Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_subgenius]

Here is the definition of supernatural

"Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Now if you mean beyond scientific understanding the I could agree at least to some extent since science does not have it all figured out. There are many different arguments about consciousness and what it is or means. Now if you mean beyond the laws of nature then we will have to look at what that means as well. That could be to much trouble since there is just as much or more arguments about it. For me the laws of nature would be just what is possible. Of course that does not help, but what is it that we need beyond what are brain and body are made of that are necessary to have a consciousness. Religion doesn't know enough to even begin to provide anything useful here.

actually the splitting of hairs over the actual definition is hardly the point...and simply supports my original argument.
The point is about what you consider consciousness to be, either you consider it to be:
1. Beholden to natural laws, known or unknown laws....if they behave according to the laws that govern the physical universe. Such as how water freezes, or how electricity conducts across materials, etc...
OR
2. That consciousness is not beholden to natural laws...that consciousness is not a construct of bio-mechanical systems, that it is not subject to physical laws....that it is capable of "choosing otherwise".

The implications of subscribing to option #1 are obvious...no ability to choose otherwise (ie a leaf can not choose to bend away from the sun), no actual "self", etc...
The implications of #2 are equally as obvious...the ability to choose otherwise, moral and individual responsibility, etc..

saying something like natural laws are just what is possible is irresponsible and rather absurd on this matter.
The idea that the laws of nature govern 100% of the human experience is ridiculous, though atheists would hope and "pray" that it were true...this is best exhibited by the atheist being unable to actually have an argument for morality...to be an atheist requires one to be amoral (not immoral, but "amoral"). A position that is not wise nor virtuous to anyone other than themselves....it is the epitome of the "self-centered" atheist.

[_Themis]

As I stated before, I don't believe that OBE's are exactly the same as NDE's. I realize that OBE's are a rare occurrence, but many of the testimonies of the people who had them are very consistent, and they provide very strong evidence of the spirit within man.

Not really. It provides evidence that they felt they had left there body. This is well within what is possible for the brain to produce, and has in the lab. Also sleep paralysis can cause they same things as well as the idea of devils or aliens(depends on what you want to believe).

[_Themis]

actually the splitting of hairs over the actual definition is hardly the point...and simply supports my original argument.

Without proper definitions we can't move forward.

The point is about what you consider consciousness to be, either you consider it to be:

Even within religion they don't agree on what consciousness is.

1. Beholden to natural laws, known or unknown laws....if they behave according to the laws that govern the physical universe. Such as how water freezes, or how electricity conducts across materials, etc...
OR
2. That consciousness is not beholden to natural laws...that consciousness is not a construct of bio-mechanical systems, that it is not subject to physical laws....that it is capable of "choosing otherwise".

There is your problem with unknown laws. If you come across something that is an unknown law how can you determine whether it is natural or supernatural. You can't.

The implications of subscribing to option #1 are obvious...no ability to choose otherwise (ie a leaf can not choose to bend away from the sun), no actual "self", etc...

You don't know that, nor do you know how something else you define as supernatural can now make it so we can choose something else.

The implications of #2 are equally as obvious...the ability to choose otherwise, moral and individual responsibility, etc..

You don't know this because you don't understand it at all.

saying something like natural laws are just what is possible is irresponsible and rather absurd on this matter.

How so, and be specific?

The idea that the laws of nature govern 100% of the human experience is ridiculous, though atheists would hope and "pray" that it were true...

Many religious people including many LDS believe God works through naturals laws and see the supernatural as just what we don't understand. This in fact is probably more common with LDS.

this is best exhibited by the atheist being unable to actually have an argument for morality...to be an atheist requires one to be amoral (not immoral, but "amoral"). A position that is not wise nor virtuous to anyone other than themselves....it is the epitome of the "self-centered" atheist.

Completely false, but then I doubt you would want to see it any other way. That is your problem.

[_subgenius]

Without proper definitions we can't move forward.

agreed...and since you are struggling with such, here:
natural -
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Relating to earthly or unredeemed human or physical nature as distinct from the spiritual or supernatural realm
supernatural -
Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
(emphasis on beyond the laws of nature)

There is your problem with unknown laws. If you come across something that is an unknown law how can you determine whether it is natural or supernatural. You can't.

i am not concerned with that...my concern is what the implications are for something that is, or is not, subject to natural laws.

You don't know that, nor do you know how something else you define as supernatural can now make it so we can choose something else.

actually i do know that. it is the only reasonable conclusion for anything that is, or could be, defined by natural law. Unless you are proposing that a chemical process can "choose" one product or another? Or that gravity can "choose" to not act upon a falling object, or that water can "choose" not to evaporate in sunlight?

