And more to the point, I'd say: then, by definition, we'd be free to observe and analyze it, like any other natural phenomenon. It is that appeal to supernaturality that is used as a rationalization for why God isn't subject to analysis. So, in fact: theists.
Agreed. Indeed, some people rationalize their belief in God via the "God of the gaps" belief (i.e. all the stuff we don't understand yet is God.) That way they can list all the things that God must do, because currently we don't know how it can be done - thereby providing their proof of God's existence. The problem with that approach for theists is that we are learning new things all the time. So if you were to come by that approach honestly, your belief in God would slowly erode over time, as your former proofs are demonstrated to just be natural physical principles. Needless to say, for most theists, such demonstration of natural principles prevailing over supernatural explanations does the opposite - it merely hardens their resolve to ignore such facts in favor of belief. Which is one reason that we have so much science denialism today.
Denial of the logical level of pattern involved cripples rational thought. Exactly. And denial of an embedding context of pattern is a denial of reason. You might as well attempt a rational analysis of Shakespeare's plays by analyzing presence/absence data of ink molecule arrays on a two dimensional cellulose matrix, while denying the existence of "words". Reverence is not the point. Avoiding gross error in one's presumptions is.
Because atheists only know what they are told, about the deities of theists. And that's what the theists tell them, in all those vast tracts of history and philosophy and theology and what-all.
Where have I defined god? Better yet, where have you defined god? (Since you're the one who claims there is such a thing.)
As already mentioned, the only persons who define God as supernatural appear to be atheists. Why? Huh? Even with those definitions in tow, it still remains that you and your ilk are the only ones who insist on using the word supernatural. Why?
So, in other words, it never crossed your mind to voice an opinion on the subject based on history and philosophy? (Namely the history and philosophy of theism). Why? Incorrect. His definition is exclusive to atheists. Granted, that atheism purports to define theism as a position of belief, but it seems strange to come forth with beliefs about the theoretical definition of God that are, by and large, exclusive to atheists. Alternatively, one could try consulting a dictionary if one is possessed of insufficient reserves of intellectual fortitude to consult history or philosophy.
Plainly incorrect. If it was the case, they would not bring their exclusive definitions to the subject. It is a theme constantly repeated by practically all posters here except Yazata (the most recent contribution being from Dave just a few posts up ... aka, "if it was natural, we would be able to observe/analyze it"). Even in this tirade, you introduce no tools for comprehending reality or unpacking evidence of it beyond empiricism.
Well, you did just rise to defend the term "supernatural". Why? If you are too lazy to consult history and philosophy, a dictionary might be a good place to start.
This is why you go back on ignore. I never defined anything... It's you who wants to put words in my mouth. Here's some real words coming out of my mouth, fuck off.
Erm ... Go back and read your defense of the use of the word supernatural ... which was your introduction to this discussion. Even Dave interpreted your defense of its use as an advocacy of it. If your brain is on such a short fuse, it may pay to invest a bit more thought in your contributions, rather than adopting an artifice of bluster.
Good. Then you're happy to assume God is natural. Which means we can posit a hypothesis about where he manifests, what he's made of, and how he affects us and with what phenomena. And then we can look for evidence of those things, and examine whether there are any other hypotheses that explain those things as easily. And then we can ... WARNING WARNING DANGER MUSIKA ROBINSON Do not open the door to allow analysis of God! WARNING Quick - divert the topic by dismissing it or responding with a noncommittal question. I jest, but that's what you will do. Remember, if you don't like how other people are defining things, please feel free to step forward with corrections. But you won't do that, because you simply do not know.
Because they have whatever they were handed by the theists. That's the main source of information about deities any atheist has. I agree they are "eccentric", to misuse the English language as you do, but it has proven impossible to get any theist to provide anything else. Every theist on this forum has argued strenuously against all attempts to limit their deity to the natural world, require their deity to be limited by natural law, etc. So has every theist in recorded history and philosophy. Atheists accept this defining characteristic, as insisted upon by all theists. That will provide a supernatural God, again, as always.
So is cosmology natural, iyho? If so, bring forth evidence, ideas, etc pre big bang. IOW you are talking more about the limits of our empirical endeavors and less about ontological categories within reality.
If that was the case, they wouldn't have their own eccentric terminology. If there was nothing else to go by, it would be meaningless to describe the usage as eccentric. I disagree. It's more a case of refusing to have God relegated to the current limits of empiricism. Only in the minds of persons who are of the opinions we are sailing in the upper statosphere of complete empirical analysis of reality. I guess at the end of the day, one has to ask whether one would prefer to be a big fish in a small pond or something of more humble proportions in an immensely larger body of water.
Yes, cosmology is natural. (I can't believe I have to tell you this.) We have a preponderance of evidence of the evolution of the universe from t=10^-43s up to the present. We have a theory that explains it, though it is under active development, as new evidence comes in all the time. And there are competing theories, just none that explain it nearly as well as the Big Bang or its cousins Inflationary Theory, etc. And (because apparently you didn't know this either) pre-Big Bang is NOT part of Cosmology. Because we have no evidence to analyze or support it.
I see Jan is still lost in catatonia, repeating the same mantra over and over. That's what cult followers do, BTW. Just sayin'
