Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 17, 2009, 23:05 (5606 days ago) @ dhw

This is an interesting and complex argument, which centres on the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, but I can't figure out what you mean by "this violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural". I shall have to respond without that sentence, so I may have missed something vital in your reasoning.
> - The definition of supernatural is something that is key here. I use the definition of supernatural that says it is "above and beyond" the natural. This is the most generic definition that I think everyone would agree to. This necessitates a duality, where the "supernatural" is separated from the natural by some invisible line. This is the position of the majority of the theistic world. The claim is that the "supernatural" can then somehow bridge into the natural world, which it would have to do to create our universe or talk to us through "mediums," or any other sort of shenanigans. - The fault with this line of reasoning is that it destroys the duality created by using the word "supernatural." The supernatural cannot by definition "interface with the natural world" if it is in fact, "supernatural." - This then leaves a single alternative. God isn't supernatural at all, in the words of Joan Osbourne, "What if God is one of us?" - God is part of the natural universe in this sense, and I suspect is what David believes and what you suspect. Only the dilemma here is identical to the one above. How can a natural being of some kind create the universe? At least, that one is actually answerable. We just don't know enough about our universe yet. - > ...Quantum Science is not a study of the supernatural.
> - No... It tells us (thus far) that photons behave in a way that is inconsistent with what we predicted to happen--that there's a set of laws that govern photons that are not compatible with either intuitional reason nor relativistic laws. It informs theology little, if it does at all. - As for the paranormal, I spent four years studying Hermetic and Occult/Pagan theologies, and can tell you from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber, relying heavily on probability and psychology. Modern Vegas magicians are good sources--Penn Gillette often discusses (broadly) that there are techniques for "pulling information from nowhere," but as you may be aware these are all trade secrets and not open to the public. This includes I suspect, your story about the Juju. Fire-walking has been explained by science, and might shed some light on your Juju fire tale. - There is also a mathematical formula behind "I know your card" card tricks and I've been spending what little free time I have left to discovering the law. When I discover it, I will put it online. If you wish I would be willing to share the specific trick I'm studying here--anyone can do it. The formula that works on this trick is key to designing other tricks because it works with other differing card formulas—on card tricks that don't rely on "sleight of hand." - EDIT: - Good I have enough room. As for the rest of your post, it is true as long as atheists/theologians don't try to blur the line. The problem is that they often do. Ultimately there ARE constraints on the "prime cause" if it is caused by a deity... namely the ones I used above.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"