The Mark of the Beast (666)

Originally posted by Ytse
But even your reasoning that it is more reasonable to think the bible is a creation of man rather than a revelation of god rests on an assumption as well. And that is that the universe is naturalistic.

On the other hand if you presuppose that the universe is created by god then it makes absolute sense to have faith.

Of course you cannot prove or disprove either assumption via empiricism.

Again assuming that the universe is naturalistic is more reasonable then believing in the supernatural or magic. Do you believe that belief (faith) is more valuable then reason?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, sadly not. It has some decent points. But also bad ones.

Well, makes no sense to argue over this considering what we're discussing.

Well, except if it was said 2000 years ago?

Jeez. I'd rather not speculate on alternate realities and what ifs.

No, it wouldn't. It would just be as acceptable. Actually Merriam and Webster would win, because that is teh definition of good we accepted in the language (free will).

I was semi-joking. The dictionary itself shows "good" as being subjective.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again assuming that the universe is naturalistic is more reasonable then believing in the supernatural or magic.

But I am not claiming god to be supernatural at all. Or magical. But I fail to see how it's more reasonable at all. Both worldviews would allow for science and empiricism to work.

Do you believe that belief (faith) is more valuable then reason?

It depends. Generally I would say reason is more valuable. But logic and reason always rests on certain assumptions.

Originally posted by Ytse
Well, makes no sense to argue over this considering what we're discussing.

Jeez. I'd rather not speculate on alternate realities and what ifs.

I was semi-joking. The dictionary itself shows "good" as being subjective.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I could say the devil does exist. then you will ask me to prove it. so, i ask you. prove he does not exist.

Originally posted by Ytse
But I am not claiming god to be supernatural at all. Or magical. But I fail to see how it's more reasonable at all. Both worldviews would allow for science and empiricism to work.

It depends. Generally I would say reason is more valuable. But logic and reason always rests on certain assumptions.

Then I misunderstood you.

But even your reasoning that it is more reasonable to think the bible is a creation of man rather than a revelation of god rests on an assumption as well. And that is that the universe is naturalistic.

When someone says the naturalistic in the context that you said about, they are assuming a supernatural. Am I wrong about this?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When someone says the naturalistic in the context that you said about, they are assuming a supernatural. Am I wrong about this?

This is what I mean by naturalistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) do not exist.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I choose to believe in the devil because I believe in god, and they og hand in hand. No, I have never seen evidence that either exist, but I still have my faith. You apparently do not believe in either, and I am fine with that. To me, my faith is my evidence.

Originally posted by Ytse
But even your reasoning that it is more reasonable to think the bible is a creation of man rather than a revelation of god rests on an assumption as well. And that is that the universe is naturalistic.

On the other hand if you presuppose that the universe is created by god then it makes absolute sense to have faith.

Of course you cannot prove or disprove either assumption via empiricism.

The belief that the universe is naturalistic is verifiable, e.g. modern medicine, science, and technology are based on observations of a naturalistic universe; if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications.

The belief that the universe is created by God is not observable, testable, or verifiable.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The belief that the universe is naturalistic is verifiable, e.g. modern medicine, science, and technology are based on observations of a naturalistic universe; if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications;

I'm saying that God provides the necessary preconditions for such things. This explains why induction works in the Christian worldview. Naturalistic science also believes induction works but there is no way to explain it since each new observation adds to the inductive process.

Originally posted by Ytse
I'm saying that God provides the necessary preconditions for such things. This explains why induction works in the Christian worldview. Naturalistic science also believes induction works but there is no way to explain it since each new observation adds to the inductive process.

I am saying that if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications since they are based on observations of a naturalistic universe. In other words, that modern medicine, science, and technology have real world applications is verification that the universe is naturalistic.

By all means, explain how the belief that the universe is created by God is observable, testable, and verifiable.

Originally posted by Ytse
This is what I mean by naturalistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which the world is amenable to a unified study that includes the natural sciences and in this sense the world is a unity. According to such a view, nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) do not exist.

I think it is more reasonable to believe that the world is Naturalist, then to believe in a supernatural or magical world. IMHO people who believe in the supernatural and magical worlds are delusional.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I am saying that if the universe is not naturalistic, then modern medicine, science, and technology would not have any real world applications since they are based on observations of a naturalistic universe.

And why wouldn't they be applicable if observed in a created universe?

By all means, explain how the belief that the universe is created by God is observable, testable, and verifiable.

I never claimed it was observable or testable. I said neither were. How can you prove naturalism? How can you know you're observing a created world sustained by god or observing a world that came about through natural causes?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is more reasonable to believe that the world is Naturalist, then to believe in a supernatural or magical world. IMHO people who believe in the supernatural and magical worlds are delusional.

Again, I am not claiming god to be supernatural or magical. For him to be supernatural would presuppose that there is a natural world to be beyond. I am saying everything is created in the first place.

Originally posted by Ytse
And why wouldn't they be applicable if observed in a created universe?

I never claimed it was observable or testable. I said neither were. How can you prove naturalism? How can you know you're observing a created world sustained by god or observing a world that came about through natural causes?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I am not claiming god to be supernatural or magical. For him to be supernatural would presuppose that there is a natural world to be beyond. I am saying everything is created in the first place.

So, everything is supernatural? That is extraordinary, and it requires extraordinary proof, therefore, it is not reasonable.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, everything is supernatural? That is extraordinary, and it requires extraordinary proof, therefore, it is not reasonable.

No. Supernatural doesn't even mean anything in a created world.

Originally posted by Ytse
No. Supernatural doesn't even mean anything in a created world.

We have to use words to understand each other. There is a natural world or a supernatural world. All you are doing is saying that both natural and supernatural are replaced with created world. "Created world" is supernatural. Don't be offended by the words, they are just tools we use to communicate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you are doing is saying that both natural and supernatural are replaced with created world.

No, I am not saying that at all. Supernatural has no meaning at all outside a dualistic metaphysic. I'm saying there is no such dualism. All is created and god is self-sustaining and sustains his creation. There is no "nature" to be beyond or above in the first place since everything was created.

Originally posted by Ytse
No, I am not saying that at all. Supernatural has no meaning at all outside a dualistic metaphysic. I'm saying there is no such dualism. All is created and god is self-sustaining and sustains his creation. There is no "nature" to be beyond or above in the first place since everything was created.

Then what you are saying is that the universe is natural and God is natural. God created the universe naturally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then what you are saying is that the universe is natural and God is natural. God created the universe naturally.

Maybe in some sense but not in the philosophical sense. Naturailsm isn't compatible with the idea of a creator god because they would consider the concept to be unknowable and/or nonexistent beforehand.

Originally posted by Ytse
Maybe in some sense but not in the philosophical sense. Naturailsm isn't compatible with the idea of a creator god because they would consider the concept to be unknowable and/or nonexistent beforehand.

It all depends on what is meant by "creation" and "god". If "creation" is natural processes, and god is the universe, then you have no problem. However, you can't take the bible literally in that case.