Why does god hide (pt. 2)

Originally posted by vistesd
Although I have the sense that you are right that the claim of a supernatural category (as conventionally understood, as you say) is self-contradictory, I am not yet satisfied that I have it clearly in my head. So, I’d like to proceed slowly, if you’ll bear with me.

If the claim of a supernatural category entails an actual self-contradiction, then ...[text shortened]... to a reductio ad adsurdum, and should be challengeable only by challenging the premises.

…but self-contradiction ought to be demonstrable via a deductive inference that leads to a reductio ad adsurdum,
…

I am not sure if this is what twhitehead actually meant by ‘self contradiction’ in this context but if we assume that BOTH ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ laws apply to everyday objects then what if some of those ‘natural laws’ actually logically contradict some of those ‘supernatural laws’?

For example, what if, according to one ‘supernatural law’, a cat CAN float past my window, but, according ‘natural law’, a cat can NOT float! Then, regardless of whether or not a cat CAN or CAN NOT float past my window, we have a logical contradiction with at least ONE of the two sets of laws -and a logical contradiction cannot exist in reality (and can only exists in our minds) -right?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…but self-contradiction ought to be demonstrable via a deductive inference that leads to a reductio ad adsurdum,
…

I am not sure if this is what twhitehead actually meant by ‘self contradiction’ in this context but if we assume that BOTH ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ laws apply to everyday objects then what if some of those ‘natural laws’ ...[text shortened]... -and a logical contradiction cannot exist in reality (and can only exists in our minds) -right?[/b]

But what is to prevent the supernaturalist from simply asserting that natural laws (cats can’t float) operate except in cases where the supernatural laws supervene (and then cats can float)? Aren’t we back where we started? (But I’m thinking that might be part of tw’s objection: that one cannot speak of supernatural activity “within”, so to speak, the natural realm without contradiction.

So I think what you say here is well-stated and on the mark, but I think that there has to be a contradiction embedded in the claim that the supernatural can supervene, or else we really don’t have an A&~A contradiction, but just “under what set of conditions, ~A; but under another set of conditions, A”.

I’m not trying to be stubborn (or worse, dense!), but until I can lay it out clearly in my own head, I’m not satisfied with it.

[Once again, out here in the boondocks where our internet connection has all the power of a rat running on a wheel, I’m having trouble keeping connected. If I’m slow in coming back, that is likely why.]

Father: On Christmas night Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents under the tree.
Child: But how can Santa fit through our tiny chimney and how does he manage to visit every house in one night?
Father: He's Santa! Its elf magic!

What is really happening is that the father is saying "I haven't got the faintest idea how it works and what I am claiming contradicts all known facts", but by invoking 'magic' or 'the supernatural' you create a whole new set of rules, independent of the standard 'natural' laws thus implying knowledge that you do not actually have, hiding the fact that you haven't actually explained anything whatsoever.
The mention of magic or the supernatural psycologically prepares us for 'anything is possible' and for some reason we are less inclined to question it than we would be if it was introduced as just one more natural law.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Father: On Christmas night Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents under the tree.
Child: But how can Santa fit through our tiny chimney and how does he manage to visit every house in one night?
Father: He's Santa! Its elf magic!

What what if the father is a physicist? Does he have the same explanationto his son anyway? Or do he make up some intricate scientific explanation?
Like "That, my son, you will know when you have studied quantum physics at university level."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Father: On Christmas night Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents under the tree.
Child: But how can Santa fit through our tiny chimney and how does he manage to visit every house in one night?
Father: He's Santa! Its elf magic!

What is really happening is that the father is saying "I haven't got the faintest idea how it works and what I ...[text shortened]... tually have, hiding the fact that you haven't actually explained anything whatsoever.

He's also collaborating in a shared fantasy; most children begin to suspect independently that the story isn't real, but it's fun to pretend that it is.

Originally posted by vistesd
But what is to prevent the supernaturalist from simply asserting that natural laws (cats can’t float) operate except in cases where the supernatural laws supervene (and then cats can float)? Aren’t we back where we started? (But I’m thinking that might be part of tw’s objection: that one cannot speak of supernatural activity “within”, so to speak, ...[text shortened]... a wheel, I’m having trouble keeping connected. If I’m slow in coming back, that is likely why.]

…But what is to prevent the supernaturalist from simply asserting that natural laws (cats can’t float) operate except in cases where the supernatural laws supervene (and then cats can float)?
…

Good point -and I have no good argument against that at the current time.
I am not sure but I would probably want to first ask just such a supernaturalist:

“exactly what set of rules X determine WHEN and WHERE supernatural laws supervene and WHEN and WHERE supernatural laws do NOT supervene?”

and then I would also ask:

“are those set of rules X themselves supernatural rules or merely natural rules”

and:

“exactly what attribute of any rule/event determines/defines whether it is a supernatural rule/event or merely natural rule/event ?”

By the way; I am not really sure there IS an actual subtle logical contradiction somewhere there in the belief that there exists both the natural and the supernatural; I am just fishing around for one.

It would be nice if we could actually find some such logical contradiction for that could be used as a weapon against an awful lot of claptrap (rhetoric) about the “supernatural”.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Father: On Christmas night Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents under the tree.
Child: But how can Santa fit through our tiny chimney and how does he manage to visit every house in one night?
Father: He's Santa! Its elf magic!

What is really happening is that the father is saying "I haven't got the faintest idea how it works and what I to question it than we would be if it was introduced as just one more natural law.

