A Supernatural Being?

[Eclipse]

There are a few questions I would like to raise pertaining to athiesm. These are not for means of disproving or proving anything but rather to clarify a few points which are scratching at my brain. I would just like to hear a few "definitions" of athiesm so I can get a better sense of what it is. As for where I stand now, I am a weak agnosticist. You could say that I am sitting on the fence facing the athiests.

When it comes to athiests not believing in a God/god/deity, does a supernatural being (not relating to any current religions) count? For example, a supernatural being which is not one or more of the following:

a) Non-morally perfect
b) Non-omnipotent
c) Non-omniscient
d) Has no realm like that of heaven or hell
e) Did not create the entire Universe
f) Did not create any of the Universe

What are the limits if any can be removed?

From another perspective, I have another question. If a being was simply omniscient or omnipotent and not the first thing to enter into existence (energy came before it...perhaps matter as well), would it be considered supernatural and thus an athiest would not believe in it ever having existed? By "ever having existed", that includes still existing and having passed from existence. What about a being who was not created with an omni-quality but gained it (or a near omni-quality) over time?

The reason I bring this up is because I had, through discussion on a different non-debate site, come to a point which I simply questioned myself and I had thought of some new things previously unknown to me to explain my way through my thought-barrier even if it changed my position (an agnosticist is always open).

[Rainbow]

There is nothing so-called "supernatural" (in any form).
We - simply - are not in a position to understand a particual subject.
(Atheists or Theists included.)
God has not much in common with it. Our brain and/or mind, instead.

[Jack]

Atheism indicates a disbelief in god/gods. Similar to those who do not believe in unicorns, the Loch Ness monster and a number of other fantasies, except there's no single word for people who don't accept those things.
The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is this single philosophy. Being an atheist says nothing about what else you might believe. Some atheists are new-agers and believe in crystal power, auras, reincarnation. Some are hard-core scientists. You want to be an atheist and believe in the supernatural? Go ahead. Atheism also isn't a church or club you can be excommunicated from should you not "fit the mold".

[Eclipse]

Hehe. Alright. I had a logical mishap for a bit here. You could say it was clogged and then the clog released just now. And no, I don't believe in the supernatural. Even that of auras etc. My question was a bit funny when I look back at it. Thanks. It didn't answer the question exactly but thanks.

Sometimes all a person needs is to say something to realize how silly it really was in the first place.


If anyone can delete this thread, please do so. It doesn't really hold any debatable value anymore. Or just ignore it.

[Jack]

It addresses an issue that others may wonder about. I think it may still have value.

I could be very wrong, too. :)

As a matter of fact, a recent book that's gotten a fair amount of attention, The End of Faith..." by Sam Harris, talks about this. He allows that spirituality is a reality, just not in the way religion portrays it.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Isherwood As a matter of fact, a recent book that's gotten a fair amount of attention, The End of Faith..." by Sam Harris, talks about this. He allows that spirituality is a reality, just not in the way religion portrays it.

How does he define spirituality outside of a religious context? Not that I disagree - I actually think that may be a smarter way to go about it, I was just curious as to his terminology and specific definition.

[Jack]

There are human traits like love, compassion, wonder, empathy, that can't be explained by the hard sciences yet no rational person would deny exist. Harris considers that our "spiritual" side. I tend to agree with his assessment generally, though we might disagree on some specifics.

[samsara15]

Since your question pertains to atheists only, it does not address myself, a weak theist / pantheist. Which makes me a non-believer who might be able to buy into a limited God. I think I stand about where you do. I think it is possible that at least one non-natural thing might exist or have occurred. Have you ever considered the idea of a God who created the universe, but no longer exists? Like the hard core atheists, I am also leery of invoking 'supernatural' causes to explain anything.

[Captain Chaos]

I consider myself a deist - one who believes in God (or something like it) as a reaction to various bits of evidence and certain arguments. I would say that my belief is that such a being probably exists, but I cannot honestly be certain. I am reluctant to ascribe many particulars to such a being, because the evidence we do have is very limited, and open to multiple interpretations.

I also think that belief in God is not terribly important. I mean, if God really wanted us to believe in him, we would. A being capable of designing and implementing a reality such as our own should certainly be capable of communicating to us in a clear and believable manner. If the Bible and similar books are all God uses to communicate with us, knowing that many people will find them lacking, then clearly God is not overly concerned with our believing in his existence.

[Eclipse]

Actually, I should edit my original a bit. It shouldn't pertain to athiests only and it's a bit confusing. My second post should be ignored as well. I hadn't slept in two days because of some essays I procrastinated with.:(

Yes, that's kind of where I was leaning with the subject. I don't like the Judaeo-Christian God along with other current forms for various reasons. I've never really thought about there being a possibility of some other kind of God/god(s) which don't side with the common interpretations until lately. Even then I'm iffy about the supernatural explanations as you. I am, after all, in the end, leaning on the athiest side.

I could also add a few to my list

g) One in which case, there is no need to worship.
h) Does not currently exist anymore
i) Does not interfere.
j) Is not infinite in size

and an edit for (e) is now in place.

e) Created "parts" of the Universe

For me, worship ends up tipping towards tyrannical. If anyone asks for it, that's what they get associated with. If it's a God/god(s), then it is perfectly okay. Why? Something that is morally perfect (all-that-is-good) should not require any worship nor should it ask for it and set itself above others. If anyone worships someone who is "morally good" then they usually would tell them to &#(@ off...in a very nice and respectful way that they can learn from.

