The Supernatural

[OrdinaryClay]

Likewise, you have the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God is "moral" does that mean he has to do what is moral, or that what he does is moral by decree?

 

Given that what God is reported to have done to people, the actions of said god are not only immoral, but beneath contempt. That is when I realized that morality is independent of God.

This is a false dilemma. IOW, there are not only two possibilities - morality independent of God and morality as simply commanded by God. The third choice is that morality is defined by what God is. God is Love. God is goodness. You may not like the way God is, but still the dilemma is logically broken.

No, you have simply stated that God is goodness, which is the second part of the Dilemma. Your description implies that whatever god does is by default good, even if it is absolutely disgusting, repulsive, and "inhuman."

 

Nice going, Clay.

Read the link you provided. The second horn is that morality is what is commanded by God, not what God is. It is between morality being independent of God(first horn) or commanded by God(second horn). The reason theists don't like the second is because it implies an arbitrary choice, i.e He could change His mind. If God is moral then it is not arbitrary.

The problem still lies in whether God's morality is reflected by what he does, or commands, or not. If his actions or commands are evil, then he is not good, and we know this by an independent standard.

You may believe this but you did not arrive at that conclusion using the Euthyphro Dilemma. You are just arbitrarily assuming the first horn of the dilemma is true.

[OrdinaryClay]

You wonder if a reverse concept is possible here.

 

 

Is it possible to believe in God and the Bible without believing in the supernatural ? If so, then everything hinges on the reality of this "supernatural".

Yes, this is possible, but it would be foolish to believe if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did not exist supernaturally.

 

1Co 15:14

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

 

 

I still say that a proper definition of the supernatural, or "God's private technology" that is different from ordinary reality and naturalistic physics, must have a more flexible scope. It's hard to tell sometimes if something was a supernatural event. It might be really subtle. Something more profound would be that which "runs counter-intuitive" to our usual sense of natural process or statistical trends within day to day reality.

Interesting take. Can you elaborate? I'm open to listening to your proposal.

 

Do you believe in any supernatural?

[ghost_warlock]

At what point is goodness a necessary trait for this supernatural agent (God)? Detectable but unpredictable and outside the laws of nature/ physics. Nothing about this implies goodness or any other personality or motivation.

 

It's only necessary because many believers claim that their deity is benevolent. If the deity isn't good, then their concept of god is faulty.

 

Also, to paraphrase Epicurus, what use is an evil god?

[Shyone]

The problem still lies in whether God's morality is reflected by what he does, or commands, or not. If his actions or commands are evil, then he is not good, and we know this by an independent standard.

You may believe this but you did not arrive at that conclusion using the Euthyphro Dilemma. You are just arbitrarily assuming the first horn of the dilemma is true.

It is derived from the Euthyphro Dilemma. Call it the "Fucking Shyone Dilemma" if you wish, but you have failed to address it.

 

Your disengenuous avoidance of the problem of the source of morality is slimy, but I expect no less. Carry on.

[Legion]

OrdinaryClay,

 

I will offer you a challenge.

 

Luke 4:12 Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

Which contradicts Gideon's fleece and doubting Thomas.

Contradictions? In the Bible? No way. The Bible is one big harmonious egocentric tapestry.

[Snakefoot]

Ordinary Clay please get down to my level and tell me what you consider to be a supernatural event and why?

 

 

He will not do it. Watch...

See? Told you so.

[Deva]

Ordinary Clay please get down to my level and tell me what you consider to be a supernatural event and why?

 

 

He will not do it. Watch...

See? Told you so.

 

Guess you are right. Haven't really seen any plain explanation yet.

[Tabula Rasa]

Just popping in for a moment. I'm not really certain how to define supernatural except that it's a violation of the laws of physics, or something purely impossible.

 

As for evidence of supernatural events, Charles Fort wrote about a whole lot of strange occurrences that some might consider supernatural. Like this one: Weird Los Angeles: It's raining blood!

 

Clotted blood rained over Los Angeles, as well as the Californian township of Los Nietos. It was during the hot August of 1869 when all manner of gore plummeted to the ground from no apparent source. The shower lasted three minutes and plastered areas of up to two acres.

