Another separate question from my premise, if no natural explanations are there,
then is something that transcends the natural required?

Responding to my point-blank question with a counter-question is just you dodging.

@kellyjay said
Each individual will be shaped; differently; some will look to this, others another
that, "all theist' or "All anything else" is using a broad brush and, more times than
not, doesn't always apply across the board. Some are Theists because of
experiences; there is a gambit of things, and what draws one may repel another.

My question clearly does not preclude theists from having diverse backgrounds. But I think you knew that already but typed what you typed anyway.

@moonbus said
Millions and millions of people have the feeling of having lived past lives and of being here to work out previous karma, under the guidance of multiple deities and minor spirits, according to an immanent principle which operates within causal chains in nature. Why should I believe you instead of millions and millions of Hindus? After all, the Hindu religion is several thousa ...[text shortened]... plausible and verifiable, whereas is b) is neither (unless one is predisposed to believe in magic).

You have a natural explanation?