The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Religion & Philosophy

Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...6 7 8 · >>
Erimitus On about 8 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#16New Post! Jun 29, 2019 @ 17:23:12
@gakINGKONG Said

"Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person's game?"

I take that question to mean:

"Are people who believe in the supernatural intelligent?"

There are people who believe in the supernatural. Some are smarter than others. Some people who believe in the supernatural are very intelligent.

There's that one guy Isaac Newton. He was okay smart . . . almost as smart as Hannah Montana.



I heard that Hanna Montana and Miley Cyrus are the same person.
Erimitus On about 8 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#17New Post! Jun 29, 2019 @ 17:26:01
@Electric_Banana Said

My crazy is that I believe in telepathy (mind-sharing)
My skeptic is that I don't believe in the afterlife I will be concerned enough with what I left behind here to spend eons hovering around the same spot guarding it

So how do I explain ghosts?

Crossed wires with someone hearing and viewing that phenomena, in real time, who you've accidentally telepathically connected with.

Like holding your two index fingers together in front of your eyes you get a ghostly floating finger - using that same notion imagine my wife walks past me at my place but while sitting at yours you have partially opaque visage of a women drift pass your view.

Now, while still accidentally connected to me, I shout a vulgarity at something I am watching on TV however it transmits to you seeming as some demon shouting that vulgarity at you.

I believe our bodies and this world were manufactured but I don't believe that who manufactured them is the wisest and most considerate intelligence there is in the universe otherwise I wouldn't know better enough to criticise the designers of our world for their inhumane lack of ethics upon making this existence a tangible reality.


wife??
Erimitus On about 8 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#18New Post! Jun 29, 2019 @ 17:31:06
@mrmhead Said

I've been mulling this over ....
Belief in the supernatural does not necessitate the idolization of any said supernatural entity.

I think your question, based on your additional comments, might be more along the lines of:

Do certain people or institutions try to take advantage of (make game of) a persons belief in the supernatural?

To that I would say yes. It's easy to rule the ignorant and gullible. (aka the more intelligent are the rulers)


To me - "supernatural" is just something beyond current understanding, or explanation.
Yes, I believe there are things we don't know.

To focus it on religious God and Satan - Well, I would not dismiss that there are greater entities out there, but I don't believe any book or institution has the full, correct explanation of those things.


I have never been accused of being intelligent but my philosophy has a supernatural entity (the ONE) from which all else is derived.
bob_the_fisherman On about 19 hours ago
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#19New Post! Jun 29, 2019 @ 23:14:53
@GreatestIam2 Said

Is belief in the supernatural an intelligent person’s game?


Of course it is. You can have people from a range of intellectual capacities who support and oppose any broader metaphysical view.

If intelligent people can convince themselves that at no place, at no time, nothing happened, and that's how the universe was created (which, let's be honest, is less of a strawman that an exposition of the Naturalistic paradigm), we must concede that people can believe anything.
gakINGKONG On about 1 hour ago




, Florida
#20New Post! Jun 29, 2019 @ 23:40:26
@Erimitus Said

I heard that Hanna Montana and Miley Cyrus are the same person.



I believe it’s based on the color wig she’s wearing and how obscene the performance is. Billy Ray probably wishes his actual daughter was the character Hanna Montana.
chaski 10 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#21New Post! Jun 30, 2019 @ 00:15:06
@bob_the_fisherman Said

If intelligent people can convince themselves that at no place, at no time, nothing happened, and that's how the universe was created.


I find this idea intriguing.

Who believes that "that at no place, at no time, nothing happened" and that this no place/no time/non-action resulted in the "creation" of the universe?

I don't think I've ever heard that theory before.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

the Naturalistic paradigm).


Please provide your definition or a brief explanation of the Naturalistic paradigm

I thank you in advance.
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#22New Post! Jun 30, 2019 @ 14:40:07
@Erimitus Said

I heard that Hanna Montana and Miley Cyrus are the same person.



She's also Ashley O (Black Mirror) singing Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) songs
bob_the_fisherman On about 19 hours ago
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#23New Post! Jul 01, 2019 @ 08:48:50
@chaski Said

I find this idea intriguing.

