Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eduk]

It is a pretty good point actually. Supernatural means false. It means magic. It means something which is not true. If you say a claim is supernatural you are immediately saying the claim is not true. Naturally this would lead to some bias. Equally naturally is something which was claimed to be supernatural that was proven would immediately not be supernatural.
I can't think of anything which has been claimed to be supernatural which later turned out not to be though?
But yes if you say a. is true because magic then there is no reasonable reason to take a. seriously on those grounds alone.

[Ranvier]

If we go with the definition of "supernatural" as something that doesn't obey natural laws, then we have to explain "tunneling", the results of "double slit experiment", or "quantum entanglement". There is or will be a scientific explanation for all such phenomena sooner or later, hence the word "supernatural" becomes meaningless in such definition.

-- Updated August 3rd, 2017, 4:04 pm to add the following --

In other words, we assume that anything we observe is "natural"

-- Updated August 3rd, 2017, 6:22 pm to add the following --

Except perhaps human behavior...

[Moreno]

2. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one (Occams razor)

That's not the OR. It doesn't weigh in without details on whether simpler explanations are more likely to be better. It's about IF you have two explanations, and both work equally well to explain something, choose the one with less postulated entities.

It's not an ontological claim, it's a methodological suggestion.

[Charlemagne]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

At least theism tries to explain all things that appeal to the heart's desire.

[Moreno]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

[Charlemagne]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

No, first you tell me one thing it explains.

[Aristocles]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

No, first you tell me one thing it explains.

Atheism is disbelief, no? So atheism explains skepticism. In relation to OR, atheism seems pretty content less, pretty logical. For that to be reality, seems wanting, like only half true.

The heart’s desire may not be the rational half, but the other half nonetheless, and of equal importance to reality. To deny this, is to deny reality. Denying the heart’s desire is inaccurate simplicity. We want simplicity to replace reality?

[Charlemagne]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

No, first you tell me one thing it explains.

Atheism is disbelief, no? So atheism explains skepticism. In relation to OR, atheism seems pretty content less, pretty logical. For that to be reality, seems wanting, like only half true.

The heart’s desire may not be the rational half, but the other half nonetheless, and of equal importance to reality. To deny this, is to deny reality. Denying the heart’s desire is inaccurate simplicity. We want simplicity to replace reality?

Atheism does not explain skepticism. If anything. skepticism explains atheism.

[Moreno]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

No, first you tell me one thing it explains.

Why do I need to do that? You made what I think is an odd claim. That atheism denies the possibility of explaining anything. I don't think that makes any sense. Can you back up your assertion.

I'm a theist. I don't need to explain what atheism explains. I don't even think that sentence makes sense. I think atheism is either the belief there is no God or the lack of belief in God. It is not a model or explanation of something. It is a word referring to a specific belief or a lack of a specific belief.

So, please back up what you said.

[LuckyR]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

No, first you tell me one thing it explains.

Atheism in and of itself explains nothing, just as not believing in Santa (in and of itself) explains nothing. What some theists seem unable to grasp is, while the label of "atheist" describes a single concept that an individual doesn't believe in, it tells an observer NOTHING about what an individual does believe in. And no, you don't get to supply a strawman guess as to what it is.

[Aristocles]

In light of the claim atheism is the most logical view of the world:

1. Ironic skeptic claim:
Atheism does not explain skepticism. If anything. skepticism explains atheism.

2. Seemingly Contradictory Skeptic:
Atheism in and of itself explains nothing. Yet, atheist label describes a single concept that an individual doesn't believe in, it tells an observer NOTHING about what an individual does believe in.

1. The ironic skeptic claim above does well to ejaculate a chicken egg obfuscation, but the tangential seeming argument is not provided for the reader. Here, would we be permitted to have a guess as to the argument, or better, relation to the thread topic?

