I don't believe in anything "supernatural".

Hello, outofnowheres, welcome to the forum.

No, I don't believe in souls. 

What part of the brain would that be, and what's so special about it?

Like....more to it? What would constitute "more?"

Yes, we do wonder about it, but we do better than that. Scientists study the brain and how it works, and how it affects mental states.

We can sit in an armchair, pondering metaphysics all day.......we're not going to learn a thing. 

Logic is nothing more than knowing what the right thing to do is in a certain circumstance. Nothing more. Logic is gained by experience and being caught in a familiar situation and knowing the best route to take. There will be no "Judgement day" for anyone just because they can't wrap their head around a ridiculous religion. BTW there is nothing abstract about logic. Either you have it and use it or you don't. Logic is the opposite of abstract because it represents the best possible answer to a problem, not the wierd or non-practical one that being abstract means in the first place.

 So 'matter of a fact...' let's see:

Rationality: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic - Princton
 

So in other words, logic is nothing more that something based on logic... This is circular.

Care to try again?

Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference.

Care to try again?

"Thanks for showing enough respect to Google it."

I already knew what logic is. I did so merely for your benefit, as you tried to quote a definition of rational in order to explain what logic is.

Now I find that you also don't understand the terms abstract and supernatural. I suggest looking them up, since I'm not going to sit here and teach you English. After you've done so, you can read this article:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

Good try, but no.

I reject both statements. To accept these would presuppose that God doesn't exist. If I start from the perspective that the material universe encompasses all of reality then of course these are valid statements, but when starting from the perspective that God is immaterial and supernatural these explanations of the terms fail on their face.

No sir, I will not abandon my world view for your convenience.
 

Quite the joke indeed as you frolic about using a standard of reasoning that must admit that my God exists in order to be justified...

Alright, I'll bite.

How is logic merely a natural process? Keeping in mind that if the human race ceased to exist in five minutes the rest of the universe would continue conducting itself in a logical fashion.

It really boils down to this V, your usage of logic is unfounded and mine is grounded in the God that created it. We use logic because we are made in the image of God who created logic.

Now let's employ your world-view. Logic is a non-absolute product of the human brain... If that is the case then I reserve the right to change it to my subjective liking. From now on I will tweak my logic to state that every time you disagree with me you are really agreeing with me. This would be absurd.

You conclude everything including your understanding and subsequent acceptance and use of logic in a logical fashion, this is completely circular...

Logic cannot be independently verified as true or useful without the use of logic itself, therefore your entire perspective on reality is based upon a standard that is reasoned out circularly. Logic is logical therefore it is true! Ironically this process is called begging the question, a logical fallacy of which you have no defense.

While I tell you the truth of the matter, in that logic is a reliable standard of discerning truth because God made it so and sustains it in His unchanging nature.

I have good reason, you have a perfect circle.

I'll take good reason any day.

"Logic cannot be independently verified as true or useful without the use of logic itself, therefore your entire perspective on reality is based upon a standard that is reasoned out circularly. Logic is logical therefore it is true! Ironically this process is called begging the question, a logical fallacy of which you have no defense."

You do realise that you are using logic to attack logic for being logical don't you? And you say I'm being circular...

"While I tell you the truth of the matter, in that logic is a reliable standard of discerning truth because God made it so and sustains it in His unchanging nature."

Then I'm quite right to use logic, which by its very terms rules out the possibility of your gods existence. Irony.

@Vastet:

"That doesn't make any sense to me."

I assume you are joking, but if you aren't I am explaining to you that you have no basis for logic and therefore your basis of understanding is erroneous from your own perspective. Why use logic? Why is it the best option, is it even relevant or helpful? How do we answer these questions ABOUT logic without begging the question by USING logic?

"Logic is how we naturally interpret existence."

Yes, but the laws that govern logic are abstract and not independently verifiable, so how can they be trusted or validated without begging the question?

"Most of my understanding is based upon direct observation. I merely use logic to interpret that observation. You use logic to interpret your observations, with the distinction that you use god to interpret logic."

The point is that God justifies logic in His all-knowing unchanging nature and I am logical for using logic while non-theists are not.

"You do realise that you are using logic to attack logic for being logical don't you? And you say I'm being circular..."

You do realize that I have justified my use of logic and you haven't don't you?

"Then I'm quite right to use logic, which by its very terms rules out the possibility of your gods existence. Irony."

You are right by using logic, but have no basis to do so and by doing so admit that my God exists by necessity. After admitting that God is the Creator and sustainer of logic, you would be hard press to limit Him by it.

