Re: The logic of atheism

Ben Goren wrote:

There's a reason that I picked math and logic as my example
natural laws instead of physics (or chemistry or...). And the
reason is that, as you accurately describe, it's entirely possible
to posit that it's possible to violate the law of gravity.

Well, I thnk you at least seem to assent to my argument that the laws
of physical nature are descriptive rather than prescriptive. As for
the laws of math or logic, I don't think those are what anyone has in
mind when they are talking about supernatural abilities, so I think
your use of them to be able to sustain the argument that a supernatural
being can't exist sort of reinforces my point that your argument is
fallacious -- you're redefining what "supernatural" means and then
claiming that inability to perform a supernatural act under your
definition equates to a fundamental impossibility of the supernatural.


Saying that God can't make 1+1=3 is pretty much akin to claims like
"God can't make a square circle" or "God can't make a rock heavier than
He can lift". The problem with these kinds of statements is that the
laws of mathematics are not "laws" in the same sense as the laws of
physics or chemistry. They are similar in that they describe reality
rather than prescribe it, but crucially different in that they are
abstract. Laws like "3+2 = 2+3" are more properly seen as providing a
language for describing certain relationships that numbers have if the
entire system is to be internally consistent. Similar rules apply to a
written language; the words "mother" and "daughter", for example, imply
a well-understood relationship between two people. But these terms
don't in and of themselves embody some underlying physical reality;
they are simply necessary to make intelligible conversation possible.
Your argument is exactly like saying "God can't do the supernatural
because He can't make your mother into your daughter".

It's not even clear how the ability to violate these "laws" would even
be tested, since they are abstract concepts. How would God go about
making 1+1 = 3? What would that even mean? The act cannot even be
specified, because it is nonsensical, just as "making your mother your
daughter" or "making a square circle" are nonsensical. The tasks
cannot be performed, not because they are "very difficult", but rather,
because they are ill-defined (in the case of making 1+1 =3) or
logically absurd (in the case of making a square circle). I don't
think anyone understands "supernatural" to mean "able to do the
nonsensical". We have in mind the ability to suspend, exceed, or
transcend the constraints that natural physical laws (chemsitry,
physics, biology) have been observed to "impose" on reality.


And, if you /could/ play around with gravity (etc.), so
could we--assuming we had enough knowledge and access to
resources. Hardly seems fair to call something ``supernatural'' if
it's open to mere morals like us, no? And, as I've said many
times, all it does is reduce any god that makes use of such tricks
to no superior morally than somebody like David Copperfield
setting himself up as a tin god to some back-bush tribe.

I don't think that shows very much intellectual honesty. Wouldnt' you
agree that actions like creating the universe, foreknowing the future,
and rising from the dead sort of go beyond parlor trickery? It's
legitimate to question whether those events occured; I don't think it's
reasonable to say that they are not of sufficient quality to merit
designation as "supernatural".

-Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The logic of atheism
    ... physics or chemistry, ... Would the laws of physics, chemistry, etc still exist ... directly interact with the universe but that your god /is/ ... Theist: "Hmm...what's a gleeg?" ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Matthew 14
    ... >> Can you offer any reason at all why I should believe that any ... Or did not accept that God created the world in six ... > in the violation of the laws of nature. ... If God occasionally violates natural laws, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Matthew 14
    ... > tradition is in favour of something then that is *a reason* ... >> You may say that now there is evidence against such beliefs but, if God ... the synoptics' accounts can be disregarded. ... If God occasionally violates natural laws, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Bible & Quran Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
    ... trivial reason, too. ... is of great value in the eyes of God. ... interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. ... The laws, after all, were imposed to shelter natural Israel, as Gods chosen people, from harm. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Original Sin
    ... some things unexplained -- why the laws of physics are as they ... namely in one case "How do physical laws manage to ... principle answer the question of why the will of God is as it is: ... foundational premise of theism is that God is a perfect person, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)