Wednesday, November 23, 2005

It's a bird! No it's a plane! No it's Supernatural! Err.. what?

I do not believe in ghosts, spirits, gods, demons, heaven, hell, among others. The reason for this is, people characterize these concepts as belonging to a category called "supernatural". But what exactly is the "supernatural"?

I did a research. And I was surprised with what I found. Supernatural has no definition. If it has no definition, then it is meaningless. If it is meaningless then it is ontologically bankrupt. Let me explain.

When a person is asked what is "supernatural", the person can only answer something along the lines: "Anything that isn't natural", "Something that is opposite natural", "something contra natural", "beyond natural", "an immaterial thing" - these are all negative terms. In other words they can only say what it is not NOT what it is. To define is to say what something is. Let's say someone asked me: "Could you define dog to me?" and to that I replied "something that is not an elephantt", you can see here that I haven't provided the asking person any information on what a dog is. I only told him what is it not, which is ontologically useless. An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization. But if I provide no specifications, how can anyone understand what a dog is?

"Supernatural is something that is beyond understanding" - another negative description. But how could we classify anything that is not natural? If we do not understand something (hence beyond our understanding) should we automatically consider it as "supernatural"? Before, schizophrenia was believed by many as demon posession - a supernatural occurence. But now, we all know that there is nothing about schizophrenia that is beyond our undertanding. So considering anything we do not understand as "supernatural" is a poor determinant of the "supernaturalistic-ness" of something. Besides, in order for one to say something is supernatural, one must first know all the natural laws operating in this universe before he can sensically say that none of the natural laws account for this particular occurence and is therefore supernatural. But since no one knows all the natural laws operative in the universe, it is then irrational to jump into conclusion that something utterly unproven extra world, called the "supernatural" which violates logic, science, and reason itself must be the answer to those occurences that we cannot understand. Therefore it is impossible for one to be justified if he declares anything as "supernatural". The only way he could be justified is for him to know all the natural laws extant in the universe. Until he can accomplish that feat, no one should take him seriously.

I like the way wikipedia puts it, "If a bush suddenly burst out in flames, and the fire would not consume it, a scientist would not call it supernatural, nor would he deny that this is happening, but he would curiously examine it."

Again, supernatural is "anything that isn't natural", "something that is opposite natural", "something contra-natural", "something beyond natural", "something beyond human understanding", "anything that is immaterial", "something that is above logic, reason, and scientific inquiry". Not only are these negative terms, but there is also non-sensical about this definitions. These definitions commit the stolen concept fallacy. They have to steal a natural concept which, by supernaturalism's own admission, supernatural is in contradistinction with. Let me explain.

Notice the word "anything" and "something" in the above definitions? Let's focus on the "supernatural is anything that is immaterial" statement. But to say immaterial is a "thing" (from the word "anything"), is oxymoronic. A thing is an object that exists in space, matter, and time. "Thing" is a concept that only makes sense in the natural world. It is a concept that naturalism owns. "Thing" is a natural thing. Hence to declare "something" is supernatural is self-defeating.

Not natural, contra natural, not material - these are all terms antagonistic with everything natural. Anything then in this natural world should and cannot be applied on this supernatural realm. You cannot use natural terms to describe their antithesis. No natural term can be applied to something defined as "beyond natural".

Again I ask what is supernatural? Could anyone make supernatural ontologically sensical and coherent to me? But then again, since supernatural stands in contrast with anything natural, sensicality and coherence may not be an attribute of the supernatural at all. Logic does not matter in the supernatural realm since it stands in opposition with everything in the natural world. And logicalness is a descriptive attribute of the universe.

Supernatural then is a realm of illogic - an illogical concept. The concept of supernatural is not difficult to defend - it is, in principle, not defendable. That is, there is no sequence of experiments, logical reasoning, and workable definitions to support such a concept. Therefore we are in no way obliged to accept it - we can just reject it.

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Proof that a Personal God Exist

In this article, I am going to attempt to prove that God (or Gods) exist.

Before that, I shall lay down the barebones of my argument that I'll be using for the rest of this essay:

I define God as a personal, intelligent (posessing intellect), nonspatial (not occupying space), self-existent (it has always existed and is therefore uncaused), timeless (not bound by time), and, immaterial (not matter) agent who is the cause of everything that began to exist. Other than these, I no longer have any reasonable assumption as what other traits God may have.

I will also use the term "universe". I define the universe as space, time, and matter.

With those said, I shall now begin with the premise that, everything that began to exist has a cause. The universe either has eternally existed or began to exist. Let us now examine these two possibilities.

Possibility Number 1: The universe eternally existed:

This is not reasonable because if the universe "began" (Note: I use the term loosely. "To begin eternally" is an oxymoron since eternal extends to infinity and hence cannot have a beginning point. I mainly use it for the lack of better term) eternally, then it would be impossible to arrive today. It is impossible to traverse from infinity to "now" (today) since there will be an infinite duration before arriving to "now". We will never arrive to "now" if there is an infinite duration to traverse. Hence for the universe to exist eternally is impossible and refuted by the fact that we are now into "now".

Possibility Number 2: The universe began to exist:

For us to arrive to "now", a beginning point is required. Since we are now living into "now" therefore the universe, where we live, has a beginning. Hence the universe began to exist.

Moving on. If the universe has a beginning then either the universe is uncaused or caused. As argued above, the universe has a beginning. if the universe had a beginning, then it is absurd to argue that the universe is self caused, that is, it would exist to cause its own existence. If it is caused then the "Cause" must be outside of the universe otherwise the "Cause", like the universe will be just an effect which, in that case, it ceases to be the "Cause".

The "Cause" (of the universe) could very well be more than one. Also the "Cause" or "Causes" could also be caused by another (or others). And that another (or others) could also be caused by another (or others) and so forth. But we cannot have an infinite regression of causes so ultimately there is an "Uncaused Cause" or "Uncaused Causes".

Regardless of how many "Causes" there are (and I shall use the singular "Cause" from here on for simplicity's sake for the rest of this article), the point remains that the universe must be caused by something or someone that is not bounded by space, time, and matter (universe). This is because these dimensions only existed after the "Cause" brought them into existence. Therefore the "Cause" must be nonspatial, timeless, and immatterial. The "Uncaused Cause" also must be self-existent - it has always existed and is therefore uncaused because infinite regression is impossible.

Lastly, the reason why the existence of the universe requires a personal god is because moving from a state of nothing to a state of something requires a decision to be made. Without a being who posesses the will and desire to cause a state of nothing (no universe) to become a state of something (there is universe), this change would never have happened. Decision requires intelligence. Not only does "to will" requires intelligence, "to will" is to be personal. The "Cause", therefore, must be intelligent and is therefore personal. That "Cause" is God.

God then is responsible for the existence of the universe. The existence of God then becomes axiomatic. To then say, "God does not exist" is to say "the universe does not exist" which extends to "I do not exist". But one needs to be existing for one to be able to say that "God does not exist". Thus the statement "God does not exist" is self refuting.

Therefore God exists.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

The Return of the Comeback

I'm back, prepared to be bored to death by my voluminous articles once more... but not now, maybe tomorrow hehehe...