@Conor

I like your comment because you attempted to go Biblical. Sadly, your theology is not so hot. (Please do not take that wrong, I would encourage you to continue your studies) That being said, the mind is indeed supernatural with a better definition being something ‘outside’ of nature, not above, to avoid any confusion with ‘above’ meaning superior. The angels are indeed supernatural, but we will judge them in the end despite existing on this side of things.

Now, to clarify. The physical nature of man has not changed, only the spiritual. When God told Adam that he would surely die in a day after sinning he lived for almost 1000 years physically. Adam did die that day; he died a spiritual death, this is why he covered himself in shame. Yet he clearly retained his mind. This is why Paul tells the Ephesians that we are ‘dead in our transgressions and sins,’ you see, because we are sinful we are dead spiritually until God exchanges our heart of stone for a heart of flesh as Ezekiel tells us. Please be open-minded and pray for this change, I do beg you…

We also possess a soul, conscience, and memories in our natural condition all of which are supernatural. When the Bible says natural it means non-spiritual as pertaining to our moral standing with God, not devoid of all properties out of the physical realm. This is evidenced by the soul that is tormented for eternity that despite being spiritually natural (set on the flesh and against God) we still retain forever being in rebellion to God.

Hope this helped.

Speaking Truth, in love.
 

I'll take the lack of meaningful interaction to mean that you have nothing to offer?

I'm not sure how you go about defending pantheism with a philosophy dependent on a explicitly unchanging and all-knowing Creator... which pantheism clearly lacks.

I'm approaching this with the highest standard of reality and truth in existence, the word of God.

Take care,

Let's go back to what I wrote earlier.  What I was trying to get you to see is that the mind cannot be "above nature," as that would demand that any being without "something supernatural" added to it would, by definition, be mindless.  (This includes humanity.)  You seem to agree, but your change to "outside of nature" rather than "above nature" doesn't really work, as the human mind (and remember...that's what we're talking about, here...) is clearly *within* nature, not outside of  it.  (If this were not true, then the entire subject of psychology would evaporate.)  So, sorry, but I'm not buying this "outside of nature" statement about the human mind.  BTW, the prefix "super-" means "above," so my usage of "above nature" is more justified than your "outside of nature."  At least I'm sticking to the original meaning.  Oh...and if we do indeed possess a soul (which I would argue, but not right now) a conscience, and memories "in our natural condition" then those things are precisely *natural,* not "supernatural," regardless of how you care to define the term.  So, to summarize: the mind cannot be above, or outside of, nature.  (Indeed, your assessment of the mind seems to shift between natural and "supernatural" in your discussion, above.)  The fact that the mind can be studied (via psychology, as noted) means precisely that the mind is part of nature, and thus, natural.  (More precisely, it is a function of the human brain.)  It cannot be "natural" when that is convenient, and "supernatural" (either definition) when that is convenient.  So which is it?  Make a decision, and stick to it, my man!

As for being open-minded, I am.  But I'm not going to go back to praying unless I've got a reason to believe.  And I don't.  I would encourage you to take a good, long, hard, honest look at that belief system of yours.  Are you Catholic, Protestant, or some other form of Christian (and please specify which one?)  Please don't hide behind some pious statement to the effect of "I just believe the Bible."  (Other folks have done that to me before.)  Man up, and tell me which Christian belief system label you accept as being, to your way of thinking, the best reflection of your understanding of the Bible.

Oh, and here's a little food for thought...you said that God told Adam that he would die that very day if he ate from the tree.  You yourself then noted that Adam was said to live 1000 years after that point.  What I want you to see is this: you can't have it both ways.  You said that Adam "died spiritually" that very day.  But here's the rub: go back and re-read that Genesis account.  It doesn't say word one about "spiritual death."  The text just says "die."  "God" got it wrong.  If it was "spiritual," then why didn't "God" say that up front, rather than letting the interpreters of the Bible make up "spiritual death" so as to make the Bible look like something on the level of Nostradamus' "prophecies?"  (They really are defended in very similar ways.  Worse: no other "inspired book," such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc., are any better.)  Here, apologetics is revealed as nothing more than making excuses for what you personally *want* to be true.  If what you want is actual, objective reality, then learn the rules of logic (like avoiding fallacies, etc.,) and apply that to your apologetics.  You will see it for the sham that it is.

Conor

__________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

Whoa! I can't believe you don't know what that means. Or, maybe you do, and you're being funny?

Ex nihilo means "out of nothing." E.g. God is often claimed to have created the universe ex nihilo. 

I understand you, but if this is how you view reality then you should be more honest up front and expect to gain few to your cause. I and most care about truth, you offer a life of no real certainty of anything. You have many reasons to believe many things, but you admit you can’t know anything for sure… You sure act like it though.

