“There are two very basic and opposed philosophical positions concerning the universe: naturalism and supernaturalism. The naturalist assumes that the universe is strictly material, while the supernaturalist says that there are two types of objects in the universe, the natural or material and the supernatural. Both of these viewpoints are accepted as assumptions (and an assumption is accepted or rejected by faith). But once either position is accepted, certain conclusions also must be accepted. For instance, the naturalist assumes that there is no possibility of miracles. Everything in the naturalist’s world must be explained on the basis of natural law. This would include the earth, life, and emotions.
The supernaturalist must accept the possibility of miracles since he believes something other than matter exists. And usually he assumes that that “other” is a supernatural being. His world can include things that aren’t explained on the basis of matter alone. His God, being outside of the material universe, could change the natural law since He authored it.
Science is the study of the material world, and science always is searching for order or laws in the universe, Because of this, it would not do to have God change the natural law every time the scientist entered his laboratory. If God did this, no order ever could be found in the universe. Thus, science must assume God either doesn’t exist or He at least does not capriciously change the laws of nature. Experience tells us God does not often interfere with the laws of nature. But can experience prove that God never interferes in nature, or that He doesn’t exist?
As one can see, science must assume that God is irrelevant to the operation of the universe on a day-to-day basis before it can insist that any order can be found in the cosmos. Some scientists argue that their natural laws always work; therefore, this consistency proves God has no place in the world. Actually, this line of argument is called a tautology by philosophers. They assume God isn’t involved in the universe and then, since their premise is accepted by themselves, they conclude that He really is not involved in it.
Science cannot prove that God is irrelevant to the universe. If God set up the laws of physics, He is hardly irrelevant. If there is no God, then He indeed would be irrelevant. However, each position is accepted by faith.” (1981, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart)
I am a supernaturalist by faith. Specifically I am a Christian. Why am I a supernaturalist as opposed to a naturalist by faith? There are many reasons. Here is only one. My father was miraculously healed of a very real physical problem when I was just a boy.
Are you a naturalist or a supernaturalist by faith and why?
The supernaturalist must accept the possibility of miracles since he believes something other than matter exists. And usually he assumes that that “other” is a supernatural being. His world can include things that aren’t explained on the basis of matter alone. His God, being outside of the material universe, could change the natural law since He authored it.
Science is the study of the material world, and science always is searching for order or laws in the universe, Because of this, it would not do to have God change the natural law every time the scientist entered his laboratory. If God did this, no order ever could be found in the universe. Thus, science must assume God either doesn’t exist or He at least does not capriciously change the laws of nature. Experience tells us God does not often interfere with the laws of nature. But can experience prove that God never interferes in nature, or that He doesn’t exist?
As one can see, science must assume that God is irrelevant to the operation of the universe on a day-to-day basis before it can insist that any order can be found in the cosmos. Some scientists argue that their natural laws always work; therefore, this consistency proves God has no place in the world. Actually, this line of argument is called a tautology by philosophers. They assume God isn’t involved in the universe and then, since their premise is accepted by themselves, they conclude that He really is not involved in it.
Science cannot prove that God is irrelevant to the universe. If God set up the laws of physics, He is hardly irrelevant. If there is no God, then He indeed would be irrelevant. However, each position is accepted by faith.” (1981, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart)
I am a supernaturalist by faith. Specifically I am a Christian. Why am I a supernaturalist as opposed to a naturalist by faith? There are many reasons. Here is only one. My father was miraculously healed of a very real physical problem when I was just a boy.
Are you a naturalist or a supernaturalist by faith and why?
