It could if it found evidence of God's work for which there was no other possible explanation.
Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
It is entirely relevant: DaveC is referring to any God that is defined as supernatural. How is my comment thus not relevant??
Post #1098: "God is supernatural from our perspective, no one has any problem with that."
Consistency please, Jan.
No he didn't claim that. He started by saying that God is defined as being supernatural. It then doesn't matter what is beyond the laws of nature, as per the argument I laid out that you have since claimed to be irrelevant. If you're just going to ignore or dismiss anything you don't like but the try to argue against the same point again, find someone else willing to waste their time.
Yes, as I have said. The issue then is how you determine that that person is such that they are not entirely bound by the same laws. And unless they demonstrate their ability to defy those laws, and thus distinguish themselves, all you are left with is one claiming and you believing.
So what? The specific label is the trivialty. It changes nothing.
What relevancy does this have to my question, other than being evidence of your efforts to avoid? Do you think humans defy nature?
First, who said I put any numbers in? Had I put my own sounding numbers in then these would have been operating outside the analogy to the laws of nature, and distinguishable as such.
So let me ask you again, if you think that someone who operates within the confines of the natural laws can distinguish themselves, tell me which numbers I added and which were simply the natural order?
The point is you can‘t.
I am distinguishable by you only outside of the analogy. Are you capable of restricting yourself to the analogy?
And who said I put any numbers in? Which ones were they?
Only outside of the analogy, Jan. Within the analogy the only thing you are capable of knowing is the numbers, and the law that they go in a certain order (I.e. 1, 2, 3 etc).
Had the numbers you observed been 1, 2, d, 3, 4, t etc then you would be able to distinguish d and t from the natural order. This would be me operating not in accordance with the laws.
Get it yet? Somehow I'm not holding my breadth.
We are examining the case where God is deemed supernatural. That is the only thing that is needed to be known about God for the argument as presented to stand.
No, I said they almost certainly exist. I don't claim anything specific exists (that haven't been verified), only that I think it near certain that some things do. You are claiming that at least one specific thing does. Hence I amassing you.
Great. And waiting for my local supermarket to open before 10am on Sunday is pointless, but no-one is saying otherwise either. So nice strawman.
Curiosity as to how one proves something that is outside the remit of science. But what do my motives matter? The issue is the proof of God's existence.
No, I'm not. But thanks for your concern.
It's not about science. We both agree that God is outside the remit of science, but you claim God exists. So again, what is it that you think proves God to exist.
Thanks for the not-so-subtle insult that anyone who doesn't believe is not intelligent.
You have always struggled with understanding the agnostic atheist position, so it is no wonder you can't interpret their consistently asserted position in a manner other than along the lines of strong atheism, which is the only form of atheism you can comprehend,
I certainly have little interest in explaining the agnostic atheist mindset to you again as no matter how many times you claim to understand your responses belie the fact that you don't.
So put forth the non-scientific evidence that you think there is. And if you think the issue is just modern science, put forth the evidence that you think future science will eventually support.
But I wager you have nothing that does not ultimately stem from your a priori belief in God, albeit one that may have arisen from an appeal to authority.
Please prove me wrong, given that you're reluctant to provide proof of God.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
OK, science cannot disprove the existence of god and theology cannot prove the existence of god. Now what? Are you arguing that therefore an unknowable motivated being MUST exist?
Think it through, Jan.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Quote please. This time, be sure you understand and include the context.
He claimed God was beyond the laws of nature, meaning he knows the full extent of of nature and its laws. But you claim that wasn't what you were referring to, so your comment was not relevant to the point I made.
Supernatural doesn't mean beyond the laws of nature. Unless you know the extent of them.
He claimed the supernaturalw as beyond the laws of nature. That means he knows its extent. There'sn o getting round that.
He said the supernatural was beyond the laws of nature. Did you miss that part? That means he knows its extent.
Because persons can defy, or try, think to defy the laws of nature.
My point was that God's existence is natural to human beings, and it is also natural for some humans to deny God's existence. So both God's existence, and denial (or lack belief) in that existence can only be true, if we are bound only by nature.
The fact that you claimed, or can lie about putting numbers in, makes you distinguishable.
I don't need that info to know that you are distinguishable.
Read above.
Where in nature, outside of a human mind are you going to find numbers laid out in numerical order, even randomly? Are numbers products of nature?
So what about God being deemed supernatural?
Does God almost certainly exist?
If not. Why?
Just stating a fact.
I think good use of intelligence can prove God exists.
To people who utilize good intelligence.
I didn't say that.
I understand the terminologies.
I was willing to give it a try, just for the sake of the thread, but you are bent on defending your position, so I'll just stick to the norm.
Jan.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Supernatural is literally defined as 'beyond the laws of nature'.
I mean ... seriously Jan?
You dynamite your credibility by constructing sentences that are self-contradictory.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Values are and we can represent values with numbers. Don't make it more complicated than that.
