10 Mar 09
1 edit
the idea I guess, but am unsure, most people use as a referant to the word "God" is exactly like painting legs on a snake --
"Do you mean to say that positing such a referent (or, I would say, positing a supernatural category) has no use-value for explaining what we cannot now comprehend of the natural universe? "
yes, because given what we can observe and know, we cannot establish a truth value for this word, only presume one.
But if the concept makes folks behave themselves and feel good about it, fine., that might be of some use.
Problem is that use has been thoroughly and consistently corrupted.
I am sure Jesus, at least, did not expect the Spanish Inquisition.
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinI agree: once a supernatural category is posited, virtually any explanation can be admitted. Then various supernaturalists can war with one another over whose is correct. But the existence of a supernatural category cannot be demonstrated: it must be taken as axiomatic for a domain of discourse such as supernatural theism.
the idea I guess, but am unsure, most people use as a referant to the word "God" is exactly like painting legs on a snake --
"Do you mean to say that positing such a referent (or, I would say, positing a supernatural category) has no use-value for explaining what we cannot now comprehend of the natural universe? "
yes, because given what we can obser ...[text shortened]... onsistently corrupted.
I am sure Jesus, at least, did not expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Religions may also have some aesthetic value in their expressions; but while I find great beauty in, say, Beethoven’s Ninth, it would seem ludicrous for me to say “I believe in Beethoven’s Ninth” in any epistemic sense.
I found your survey of logic helpful, but, as I noted above, am moving over to the “Is logic faith?” thread.
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdI'm there already, too
I agree: once a supernatural category is posited, virtually any explanation can be admitted. Then various supernaturalists can war with one another over whose is correct. But the existence of a supernatural category cannot be demonstrated: it must be taken as axiomatic for a domain of discourse such as supernatural theism.
Religions may also have some ...[text shortened]... survey of logic helpful, but, as I noted above, am moving over to the “Is logic faith?” thread.
my last word here is that I can imagine a God not bound by anything whatever.
that's not hard to do -- a lot of folks prefer to dream up an omniscient, all powerful, infinite presence, the creator of the universe, who can simultaneously put the trillions upon trillions of stars into their life-cycles and still keep up with whether you as an individual have behaved yourself today.
I don't believe it, but I can imagine it.
11 Mar 09
Originally posted by ScriabinBut most theists believe in a God that is bound by some very strict rules. Some claim that they are rules created by God, but many claim that they follow naturally from other properties of God (such as him being infinite). Things like 'righteous' and 'holy' are not normally seen as things God invented but rather natural properties of God.
my last word here is that I can imagine a God not bound by anything whatever.
Personally I think it is just wishful thinking. I see no reason why God would not be a scheming liar.