Perhaps alert Sapient that his absolute claim of knowing Yahweh is not God is really just his best guess based on a lot of other best guesses.

 I suppose you are comfortable with a wholly unjustified perspective on reality seeing as how you hold to the presupposition that any pursuit of knowledge won’t bear out truth, just a lot of confidence.

At the most basic state of our arguments we have this:

‘I don’t really think we can know anything for certain, in fact I’m not really certain that we can’t know things for certain, but because we can’t know things for certain, I can’t be certain that we can’t know things for certain.’ – Butterbattle

"God created the heavens and the earth, we failed to keep a perfect moral law, one of God’s attributes is justice so he can’t let us go… But He is also love so He entered into His own creation and bore the wrath that was due to us in His own incarnate body… He also proved what he said by coming back from the dead and before He left He told us to warn others because He will come back to judge them all from least to greatest.

I know this is true because that same God supernaturally changed my heart and I went from hating God to loving his truth in 24 hours. He has also given us instructions in the Bible so that we would be equipped for the work he laid out for us, it’s stood the test of time and answers all the major life questions, would you like to read it for yourself?" - eXnihilO (appealing to the highest standard of truth, the Bible.)

For some reason, I just have to go with the Gospel…

Praise the Lord for His love and grace.

...I rather insistently asked you for specifics on your belief system; I can't deny you the same about mine, at least not fairly.  In an immediate sense, I apostasized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; however, I was raised as a Roman Catholic Christian.

To further the discussion:

1. My disbelief in the supernatural is *not* a controlling presupposition with respect to the naturalness of the human mind.  Such a presupposition is entirely unnecessary.  Please re-read our previous posts, and bear in mind that I was attempting to show you how your own discussion of the human mind as "supernatural" is illogical.  Indeed, if there are any presuppositions here, they are yours--your presupposition that the term "supernatural" applies to the human mind.  I showed you that the mind is not supernatural in *either* sense that we discussed.  If you wish to demonstrate error to me, you need to show me how the human mind is "outside of nature" (which is your definition of the term "supernatural.&quot  Please note that it is not enough to say that the mind is not a solid object, for then air would be supernatural.  Nor is it enough to say that it is not matter, for then energy would be supernatural.  It is not even enough to use the term "nonmaterial" for "supernatural," for then mathematics would be supernatural.

2. You said "The mind and soul have existence in both the physical and non-physical realm."  This almost sounds like the Mormonism I briefly followed.  Pray tell, how is the mind (and the "soul&quot physical?  The *brain* is certainly physical; the neurons which form the brain are individually physical; but how can the mind (a function, not an object) and the soul (a religious doctrine) be *physical*?

3. You wrote "Just as God is very much a part of this world yet immaterial so too is our soul and mind."  All I have to say to this is: bear in mind you are talking to atheists, here.  If you expect this analogy to carry any weight, you will have to prove the existence of God, first.  (Here we run into another of *your* presuppopsitions: namely, that God exists.)

4. Referring to human minds and souls, you wrote: "They transcend space-time."  This is a...novel...idea to me. A purely human mind (and "soul," yet) transcends space-time?  Where is your evidence, please?  (Oh, wait...it's the Bible, right?)

5. You wrote: "I also believe that the ‘natural’ man cannot properly handle the word of God"  Tell me something: if every human being is "natural" (except, apparently, for their supernatural minds which they seem to have in spite of being "natural" themselves) then how can any person "properly handle the word of God?"  Your own conversion is no evidence at all on this point, for you yourself may have *improperly* handled your own Bible--and even if you hadn't, you would have no proof of what constitutes "proper" handling.  Do you begin to see how your own theology ties you in knots? 

6. In response to my analysis of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, you wrote: "I don’t think the author of Genesis was that dumb to be frank. You actually do see it used more that one way in the Bible, so your argument fails."  My response: okay, you see more than one way in the Bible as a whole, but not in the Genesis account.  Why would your god wait for some further book to be written, when making himself clear would have been as simple as saying "You will die spiritually that very day."  You or I would have no problem making ourselves clear on that point if that was what we meant to say, so...how can a putative omniscient, all-wise and perfectly honest deity have any trouble?