Who believes that "that at no place, at no time, nothing happened" and that this no place/no time/non-action resulted in the "creation" of the universe?

I don't think I've ever heard that theory before.


Well, plenty of people have enunciated a claim of that kind. They just make it all sciency to obfuscate.

But the idea that prior to the advent of the universe there was no space, time or matter is a widely held one. Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking... I'm pretty sure they both do. Unfortunately I live away from all my old books or I'd give a more comprehensive list. But the view is actually an amazingly standard one among those who adhere to the folly of a big bang precipitating a finite universe from nothing.

The only belief dumber than a creationist view of the origin of the universe is the Naturalistic view, tbh.
chaski 10 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#24New Post! Jul 01, 2019 @ 14:05:40
@bob_the_fisherman Said

Well, plenty of people have enunciated a claim of that kind. They just make it all sciency to obfuscate.

But the idea that prior to the advent of the universe there was no space, time or matter is a widely held one.


OK... yes... sort of. The what was there before the big bang part is a pretty gapping hole in the theory.

However, that is not really the same thing as the universe being "created" by "nothing" at "no time" and in "no place".

None the less, I get your point and mostly agree with it.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

The creationist view of the origin of the universe is equally as dumb as the Naturalistic view of the formation of the universe.


There I changed/corrected that part for you.

And, again, I agree with you.
bob_the_fisherman On about 19 hours ago
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#25New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 09:54:32
@chaski Said

OK... yes... sort of. The what was there before the big bang part is a pretty gapping hole in the theory.

However, that is not really the same thing as the universe being "created" by "nothing" at "no time" and in "no place".

None the less, I get your point and mostly agree with it.


Actually, my statement is reasonably accurate. According to Hawking, Davies and many other people there was no time, space or matter prior to the Big Bang, and of course they say the Big Bang was uncaused (to avoid that whole messy First Cause thing).

That literally means nowhere, at no time, nothing happened for absolutely no reason, and that is how the universe got here.

It's true you can quibble over the "nothing happened" bit, but an event that happens outside of time, space and matter is an event that doesn't happen. For example, a unicorn dropped a turd on my car outside of time, space and matter. Did that event happen? Is there a unicorn turd on my car?

@chaski Said
There I changed/corrected that part for you.

And, again, I agree with you.


We really need a chin scratching smiley...
[insert chin scratching smiley here]. No, not really.

When the two options available are
1. a major event was caused or,
2. a major event was uncaused,

We stand on much safer ground with 1.

Now, again, we can quibble over quantum physics showing events that appear uncaused and whether this is Naturalists invoking the supernatural to explain the naturally explicable, or, just accept what we know. Events are caused more often than they are uncaused. And at the macro-level we never seem to see uncaused events.

This isn't to say they're wrong, only that it's the least likely of the two available options. We don't have to like the conclusion but we have to accept it. And just because option 1 is the most likely answer, it does not make it right. It just means that if we refuse to accept it we do so for reasons external to the event under consideration.
mrmhead 7 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#26New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 11:59:07
@bob_the_fisherman Said

It's true you can quibble over the "nothing happened" bit, but an event that happens outside of time, space and matter is an event that doesn't happen. For example, a unicorn dropped a turd on my car outside of time, space and matter. Did that event happen? Is there a unicorn turd on my car?


Just because we can't detect it, doesn't mean it didn't happen
chaski 10 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#27New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 14:29:26
@bob_the_fisherman Said


When the two options available are
1. a major event was caused or,
2. a major event was uncaused,




And here lies your problem, you have allowed yourself to be convinced that there are only two options available.

1. The formation of the universe by naturalistic cause.
2. The creation of the universe by a super natural being who is infinite and omnipresent.

I don't have this problem, as I see a third option.

> The universe is and has always been infinite. It has been here, one might say omnipresent, in one form or another forever going both back in time and forward in time. The universe was neither formed nor created.

The universe neither formed nor was created. The Universe just is, has always been and always will be.

No doubt you will deny this and claim that the universe needs a "beginning". Perhaps you will use "science" in your explanation, which is pretty ironic.