2. The seemingly contradictory skeptic claim tangentially suggests any word in and of itself may explain something in and of itself. Nevertheless, the atheist appears to be granted the ability share a belief (a belief of disbelief) while simultaneously sharing nothing. What is more, only certain people are granted the privilege of inserting Santa, others do not get to supply such a thing.

So, the lack of simple agreements, leaves the razor lost in seemingly needless added complexity.

[Charlemagne]

Atheism is not the most logical view of the world because it explains nothing and even denies the possibility of explaining anything.

Atheism does not deny the possibility of explaining anything. If you think it does, please lay out the argument.

So far as deciphering the meaning of life, atheism explains nothing. According to atheism, there is no God who gives meaning to our existence. We just are. The existentialists like Sartre and Camus made a great deal of this when their novels and plays talked about the absurdity of existence without God or purpose to our existence.

WE JUST ARE.

[Moreno]

So far as deciphering the meaning of life, atheism explains nothing.

So? that does not entail that it denies the possibility of explaining anything.

According to atheism, there is no God who gives meaning to our existence. We just are. The existentialists like Sartre and Camus made a great deal of this when their novels and plays talked about the absurdity of existence without God or purpose to our existence.

Yes. But even those two very specific atheists with a lot of other beliefs that went into their existentialisms believed that many things could be explained. And in fact they explained some of these things.

Tell me also how theism doesn't do the same thing. For example, why is there a God?
God is in most theisms and always has been. You don't get an explanation for why God is.

We could then run around saying that theism denies the possibility of explaining anything. Pretty much every belief system finds a place where it says 'as far as we know it just is this way.'

[Charlemagne]

So far as deciphering the meaning of life, atheism explains nothing.

So? that does not entail that it denies the possibility of explaining anything.

According to atheism, there is no God who gives meaning to our existence. We just are. The existentialists like Sartre and Camus made a great deal of this when their novels and plays talked about the absurdity of existence without God or purpose to our existence.

Yes. But even those two very specific atheists with a lot of other beliefs that went into their existentialisms believed that many things could be explained. And in fact they explained some of these things.

Tell me also how theism doesn't do the same thing. For example, why is there a God?
God is in most theisms and always has been. You don't get an explanation for why God is.

We could then run around saying that theism denies the possibility of explaining anything. Pretty much every belief system finds a place where it says 'as far as we know it just is this way.'

A God who is eternal does not have to be explained. A universe that is not eternal (which our universe is) has to be explained. God is an explanation for why that universe exists ... it was created. The existence of God also explains why humans exist. The universe offers no explanation why it exists or why we exist. That is the weary track record of atheism ... that it explains nothing.

[Moreno]

A God who is eternal does not have to be explained.

Oh, so no one would ask why there is a God? You can't know humans very well.

A universe that is not eternal (which our universe is)

Not according to many physicists. Many consider it anything from likely to necessarily the case that it or some metauniverse is eternal - and there are a couple of ways it can be eternal since those who believe it had a beginning believe that time began then. Others believe it is a block universe. Others that there is a cycle. Others that a broader metauniverse has universes within it and the former is eternal. You've got watered down cosmology and think it gives you a hold on scientists, but you don't know much about how they think.

That is the weary track record of atheism ... that it explains nothing.

It's not meant to explain anything. It is a word describing the belief or lack of a person.

Seriously what is wrong with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

An atheist could believe the universe is eternal. I know people who fit that category. Some are physicists.

Neither theists nor atheists have an explanation for why there is anything. A universe or a deity to make a universe. No one has a good answer to that. Sometimes the questions is why is there something rather than nothing.

A feather is not a hammer. If you keep trying to hammar nails with it, it ain't going to work. If someone says feathers make great hammer, well, great, you can tell them feathers aren't working.

If someone says atheism explains the origins of the universe, you can tell them it doesn't. I'll join in and tell them also.

The world is full of idiots so perhaps someone will say that, but the vast, overwhelming majority of atheists are not going to say that atheims explains the origins of the universe. Nor will most theists or atheists sell feathers as hammers.