Claiming God is beyond the laws of nature does not mean he knows, nor needs to know, the full extent of those laws. It is simply a claim that, whatever the laws are, God is beyond them.
No, I said that he doesn't need to know the full extent - and my comments were - and still are - relevant to that. You are free to ignore them as you are free to ignore any comment anyone else makes, but don't claim them to be irrelevant when they are patently not.
Er, yes it does:
Supernatural (from dictionary.com):
1. of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
That is your mistake, to assume that one need know the laws of nature to be able to define something as supernatural. By defining something as supernatural means that whatever the laws are, the hing defined as supernatural is beyond them.
Note that that is different to observing something and then claiming it to be supernatural - as the claim in that instance is not defining the observation but interpreting it as supernatural. In this case one does need to know the laws to be able to say that the observation is beyond those laws.
People can certainly try - and they fail. But do you honestly think people can defy the laws of nature??? Care to cite an example of one such person?
??? I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but it doesn't make much sense, to be honest.
If you start with the "God's existence is natural to human beings" then this is an a priori assumption that God exists. It would be better to say that the conceptualisation of a deity is natural to human beings - as much as believing in or denying the existence of that conceptualisation.
Also be careful that you're not equivocating "natural" as being a law of nature, and "natural" as being merely common practive.
Not from within the analogy, Jan. Stick to the analogy.
...
I don't need that info to know that you are distinguishable.
Read above.[/quote]Within the analogy the only way you could possibly know of my existence would be through the number sequence. From within the analogy you are not capable of discerning anything else other than the number sequence. So please stick to that in determining whether or not you could tell I exist simply through the number sequence - not based on what I write about the analogy (which is outside the analogy). Can you do that? And remember, the number sequence is analogous to the laws of nature.
If they can be found in a human mind then why would they not be natural, unless you are saying that a human mind is not natural???
WTF? Are you actually reading this latest exchange? Or are you simply responding point by point, with each point in utter isolation to the rest of the post? Or is this simply your tactic to nose-dive into the mire yet another line of discussion you're not comfortable with?
I don't know. While I can say that there is most likely a non-empty set of things that exist that science doesn't yet know about, I can not know whether something specific is within that set.
As was I, and every bit as irrelevant.
Once again a not-so-subtle insult at all those who don't believe. Thanks.
The insult was clearly implied - and reinforced with your comment above.
Excuse me if I take your claim with a pinch of salt. Proof of the pudding, and all that.
I have done nothing but examine any proof presented. You have yet to provide anything in this thread - so if that is you trying....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You can't because numbers represent universal values which existed long before man came along and invented the numerical system of identifying values.
You can twist and wriggle all you want, but you have not proved anything other than that you are very clever at avoiding direct questions. I suggest your knowledge of Scripture is *superficial*.
Last edited:
Obviously he doesn't know. But he cannot claim something is beyond the laws of nature, without knowing it's extent.
What he should have said is that it lies beyond his comprehension of nature.
There's no getting around it.
Read above.
Unexplainable by natural law, not beyond it.
natural: existing in, or formed by nature (opposed to artificial).
The word SuperNatural a contains no clues that would lead one to conclude that it has anything to do with "beyond the laws of nature".
That's not what I said, plus I made no assumptions. Wrong again.
No it doesn't.
What a load of nonsense.
Can nature try to defy itself?
If we are bound purely by nature, then everything we think is true, because nature, or the natural world cannot defy itself, unless you think it can.
That means God must exist, by default.
It would be a general law, independent of observation. It wouldn't matter what anyone thinks, believes, or assume.
Sarkus said:
You mean like you did in your conception of supernatural?
All conceptions would also be bound by the laws of nature.
So do you agree that God exists by natural default? Even if you don't believe, or you deny it?
No problem. That number sequence is anything but natural. The very existence of numbers, let alone number sequences, is evidence of a mind.
You're right though. I may not guess that it is the sequence of symbols that represent you, the person. But I'm confident that any laid out number sequence, from any place, any time, is the result of mind.
It's natural for humans, and belief in God is natural also.
This is your answer?
So until science knows about God, you're position is you
don know whether God is in tthe almost certainly exists category?
I have done nothing but examine any proof presented. You have yet to provide anything in this thread - so if that is you trying....
You've done nothing but defend you're atheism.
Jan.
What values?
Which direct questions have I avoided?
What makes you suspect my knowledge of scriptures to be superficial?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Those are synonymous.
In an attempt to find an explanation, one would find it unexplainable by natural laws. One would have to go beyond the natural laws looking for an explanation.
That is precisely and explicitly what it indicates. It is literally in the word.
One scientific argument, for religion, that nobody has considered is, both religion and science both exercise the brain. Each exercises different sides of the brain. If you only do one, or the other, you become like a person with one strong arm, and one weak spindly arm.