I also agree with Captain Chaos with the aspects he points out. The bible is a horrible thing to base the existence of God on IMO and doesn't really represent a being who is morally perfect. Then again, if you're a cultural relativist, there is no such thing. Is there a perfect set of morals? Or is that dependent on each individual person. That's another discussion though.
:)

Any criticisms to the list? Agreements? Debate on what classifies a supernatural being? I understand the lack of proof, but all ideas, as of now, have little or no proof and rely on theories, even God. I'm also not saying this is what I believe. It is just a thought and a debate and an exploration out of curiosity. As far as I'm concerned, everyone takes the same leap of faith.

[Rainbow]

@Eclipse

I am afraid you have messed up the main subject pretty good, this time :-)
What to start with, since it would take some pages dealing with the latest annexed part alone ?

Supernatural being and/or occurance stays unconquered as along as Man's perception and/or mind is uncapable to come with answers.
I am a Catholic and I believe that God exists. One needs to know how to read the Bible or any other religious materials, instead of senselessly repeating some words, sentences, etc. That is parents' and/or guardians' task.
I do not think there are number of Gods, but One for all of us, instead, regardless of onomastics, writings, histories, etc. we may apply.

Can God be taken as a supernatural being ?
No. I think that God is perfectly normal, equipped with a little different "characteristics" (like abilities) that make Him a "super-natural" in our eyes, minds, etc. Some artists - using their talents and skills - created God's reflection, and materialized that within paintings, lyrics, etc.
Whether it is the (true) God's image, that I do not know.

What is God ?
I do not know. His abilities makes me think He is a sort of Mind, and we are not in a position to even approach and/or comprehend That.
Does God need any form of worshiping ?
No clue. Religious places should teach and/or lead followers to learn about God and/or spiritually get in touch with Him. That process not always take place as it should be (and that is yet another issue).

Since the very first atom (not to mention following ones) was not able to create itself , then Somebody/Somthing did it. It points to God.

I believe that you would take care of your garden.
Do you think people would call you : "supernatural" ? :-)

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Ish There are human traits like love, compassion, wonder, empathy, that can't be explained by the hard sciences yet no rational person would deny exist. Harris considers that our "spiritual" side. I tend to agree with his assessment generally

Isn't that just a God of gaps argument, or rather a "supernatural phenomenon of gaps" argument? There is so much we don't know about the brain and the nervous system that I can't see the logic in believing that the roots of love and empathy do not lie within it. Just because hard science is currently unable to fully explain emotions such as love, does not mean that they will not, at some point in the future, be found to be caused by simple molecular and electromagnetic interactions.

[Jack]

I don't believe any of those characteristics require supernatural explanations. As you say, the brain is poorly understood but amazingly complex. (Can you imagine if you had to consciously cause your heart to beat?) Emotions are natural results of mental activity, but resist hard scientific examination. Harris prefers to get a tad involved in his description of the "spiritual" aspects of our humanity. I prefer a simpler explanation, brain activity.

[RickSp]

To me, the issue is simple. If there is a reason or some evidence for me to believe in God or gods, I would do so. I have seen none, so I do not. If I find compelling evidence for other creatures of lore, I will consider that as well.

I will not believe, much less commit my life to a specific dogma, based on folk tales or traditions of gods, spirits or deities. As such I am an atheist. Nothing complicated about it.

[samsara15]

I like the Brahman concept from Hinduism. However, in doing so, I view Brahman as a pandeist. I also view the Judaic God as a unlikeable creature, and have some sympathy with the Gnostics, whose opinion was that the Judaic God was insane, and not even the Supreme God, but merely an under-God with a big ego. I don't think God, if therre is one, would care about being worshipped, and would probably regard worship as silly brown-nosing.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp To me, the issue is simple. If there is a reason or some evidence for me to believe in God or gods, I would do so. I have seen none, so I do not. If I find compelling evidence for other creatures of lore, I will consider that as well. I will not believe, much less commit my life to a specific dogma, based on folk tales or traditions of gods, spirits or deities. As such I am an atheist. Nothing complicated about it.

Rick...

given forever, what are the odds that a unicorn-like creature would have evolved into existence at some point?

If the universe is infinite in extent, what are the odds that a unicorn-like creature exists somewhere?

[Fonceai]

@Captain Chaos

But what does it matter.

He's taking the most honest and accurate position any person can take on the matter.

He has/has not seen evidence of the existence of God that does/does not resolve the issue for him, but is willing to consider such evidence if he does/does not observe it directly.

That's the most scientific and accurate answer possible.

Your question is aimed at someone who won't consider that God is a possibility, but that's not what RickSp said at all in what you quoted.

[Captain Chaos]

I take issue with the usual stance of assuming that the simplest answer is the most likely answer.

I think that reality is very complex, and that the simplest answer is rarely correct. The more I contemplate Occam's Razor, the more it seems inapplicable to most every situation in the real world.

So - I bet there does exist unicorns somewhere or somewhen, even though we will never see evidence of them. Infinity does weird things with probability.

[Kuroko]

I would also like to point out that through technological advancement the idea of "super-natural" would be acheivable. Indeed many of the things we do/take for granted are super-natural.

[samsara15]

The universe is probably stranger than we give it credit for being. Dark matter and Dark Energy tell us that much. As humans, all we can do is to bring all our intellect to bear on trying to make sense out of it, as best we can.

Kuroko, is correct, what we perceive as supernatural may not be so at all.