…The mention of magic or the supernatural psychologically prepares us for 'anything is possible' …

It has just occurred to me that if there IS an actual subtle logical contradiction somewhere there in the belief that there exists the ‘supernatural’ then perhaps it could be because the ‘supernatural’ implies that 'anything is possible' ? -I mean, IF it is indeed the case that the existance of any ‘supernatural’ DOES imply that 'anything is possible' then that would imply that you could have BOTH P and ~P (because 'ANYTHING is possible'😉 and thus the belief in the ‘supernatural’ would be a self-contradiction because of that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The mention of magic or the supernatural psychologically prepares us for 'anything is possible' …

It has just occurred to me that if there IS an actual subtle logical contradiction somewhere there in the belief that there exists the ‘supernatural’ then perhaps it could be because the ‘supernatural’ implies that 'anything is possible' ? -I ...[text shortened]... and thus the belief in the ‘supernatural’ would be a self-contradiction because of that.[/b]

Full marks!

Books like 'Supernature' are based on that premise.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The mention of magic or the supernatural psychologically prepares us for 'anything is possible' …

It has just occurred to me that if there IS an actual subtle logical contradiction somewhere there in the belief that there exists the ‘supernatural’ then perhaps it could be because the ‘supernatural’ implies that 'anything is possible' ? -I ...[text shortened]... and thus the belief in the ‘supernatural’ would be a self-contradiction because of that.[/b]

To press that a bit more—

And if the supernaturalist says, “No, I mean only anything that is logically possible”—often given as a qualification on God’s omnipotence—that comes at the price of admitting that the putatively supernatural can be properly analyzed by logical rules and principles.

So, thus far, the supernatural might sometimes supervene nomological laws (e.g., cats can’t float), but not logical laws (e.g., ~[A & ~]).

But, that leaves us with “anything goes” in the nomological domain—which undermines epistemology utterly! (To my thinking anyway.) And just as we can no longer say that we know anything (even under a fallibilist conception) about the natural realm, we could know nothing at all about any supernatural realm. (Except that either it is either logically lawful or incoherent. But that seems to become, strictly, immaterial.)

When the supernaturalist kicks the legs out from under the epistemic foundations of natural knowledge, she knocks herself down as well. Supernaturalism is more that epistemically unwarranted (as I say, my former view), it is epistemically impossible.

Corrections?

Originally posted by vistesd
To press that a bit more—

And if the supernaturalist says, “No, I mean only anything that is logically possible”—often given as a qualification on God’s omnipotence—that comes at the price of admitting that the putatively supernatural can be properly analyzed by logical rules and principles.

So, thus far, the supernatural might sometimes super ...[text shortened]... emically unwarranted (as I say, my former view), it is epistemically impossible.

Corrections?

Is it 'logically lawful' or 'incoherent'?
I imagine it might be both and more...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Is it 'logically lawful' or 'incoherent'?
I imagine it might be both and more...

Let’s take modus ponens: “If p, then q; p; therefore q.”

Can you think of a case in which that “logical law” can be violated without resulting in incoherence?

Originally posted by vistesd
To press that a bit more—

And if the supernaturalist says, “No, I mean only anything that is logically possible”—often given as a qualification on God’s omnipotence—that comes at the price of admitting that the putatively supernatural can be properly analyzed by logical rules and principles.

So, thus far, the supernatural might sometimes super ...[text shortened]... emically unwarranted (as I say, my former view), it is epistemically impossible.

Corrections?

…if the supernaturalist says, “No, I mean only anything that is logically possible”
…. …—that comes at the price of admitting that the putatively supernatural can be properly analysed by logical rules and principles.
…

It has just occurred to me that IF the putatively supernatural can be properly analysed by logical rules and principles without any logical contradiction with itself nor logical contradiction with natural laws (because it merely defines exceptions to natural laws rather than saying they cannot happen) then there would appear to be nothing distinguishing “supernatural law” from “natural law” (at least with my way of thinking because “natural law” can also be properly analysed by logical rules and principles without any logical contradiction).

This is because any “supernatural law” can simply be seen as “natural law” but with that “natural law” being one that defines an exception to some other “natural law” just as the “natural law” that “nothing can go over the speed of light“ shows the exceptions to the “natural law“ that “if you throw a stone twice as hard it will go about twice as fast” (point: the latter doesn’t mean we see this “nothing can go over the speed of light“ law as being “supernatural” just because it is an exception to some other natural law!)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…if the supernaturalist says, “No, I mean only anything that is logically possible”
…. …—that comes at the price of admitting that the putatively supernatural can be properly analysed by logical rules and principles.
…

It has just occurred to me that IF the putatively supernatural can be properly analysed by logical rules and principles ...[text shortened]... f light“ law as being “supernatural” just because it is an exception to some other natural law!)[/b]

To my recollection, this seems to be pretty much the way in which tw originally presented the argument.

Originally posted by vistesd
When the supernaturalist kicks the legs out from under the epistemic foundations of natural knowledge, she knocks herself down as well. Supernaturalism is more that epistemically unwarranted (as I say, my former view), it is epistemically impossible.

An excellent argument. I always find it interesting how few theists take part in discussions of this nature. Surely if the argument threatens theism, then a seeker of the truth would take note and either adjust their theism, loose their theism or look for holes in the argument.

Originally posted by rwingett
...
Within this thread we will assume that there is a god (of some sort) who hides from his creation, or who does not want his existence and attributes to be factually known.

What motives might a god have for that behavior?

....

I read an article in Theology Today about 13 years ago that completely changed my God-view forever. That's the nature with theological essays; there can be vast amounts of drivel and then something literally strikes you down that you never saw coming.

This particular theologian asserted that God is not in every place all the time.

That got me thinking, and I have ever since, about my particular God-view. There is a great deal of evidence on the Bible for this sort of God-behaviour and it explains to me some stories in the Bible where I'm wondering "Where the heck is God when this is happening??"

I'm not directly addressing the subject here. but this God-view that I have influences all questions such as this one for me.