Sunday, April 24, 2011
Making gods not to exist "by definition"
One atheist (at least one) has decided that it is not enough that there is no evidence for alleged supernatural beings. He is stating that any such being, if found, would be natural by definition and therefore not a god. Quite frankly, I think that this is worse than useless. It gives validity to the common christian claim that non-believers are "closed to the evidence." I am open to actual evidence in favor of their god. I just haven't seen any. If I ever do see such evidence, I will not play games stating that "the multiverse or anything outside the world we can see is just natural anyway." The natural embodies the world that we currently see. And there might be an outside of that. By standard definitions, any such outside would be supernatural or at least extranatrual. The term "natural" was not intended to mean "everything that exists" and should not be so redefined. It may happen that it, in fact, encompasses everything that exists. But if it does, it will not be by virtue of saying "found it, therefore it is natural."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm still lost as to how something can be supernatural if it exists within the reality of the Universe.
Again though, I don't agree with your statement that it's 'worse than useless' - there is no such thing as supernatural beings, partly because they simply don't exist, and partly because they are a logical impossibility.
As I've said though, I respect your opinion, and welcome any alternate ways of looking at things, even if I don't agree with them.
Post a Comment