You don't know this because you don't understand it at all.

How so, and be specific?

by your own argument...you claim that so much is "unknown" or "yet to be known", to limit what is possible to that which is natural law is a clear contradiction.
appeal-to-nature

Many religious people including many LDS believe God works through naturals laws and see the supernatural as just what we don't understand. This in fact is probably more common with LDS.

But God is not subject to natural laws, which is the point of this argument.
tu-quoque

Completely false, but then I doubt you would want to see it any other way.

its not about how i see it...its about the only reasonable and logical conclusion. If you can prove an atheist is moral, then good luck...however, i stand by my assertion that a true atheist is amoral, because they have no objective reference by which they can claim something is either right or wrong, and as such have no care for it. If they rely on only what benefits themselves then they have t recognize that others will consider the same to be true for themselves, and thus right/wrong becomes a by-product of physical domination. One atheist may consider one behavior to be "wrong" and another atheist can consider the same behavior to be "right"....but there is no objective measure to determine which of the two considerations is "correct"....except by another atheist......and so there you go....amoral.

That is your problem.

merely confirms my previous statement

[_Buffalo]

For people unwilling to struggle through subgenius' broken English, here is the gist of his argument:


I don't understand something, therefore:

[_subgenius]

For people unwilling to struggle through subgenius' broken English, here is the gist of his argument:
I don't understand something, therefore:

spoken like someone who has vast experience with "not understanding"

your first fallacy

your second fallacy

your third fallacy

[_Buffalo]

For people unwilling to struggle through subgenius' broken English, here is the gist of his argument:
I don't understand something, therefore:

spoken like someone who has vast experience with "not understanding"

your first fallacy

your second fallacy

your third fallacy

So in addition to science, you also don't quite get how fallacies work. I appreciated the tacit admission that you're a poor debater (see link 3). Thanks!

[_bcuzbcuz]

A rare species only needs to be seen once to confirm it's existence.

What, like Sasquatch or Yeti? Doesn't it require something a bit more than just someone to see something?

[_Themis]

agreed...and since you are struggling with such, here:
natural -
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Relating to earthly or unredeemed human or physical nature as distinct from the spiritual or supernatural realm
supernatural -
Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
(emphasis on beyond the laws of nature)

Too bad for you I had already quoted that definition and discussed it. You seem to have avoided that. Some things like lightning where supernatural at one time since they were beyond the understanding of science.

actually i do know that. it is the only reasonable conclusion for anything that is, or could be, defined by natural law. Unless you are proposing that a chemical process can "choose" one product or another? Or that gravity can "choose" to not act upon a falling object, or that water can "choose" not to evaporate in sunlight?

Whether humans are free to choose is still a heated subject of debate in philosophy, and will be for the foreseeable future. I still don't see anything in what you say that indicates you know anything the rest of us don't. We may very well not be free to choose based on what happens to us, and may just have the illusion of it because we have a complex brain and astronomical environmental factors that make it possible to answer at this point.

by your own argument...you claim that so much is "unknown" or "yet to be known", to limit what is possible to that which is natural law is a clear contradiction.

I am just saying that I define natural as what is possible, so anything God does would just fall into what is natural. Supernatural to me would just be what we don't understand. Many religious have this view including many LDS. If you understand how I am viewing it there really is no contradiction.

But God is not subject to natural laws, which is the point of this argument.

Based on how you want to view it yes, so I guess God would then be subject to supernatural laws.

its not about how i see it...its about the only reasonable and logical conclusion. If you can prove an atheist is moral, then good luck...however, i stand by my assertion that a true atheist is, because they have no objective reference by which they can claim something is either right or wrong, and as such have no care for it.

No one has an objective reference, and it really doesn't affect whetehr someone is moral orm not
here is the defiention of amoral

Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something.

Since atheists are concerned with the rightness or wrongness of something they are then moral. They may have different moral then other, but then different religious groups have different moral or ideas of what is right or wrong. Atheist just don't need to go any farther then themselves or society to a God or Gods to which we have no good evidence for.

If they rely on only what benefits themselves then they have t recognize that others will consider the same to be true for themselves, and thus right/wrong becomes a by-product of physical domination. One atheist may consider one behavior to be "wrong" and another atheist can consider the same behavior to be "right"....but there is no objective measure to determine which of the two considerations is "correct"....except by another atheist......and so there you go....amoral.

By that logic everyone is amoral. No one has an objective reference, and religious morals are very much about personal benefit.

[_subgenius]

So in addition to science, you also don't quite get how fallacies work. I appreciated the tacit admission that you're a poor debater (see link 3). Thanks!

you really don't read much do you?
just because you think it was does not make it so....but i understand that is your modus operandi

tacit indeed