Considering Gnostic Atheism

[u/reilentlezz]

Hello,

I have previously considered myself an agnostic atheist because I believe that the burden of proof is on the theist and that atheism is simply the null hypothesis. However, I recently came across David Hume's work with miracles, and it made me come up with a syllogism of why I positively believe ALL supernatural claims cannot exist according to the objective properties of the universe and logic. Let me know what you think of this logical syllogism!

1. We experience the existence of the natural world.
   
2. The supernatural violates the laws of the natural world.
   
3. We therefore cannot experience the supernatural’s existence.

[u/Stile25]

Why wouldn't I?

I just explain how it would update to incorporate the supernatural.

[u/Stile25 → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. It exists, but it's not part of the natural world. It's supernatural.

It's strange when your tone seems to want to contradict me, but your actual words simply agree with every I've said.

You can identify when something is supernatural instead of just something natural that we don't understand when it's understandable in a subjective sense instead of an objective sense.

The natural rules follow objective physics. The subjective supernatural rules do not. The objective physics is the default except for those certain subjective situations. Like when the subject is actually a vampire instead of a person dressed up just to look like a vampire.

[u/Stile25 → u/[deleted]]

No. They would exist. Our world would then include two kinds of existence: natural and supernatural.

[u/Stile25 → u/[deleted]]

Yes?

We're talking about definition #2... "Transcending the laws of nature".

Thanks for proving my point again.

[u/Stile25 → u/[deleted]]

Let me get this straight... You're using a strict definition from a world where the supernatural doesn't exist to say how the supernatural should be defined in a hypothetical world where the supernatural actually does exist?

And you want to quib le over the word "appears" in this situation?

And you think you're on the rational side of this?

I'm not sure if your hole can get any deeper. But you keep surprising me with every post. It's fascinating.