Belief is a mental state that suggests that there is something out there. It acts intelligently so we can conclude that an intelligent person responsible for it if we accept the argument, which is, I) There is an intelligent act (an intelligent act being an act which is directed to somewhere), II) Intelligent act is caused by an intelligent person, III) Therefore there is an intelligent person. I, however, don’t see any difference between natural and supernatural except that the first is common whereas the second is rare. They are both caused.
Any so called supernaturnal phenomena that is objectively real is natural by definition
And so if it is caused and can be demonstrated to exist then it cannot be supernatural
Belief is a mental state that suggests that there is something out there. It acts intelligently so we can conclude that an intelligent person responsible for it if we accept the argument, which is, I) There is an intelligent act (an intelligent act being an act which is directed to somewhere), II) Intelligent act is caused by an intelligent person, III) Therefore there is an intelligent person. I, however, don’t see any difference between natural and supernatural except that the first is common whereas the second is rare. They are both caused.
[/quote]
Rare?
I hope you do not mean the 7th hand hearsay in holy books.
Tell us what you have seen please or know of miracle as facts please.
Regards
DL
[/quote]
Here are a few associated with Christianity.
@ freespirit; see hume’s argument against miracles and russell’s ‘natural law’ argument. i’d get the links for you but my iced mocha just blew up and i’ve got whipped cream all over my fingers. i shouldn’t even be posting this much. you owe me.
You atheists always reject anything that exposes your materialist world view.
[/quote]
I might have missed something but as I said, I saw nothing concrete.
If you had anything in particular, I am sure your would have highlighted it.
I agree that atheists reject your fantasies for what they are.
Thanks for trying to label me such out of your frustration in having me thing as delusionally as you do.
They can read my mind and put thoughts inside my mind in a way that I feel that it is my thoughts. They are very powerful and there is a hierarchy within them.
An inelegant stereotype. I am an atheist and not a materialist. There is nothing about atheism that dictates worldview beyond literally “without God”. Anything else is on the table.
In terms of established worldviews, mine probably most closely fits Panpsychism, but I have ironed out the issues in this and all other worldviews in my own Experientialism.
There is zero need for religious narrative in either of these, and inserting a token Deistic “God” into the vocabulary serves no use.
Dawkins, maybe. Hitchens simply brought up scripture and presented it for what it is without mercy. Harris has a mastery of philosophy that is on par with the best of them, and far beyond mere experts. He even differs with the 4th horseman of the counter-apocalypse, Dennett, with his monist Materialism that I too rejected back in university. None of them think they’re experts in every field just because they are in their own field.
Rather like a cosmic consciousness.
It happens that I believe in that, to a point only, because I don’t know if I could differentiate it from what Jung and Freud called our Father Complex.
I have no way of knowing if that is what I telepathically found or a cosmic consciousness.
Sight does not work in our minds and I could not tell if I was outside of my body or within it.
Why are you choosing the supernatural view instead of the natural view?