(And/Or)

No doubt you will also present some supernatural explanation for the universe not being infinite. This is (also) pretty ironic for someone who believes in an infinite supernatural being that was not created, but rather has always been and always will be.
Erimitus On about 8 hours ago




The mind of God, Antarctica
#28New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 18:11:26
@mrmhead Said

Just because we can't detect it, doesn't mean it didn't happen



Well yeah.
bob_the_fisherman On about 19 hours ago
Anatidaephobic





, Angola
#29New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 21:05:09
@chaski Said

The universe neither formed nor was created. The Universe just is, has always been and always will be.

No doubt you will deny this and claim that the universe needs a "beginning". Perhaps you will use "science" in your explanation, which is pretty ironic.


Why would it be ironic to point out the fact that the infinite universe idea does not even reach to the heights of a theory?

Again - the thought experiment.

You and I create two machines. One allows us to stay in a moment of time (a stasis machine). The other allows us to move backwards in time.

We enter both machines and start moving backwards at a rate of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years per second, with the rate multiplying by a factor of itself each second. According to your theory we could do that for eternity and be no closer to a time at which time began.

Do I need to point out why that destroys this infinite universe theory?

Probably not, but I will anyway. In order for us to be at a point in time (ie., now) time must be quantifiable. If time is not quantifiable we can not be here - it's like trying to fill a bucket with water when the bucket has no bottom. You can put an infinite amount of water in that bucket every second and get no closer to filling it (with the full bucket representing the present moment in time).

I don't even need to invoke scientific reasoning here. However, I will note that the Big Bang theory was only posited to deal with the impossibility of an infinite universe. Do not think for one second that the evidence led the scientific community to a necessary origin. It reluctantly led them away from an infinite universe and left only one option. A naturalistic explanation of origins. Unfortunately though, that explanation is not really scientific - it can't be replicated or tested as it happened outside of time, space and matter and was not caused.

And I'll say again, this does not make them wrong. It just exposes the complete lack of objectivity they are possessed by.

@chaski Said
No doubt you will also present some supernatural explanation for the universe not being infinite. This is (also) pretty ironic for someone who believes in an infinite supernatural being that was not created, but rather has always been and always will be.


Actually, you will find the true irony here is how you, Bertrand Russell and a few other people claim that a being can not be supernatural then claim matter can be.
chaski 10 minutes ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#30New Post! Jul 02, 2019 @ 21:25:11
@bob_the_fisherman Said


We enter both machines and start moving backwards at a rate of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years per second, with the rate multiplying by a factor of itself each second. According to your theory we could do that for eternity and be no closer to a time at which time began.

Do I need to point out why that destroys this infinite universe theory?



Your thought experiment "proves" nothing... and certainly doesn't "destroy" an infinite universe theory.

In fact, your thought experiment is a bit idiotic. If there is no beginning, of course you could never travel back far enough to reach the beginning.


@bob_the_fisherman Said

In order for us to be at a point in time (ie., now) time must be quantifiable. If time is not quantifiable we can not be here - it's like trying to fill a bucket with water when the bucket has no bottom. You can put an infinite amount of water in that bucket every second and get no closer to filling it (with the full bucket representing the present moment in time).


That is meaningless drivel and (again) "proves" nothing.

The fact that "time" extends from an infinite past to an infinite future does not mean you and I are not "here".

Time, at best, is human construct that is relative to the observer.

Kurt Gödel, answered your concerns with time.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Actually, you will find the true irony here is how you, Bertrand Russell and a few other people claim that a being can not be supernatural then claim matter can be.


I don't ever remember claiming "matter" to be "supernatural".

The irony remains with you who believes in the infinite at the same time as denying the possibility of the infinite.

Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 ...6 7 8 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Celebrities
Sun Apr 05, 2009 @ 14:12
23 1710
New posts   Celebrities
Fri Nov 19, 2010 @ 10:40
45 6462
New posts   Pop
Wed Mar 10, 2010 @ 12:05
36 3804
New posts   Music
Wed May 26, 2010 @ 12:58
27 1299
New posts   Random
Thu Mar 13, 2008 @ 20:33
116 3510