[Shyone]

Just popping in for a moment. I'm not really certain how to define supernatural except that it's a violation of the laws of physics, or something purely impossible.

 

As for evidence of supernatural events, Charles Fort wrote about a whole lot of strange occurrences that some might consider supernatural. Like this one: Weird Los Angeles: It's raining blood!

 

Clotted blood rained over Los Angeles, as well as the Californian township of Los Nietos. It was during the hot August of 1869 when all manner of gore plummeted to the ground from no apparent source. The shower lasted three minutes and plastered areas of up to two acres.

It's weird alright. I would take the natural explanation, but then I'm a materialist.

 

More recently, a scientific explanation for the phenomenon has been developed that involves waterspouts. Waterspouts are capable of capturing objects and animals and lifting them into the air. Under this theory, waterspouts or tornados transport animals to relatively high altitudes, carrying them over large distances. The winds are capable of carrying the animals over a relatively wide area and allow them to fall in a concentrated fashion in a localized area. More specifically, some tornadoes can completely suck up a pond, letting the water and animals fall some distance away in the form of a rain of animals.

[Snakefoot]

Just popping in for a moment. I'm not really certain how to define supernatural except that it's a violation of the laws of physics, or something purely impossible.

 

As for evidence of supernatural events, Charles Fort wrote about a whole lot of strange occurrences that some might consider supernatural. Like this one: Weird Los Angeles: It's raining blood!

 

Clotted blood rained over Los Angeles, as well as the Californian township of Los Nietos. It was during the hot August of 1869 when all manner of gore plummeted to the ground from no apparent source. The shower lasted three minutes and plastered areas of up to two acres.

Curious to discover the natural cause/explanation for this, I did a little sleuthing. I did not find the whale or other animal/meat processing plant explosion I was looking for, but I did run across this from a history of Los Angeles around the period of 1869. It seemed a macabre, poignant fit for this thread:

 

 

The schoolmasters of the Spanish era were invalid soldiers, possessed of that dangerous thing, a "little learning;" and it was very little indeed. About all they could teach was reading, writing and the doctrina Christiana. They were brutal tyrants and their school government a military despotism. They did not spare the rod or the child, either. The rod was too mild an instrument of punishment. Their implement of torture was a cat-o'-ninetails, made of hempen cords with iron points. To fail in learning the doctrina Christiana was an unpardonable sin. For this, for laughing aloud, playing truant or other offenses no more heinous, the guilty boy "was stretched face downward upon a bench with a handkerchief thrust into his mouth as a gag and lashed with a dozen or more blows until the blood ran down his little lacerated back." If he could not imbibe the Christian doctrine in any other way, it was injected into him with the points of the lash. --A History of California and an Extended History of Los Angeles and Environs, Vol. I

 

(Emphasis added.)

[Franko47]

 

 

I still say that a proper definition of the supernatural, or "God's private technology" that is different from ordinary reality and naturalistic physics, must have a more flexible scope. It's hard to tell sometimes if something was a supernatural event. It might be really subtle. Something more profound would be that which "runs counter-intuitive" to our usual sense of natural process or statistical trends within day to day reality.

Interesting take. Can you elaborate? I'm open to listening to your proposal.

 

Do you believe in any supernatural?

 

 

 

There are a few problems with attempting to separate what would be two distinctly different "avenues of reality". In the first place, phenomena that is isolated to the internal experience of a single individual could never be acceptable as "evidence", for obvious reasons. It may form part of the reasoning for "conviction", which is fine, and as I have told many a Christian friend, I can respect that but cannot act upon another person's experience that takes place in a "closed and private" system, that being their internal experience. If I did that, I would have to entertain testimonies of every religion in the world, including UFO abduction experiences and the ravings of those who are schizophrenic or experience altered states under the influence of hallucinogenics and narcotics.

 

To say that God uses a separate "continuum" of reality to "prove his existence or commands" is a curious way to go about it. You'd think that "He" could manipulate ordinary reality and physics to make his point. Even reconstructing the neurological network of a brain-damaged accident victim need not require any "supernatural" process. Information and energies applied at the quantum level could serve to such a healing process, and this is what current neuro-scientists are studying, as well as methods for building neuro-prosthetics so that the blind can interpret images and the deaf could hear again through various interface technology.

