It's in itself contradictory to argue something irrational. That's all I'm saying.
"God" is irrational, infinite. No human understanding can be had of such a thing. No name nor quality accurately given or estimated, no prediction can be made of something such as it, that's by principle, by definition, outside the effective boundary of reason.
There is no evidence that ghosts and magic do not exist, surely you would not think the opinion that there is no such thing as magic is irrational.
"Ghosts" and "magic" are human ideas, they're rational; however bastardized a form of reason they were made by.
The problem is people get hung up on this "believing that there is nothing godlike is the same as believing that there is a god, since the existance of god cannot be disproven, both opinions are "faith based". And they don't think beyond this.
If an agnostic doesn't believe that the ancient gods of greece are real, by this line of flawed reasoning, he would be considered religious.
Well I'm not saying what that "agnostic" would. I'm saying human understanding has limits (isn't there a division of philosophy specialized in this?), and this "territory" does not include irrationality.
Reason "works". Irrationality doesn't. The human mind can't "work" something that isn't rational.
It's not just any special case of inversion like "Up" and "Down" in a 2D system, it's the exception to the framework of thought itself. It doesn't just sit by neighborly or cohabit as a third dimension would, in that case.
It's anything belonging to that "territory", and having no map or tool with which to explore it or sense it, our understanding would not make sense of it, since "sense" is our human speak for "Human sense", and said territory would not be explorable.
Reason can't go there. There's nothing to
reasonably say about it.
That said, all I think is worth our attention are practical matters:
Something said to be supernatural is either nonsense made up by the one saying so, or nothing worth considering, in practice, since if any effect it has on the matter at hand, said effect can neither be perceived, nor understood before, during or after the fact, and therefore not predicted either, and therefore has no practical value.
It's a fancy of the mind.
