before everyone jumps on me - i am a hardcore atheist... militantly so, you could say, but that last point "if there was a god, humans would have supernatural powers" is weak. the argument that humans do have "supernatural" (in a sense) powers could def be made. science, technology, art... these are aspects of humanity that could easily be argued to be supernatural (ABOVE nature) when looking at the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet as "nature". i like Stenger, but this is a weak point
That's not really what he said, he said if humans had a soul we should have supernatural powers. Although you're right that a theist would just redefine "supernatural" to mean things we do that are complex, like art and science (even though you and I know there is nothing "supernatural" about them).
Not to push a moot point but that IS what he said. Weak logic is weak logic, & it's better to have it pointed out by a fellow atheist than to allow it to be used as an argument just to have it dismantled by some pseudointellectual sun-worshipper. It's time atheists stop using circumstancial evidence, no matter how much of it there is & concentrate on arguments that make the idea of god straight-up impossible.I make a similar suggestion to the 911Truth ppl as well as (cinically) to religious ppl
@CathySander it's impossible to prove whether something exists or not, without having a definition. Since most believers either don't have one, or each have their own, you have to go on a case-by-case basis. If a believer says god is omnipotent, you concentrate on logically proving the impossibility of omnipotence. If he/she says god is omnipotent and omniscient, and ultimately good, you show how the combination of ALL 3 of those is self-contradictory. Admittedly this is kind of a trick, because
@CathySander ..because really this excersize is meant to have the believers themselves clearly demonstrate that THEY have no idea what god is, their own definition being made up by them, patch-worked from things they've been told, or simply heard and left unexamined. It's designed to become a lose-lose proposition for the believer, since to the extent that they can't define god, they show their own ignorance, and to the extent that they CAN define god, they give u ammo to prove his nonexistance
@CathySander the universe itself constantly defies our understanding of its workings. Then science catches up, and our understanding of the universe changes. Then we discover something new that defies our understanding of the universe, etc. (ie, newtonian, einsteinian & quantum physics). Fact is, even if some sort of a "magical" event took place tomorrow, it wouldn't be too long before we understood how it works, provided it was around long enough to be properly examined and studied.
@CathySander oh and (i promise this is the last one :)), humans do occasionally exhibit behavior that current science hasn't explained yet, and that go against the scientific understanding of the human body and its role in the universe. Take the studies being done on telekinesis or psychic abilities. Granted most of them turn out to be bs, but a small unexplained percentage of those studied do exhibit powers that defy our current understanding of the universe.
@CathySander like I have just said, there are studies being done at numerous universities, by neuroscientists and physiologists, on abilities traditionally considered by science as "superhuman" or "supernatural". If still curious, Google it.
loving the content, but....CFI - sort the camera-work out, and *maybe* Dr Stenger should've invested in an assistant to work the slides! really seems to hamper the flow
before everyone jumps on me - i am a hardcore atheist... militantly so, you could say, but that last point "if there was a god, humans would have supernatural powers" is weak. the argument that humans do have "supernatural" (in a sense) powers could def be made. science, technology, art... these are aspects of humanity that could easily be argued to be supernatural (ABOVE nature) when looking at the rest of the flora and fauna on the planet as "nature". i like Stenger, but this is a weak point
PRIMEx420 2 years ago
That's not really what he said, he said if humans had a soul we should have supernatural powers. Although you're right that a theist would just redefine "supernatural" to mean things we do that are complex, like art and science (even though you and I know there is nothing "supernatural" about them).
Eshto 2 years ago
Not to push a moot point but that IS what he said. Weak logic is weak logic, & it's better to have it pointed out by a fellow atheist than to allow it to be used as an argument just to have it dismantled by some pseudointellectual sun-worshipper. It's time atheists stop using circumstancial evidence, no matter how much of it there is & concentrate on arguments that make the idea of god straight-up impossible.I make a similar suggestion to the 911Truth ppl as well as (cinically) to religious ppl
PRIMEx420 2 years ago
@PRIMEx420: What sort of arguments might we use for the impossibility of god's existance, then?
CathySander 1 year ago
@CathySander it's impossible to prove whether something exists or not, without having a definition. Since most believers either don't have one, or each have their own, you have to go on a case-by-case basis. If a believer says god is omnipotent, you concentrate on logically proving the impossibility of omnipotence. If he/she says god is omnipotent and omniscient, and ultimately good, you show how the combination of ALL 3 of those is self-contradictory. Admittedly this is kind of a trick, because
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
@CathySander ..because really this excersize is meant to have the believers themselves clearly demonstrate that THEY have no idea what god is, their own definition being made up by them, patch-worked from things they've been told, or simply heard and left unexamined. It's designed to become a lose-lose proposition for the believer, since to the extent that they can't define god, they show their own ignorance, and to the extent that they CAN define god, they give u ammo to prove his nonexistance
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
@PRIMEx420: But the point is...we do not, as far as we know, defy the workings of the Universe.
CathySander 1 year ago
@CathySander the universe itself constantly defies our understanding of its workings. Then science catches up, and our understanding of the universe changes. Then we discover something new that defies our understanding of the universe, etc. (ie, newtonian, einsteinian & quantum physics). Fact is, even if some sort of a "magical" event took place tomorrow, it wouldn't be too long before we understood how it works, provided it was around long enough to be properly examined and studied.
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
@CathySander oh and (i promise this is the last one :)), humans do occasionally exhibit behavior that current science hasn't explained yet, and that go against the scientific understanding of the human body and its role in the universe. Take the studies being done on telekinesis or psychic abilities. Granted most of them turn out to be bs, but a small unexplained percentage of those studied do exhibit powers that defy our current understanding of the universe.
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
@PRIMEx420: And how do we know that a small number of people have these abilities? Human conceit is far more common than you think.
CathySander 1 year ago
@CathySander like I have just said, there are studies being done at numerous universities, by neuroscientists and physiologists, on abilities traditionally considered by science as "superhuman" or "supernatural". If still curious, Google it.
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
@PRIMEx420: But how can you be a hardcore atheist when you claim that some people have so-called 'superman' or 'supernatural' powers?
CathySander 1 year ago
@CathySander You're should re-read my last 3 posts, and think about them. If after a week the answer still isn't obvious, write back.
PRIMEx420 1 year ago
It's a great line. But I can't find anything about Robin Williams in »Man of the hour« over at the IMDb. Can you help me out, cayetanoluis? Thanks!
leporidus 2 years ago
"What competent engineer would put a waste-disposal site in a recreation area?"
I know this fun rhetoric question from Neil DeGrasse Tyson (his BeyondBelief 2006 talks are readily available). Hm. Who borrowed from whom?
leporidus 2 years ago 5
boytracer, yeah this is great but it is like being round your granddads when he show you his slides.
nag73 3 years ago 4
loving the content, but....CFI - sort the camera-work out, and *maybe* Dr Stenger should've invested in an assistant to work the slides! really seems to hamper the flow
boytracer 4 years ago 8