 

Perhaps the question should be, "why the need for an alternate system of methodology in order for God to express his powers or thoughts to our perceptions?". This makes me slightly suspicious, since it still smacks of the ancient idealism of "esoteric cult religions" or, historical Gnosticism, which placed a heavy emphasis on altered states and magical rituals and so on. I detect a kind of dependency in all of this to want to separate reality into two distinct avenues; it solves certain problems such as why we don't see a plethora of "miracles" in our modern day culture (and we don't) and also the fact that most "faith-healing" artists have been debunked (like Benny Hinn et al) even by other Christian observers.

 

The James Randi society and many other technical universities still are offering good money for anyone who can perform an act of supernatural magic under reasonably fair observable conditions; you'd think that the psychics and witches would be lined up, but so far nobody has impressed, and most applicants turn out to be merely self-deluded nuts. Again, there is little aside from anecdotal an personal internal experience in our modern culture that suggests the ability at least for humans to perform supernatural acts, let alone prove that they have persuaded God to perform one.

 

To be fair, I believe that an advanced intellectual intelligence that can control energy and matter at levels we don't understand to be viable and possible, whether it be a "God" of our historical antiquity, or merely an alien super-intelligence as depicted in some science-fiction stories. If I did witness a profound event that "ran counter-intuitive" to my sense of reality, and was witnessed even by others, it would be interesting, but not necessarily proof of the Bible or the popular religious ideas concerning Christ and all the ideas of popular Christian theology.

 

Again, I can be sympathetic more to Christian values and respect for proper philosophy garnished from that tradition through ordinary discussion and thinking, as opposed to being swayed by historical anecdotal evidence of great feats and miracles. Must God put on a "magic show" in order to make His point ? This is the whole problem with religion in a nutshell; why not just openly declare his existence in the context of ordinary reality ? "He" claims that eventually he will do so anyway; and supposedly did so in the past. Why is "blind faith" or "enigmatic phenomenon" such a virtue ? Most of our morality and ethical choices are based on observation and wisdom through experience; even the way we come to trust our friends and family members is based upon realistic experience and observation.

 

This likely doesn't completely answer our subject matter here, Clay. I respect the fact you want to at least approach and interact with us in these forums. I kind of get a gist of where you're coming from, and I'd like to hear more out of intellectual curiosity. The greatest problem that many Christian intellectuals have with some of us here is a misunderstanding of why we are skeptical or have de-converted; there are many issues involved which sometimes may be hard to understand for the convinced.

 

However, we can still learn about each other's thinking on these matters; I prefer to understand rather than just argue.

 

Peace.

[Snakefoot]

Just popping in for a moment. I'm not really certain how to define supernatural except that it's a violation of the laws of physics, or something purely impossible.

 

As for evidence of supernatural events, Charles Fort wrote about a whole lot of strange occurrences that some might consider supernatural. Like this one: Weird Los Angeles: It's raining blood!

 

Clotted blood rained over Los Angeles, as well as the Californian township of Los Nietos. It was during the hot August of 1869 when all manner of gore plummeted to the ground from no apparent source. The shower lasted three minutes and plastered areas of up to two acres.

It's weird alright. I would take the natural explanation, but then I'm a materialist.

 

More recently, a scientific explanation for the phenomenon has been developed that involves waterspouts. Waterspouts are capable of capturing objects and animals and lifting them into the air. Under this theory, waterspouts or tornados transport animals to relatively high altitudes, carrying them over large distances. The winds are capable of carrying the animals over a relatively wide area and allow them to fall in a concentrated fashion in a localized area. More specifically, some tornadoes can completely suck up a pond, letting the water and animals fall some distance away in the form of a rain of animals.

This would also fit with my rendering plant idea if a tornado/waterspout, or even a relatively small whirlwind passed over the refuse canal or pond of such an operation.

[Shyone]

This would also fit with my rendering plant idea if a tornado/waterspout, or even a relatively small whirlwind passed over the refuse canal or pond of such an operation.

It would be nice to be able to document the source, but I suspect that it was probably not a commercial facility but rather a herd of wild animals ripped to bits and scooped up into the sky by a diety. Or a tornado.