7. You also wrote: "I come from the perspective that the Bible is the infallible word of God and cannot possibly be in error."  Here, you admit your presuppositions: that God exists (which you have not proven) that He has spoken (at all!) to humanity (which you also have not proven) and that the Bible--and *only* the Bible--is such speech (which, yet again, is not proven.)  Here's your first lesson in the rules of logic, free of charge: it is the person who makes the positive assertion who bears the burden of proof.  For example, if I were to assert that Bigfoot exists, you would be quite right to ask me for evidence of Bigfoot's existence, and to refuse to believe in the existence of Bigfoot unless and until the evidence in favor of Bigfoot's existence was in.  This rule prevents us, for example, from stringing up random people every time a murder occurs.  It is not enough that a murder occurred, and somebody must be blamed; it must be shown that the specific person who is accused did in fact do the deed (among other things.)  Absent such evidence, the person must be acquitted.  So...you are asserting God's existence, his speaking to humanity, that such speech is present in the Bible, and that it is present *only* there (i.e., to the exclusion of Christian Tradition(s), other holy books, etc.)  And the burden of proof for *all* of this is on you. 

8. Last, you wrote: "Ive never been presented with a verse that I can’t reconcile myself or find justification for, but because the Bible is infallible even If I thought there was an issue I certainly would not call the word of God into question, my own understanding would be trial ages before that Lord willing."  My response: well, of course.  This is a perfectly devout (dare I say, "faithful&quot response to give.  But "reconciling" verses that are obviously problematic is no virtue; it is, to be blunt about it, spin doctoring.  Sure, it's possible to "reconcile" any verse in the Bible with any belief system.  People of all religious persuasions do it all the time.  That's what apologists are there for.  But here's a secret: even non-Christian belief systems can do this, with their books.  One episode that stands out in my journey to atheism is that one day, I was examining a translation of the Koran (happily given me by some Muslims whose services I had visited on base while I was still in the Navy) and I came across a Koranic verse which claimed that God had made humanity from a clot of blood.  I first realized that it didn't matter whether one was talking about humanity as a species, or individual human beings; the statement was wrong, either way.  But then I read the commentary provided.  It claimed that the phrase "clot of blood" was an adequate description of the early stages of embryonic development.  What hit me in that moment was not how alien and different this all was.  No, it was the familiarity of it all; I realized that I had made "faith-filled" arguments initially for the Catholic, and later for the Mormon positions that used the exact same strategy of, in this case, a "soft-focus," if you will, on the exact text, in order to make my own beliefs able to claim a connection to all this credibly.  And you know what? Baptists do the exact same thing.  Don't believe me? Then explain for me James 2:24 from the actual text of James 2:24.

Conor

______________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me

Conor, I appreciate your time and the seriousness of your post.

I look forward to responding after getting some sleep, a good old fundie don't miss church for nothin'

That's a joke, if you knew me you would laugh

gn

"You do realize that I have justified my use of logic and you haven't don't you?"

Ironically you haven't. At best you've proved both positions untenable, at worst you effectively said nothing at all.

"You are right by using logic, but have no basis to do so and by doing so admit that my God exists by necessity."

Except I have basis to accept logic: it works. Nothing about your god works. I didn't even know your god or any other existed in the imaginations of people until I was somewhere around seven or eight. I knew some of my friends vanished for a few hours on Sundays, but I didn't know why. It wasn't until I was closer to 15 that it was made clear just how strongly people wanted to believe in these varied gods. I've always found the whole thing ridiculous. Your arguments add nothing to our understanding of reality.

*facepalm*

Logic is reliable because it works...

And it works because it's logical!

Look ma, no hands....

Welcome to a life of unintelligibility.

Lmao.

"Logic is reliable because it works..."

Bingo.

"And it works because it's logical!"

*Facepalm*

How do you figure that? It works because it works.

The ridiculousness of your position just continues to expand....

The best you can do is claim that I'm being circular, failing as they all do to realise you're projecting your own fallacy on me. The bible is right because the bible says so. LOL. Try again.

    Where did this occur ?  In the US, in Europe, in the Middle East ?  Can you provide a link ?

   ( I did Google it briefly and the only thing I found was a reference to a group of rather sadistic Catholic worshippers located in the Philipines.  I was unable to find anything that described a recent event that involved crucifixion as a deliberate attempt to force a renunciation of faith. )

I'd like to remind your that we are talking about the validation of logic here, not the existence of God. Through this examination of logic, the Christian God is actually proven by necessity however.

You are using the laws of logic to demonstrate the accuracy and usefulness of logic, a perfect circle that does not give logic any external validity at all.

I'm saying that logic is verifiable externally and validated in the existence of the God who created the laws to begin with.

The Christian position affords them the use of logic in a meaningful way and the non-theist can't eve validate it without comiting a logical fallacy, ironically.

I can't remember the details, but it was in the Voice of the Martyrs magazine three months back.

"I'd like to remind your that we are talking about the validation of logic here, not the existence of God. blah blah blah. "

And I'd like to remind you that you are using god as the basis for logic, and for the basis of god you have only the bible. The bible is right because the bible says so. Hence, your entire foundation crumbles at the source, irrevocably destroying your argument.