Deities cannot exist because of their consciousness

Wolf Kirchmeir wwolfkir at sympatico.can
Tue Dec 16 21:57:11 EST 2003


On 15 Dec 2003 10:41:14 -0800, keith wrote:

>If it violated the laws of physics. Of course, that could just mean
>that we were wrong about the laws of physics; contradicting the way we
>*thought* things were doesn't make something supernatural. So if your
>point was that whatever God might do could be seen as a natural
>event--even if he raised someone from the dead--I suppose I wouldn't
>quibble.
>
>Keith

Not could be seen as a natural event - _would_ be seen as a natural event.

And as you point out, just because it appears to contradict what we think we
know about the natural world doesn't mean it's not natural. The natural
cannot contain the supernatural. The intersection between the natural and the
supernatural would be experienced as natural by natural beings. Read Abbot's
"Flatland" for an analogy. It may be possible (as in Flatland) to apprehend
that something is non-natural, but that is not the same as experiencing the
non-natural, and any arguments based on such an apprehension would be
unprovable. In any case, the supernatural can be spoken of via analogy and
metaphor, not directly. Your post about the impossibility of experiencing the
world as a tree might experience it makes the same point. IOW, we can say
what we like about the supernatural, or about "god" - but nothing we say can
be proven one way ot the other. IIRC, that was Kierkegaard's point when he
thought about Pascal's wager existentially rather than as a logic game.


-- 
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list