We have two sides of the brain. The left side processes data in ways that are more differential, logical and sequential. The right side of the brain processes data in ways that are more symbolic, holistic, spatial and integral. Science makes primary use of the left side of the brain; logic and detailed data, while religion makes more use of the right side of the brain.
The concept of God, whether you believe or not, is still a spatial concept. In fact, God is the most integrated concepts in all of knowledge, since God, to be believer, is the foundation of all things that exists. This abstraction is 3-D. Whether one believes in a literal God or not, the concept helps one to exercise the right brain, to help build up the spindly arm.
Both sides of the brain are used at the same time. This can be seen on brain scans. However, only one side of the brain will be under conscious control at a time. The other side of the brain will be active, but will be so in an unconscious way. If we consciously exercises both sides of the brain, the counter position of the unconscious mind, can shift to both sides, and overlap our consciously stored memories.
If we use only one side of the brain, the unconscious side is less clear and more nebulous. For example, the religious, who hate science may have a good sense of holistic awareness; good right side development. However, since the left side is controlled by the unconscious mind and is less consciously developed, a good sense of logic and data can be lacking. For example, the symbols of Genesis, might be taken literally; thin logic and data.
On the other hand, the atheist scientist may have a firm grasp of physical reality based on logic, data and science. However, his right brain, which is less developed will be controlled by the unconscious. This makes spatial thinking more infantile and primitive, similar to the left side go the religious specialist. Did you ever wonder why the laws of the sub particles of matter; quarks, can't be used to explain chemistry? The theory is not spatially extendable, since that right of the brain is spindly.
Science and Religion can help each other, since each can teach the other what it lacks, to be whole.
We have two sides of the brain. The left side processes data in ways that are more differential, logical and sequential. The right side of the brain processes data in ways that are more symbolic, holistic, spatial and integral. Science makes primary use of the left side of the brain; logic and detailed data, while religion makes more use of the right side of the brain.
The concept of God, whether you believe or not, is still a spatial concept. In fact, God is the most integrated concepts in all of knowledge, since God, to be believer, is the foundation of all things that exists. This abstraction is 3-D. Whether one believes in a literal God or not, the concept helps one to exercise the right brain, to help build up the spindly arm.
Both sides of the brain are used at the same time. This can be seen on brain scans. However, only one side of the brain will be under conscious control at a time. The other side of the brain will be active, but will be so in an unconscious way. If we consciously exercises both sides of the brain, the counter position of the unconscious mind, can shift to both sides, and overlap our consciously stored memories.
If we use only one side of the brain, the unconscious side is less clear and more nebulous. For example, the religious, who hate science may have a good sense of holistic awareness; good right side development. However, since the left side is controlled by the unconscious mind and is less consciously developed, a good sense of logic and data can be lacking. For example, the symbols of Genesis, might be taken literally; thin logic and data.
On the other hand, the atheist scientist may have a firm grasp of physical reality based on logic, data and science. However, his right brain, which is less developed will be controlled by the unconscious. This makes spatial thinking more infantile and primitive, similar to the left side go the religious specialist. Did you ever wonder why the laws of the sub particles of matter; quarks, can't be used to explain chemistry? The theory is not spatially extendable, since that right of the brain is spindly.
Science and Religion can help each other, since each can teach the other what it lacks, to be whole.
As stated, Jan, it does not matter whether he knows the extent of the laws of nature as he is simply saying that if God is defined as supernatural... hence whatever the laws are, God would be beyond them. That aspect alone is sufficient for the argument that followed. But once again you are committing a fallacy of false precision. And I have no doubt it is simply to avoid facing the argument rather than actual ignorance on your part.
Note that it doesn't say "currently unexplainable" but uses the absolute. And as such the two are synonymous.
I keep asking this of you, Jan, because you give cause for me to do so, but is English your first language?
And with regard the universe, what do you consider to be artificial? This isn't "natural" in the sense of distinct from man-made, but natural as in the laws of nature. Everything man does is thus natural. Do you agree?
You mean other than being defined as that? And other than coming from the Latin supernaturalis meaning "beyond nature"?
Given that supernatural is synonymous with "beyond the laws of nature", yes you did, and you repeated the same in the 2nd sentence of this latest post.
Ah, it's come to the stage of the debate where you simply refuse to comprehend English. I'll ask again: is English your first language?
Elements of it can have the misconception that it might be possible, so in that sense elements could try. But since it is impossible, can it really be said to be trying?
What we think doesn't defy anything. Why would you think it does? Is what we think therefore true? True in the sense that is allowed. Not necessarily true in the sense that what we think, if it was actualized, would be allowed. I can think that 2+2=5 after all. This is not true, nor is the thought per se defying nature.
???
That is what your a priori assumption would be of, yes.
The thought itself, yes, but not necessarily what we think.
I do not agree that, for the reasons given, and demonstrably so in that if I have the thought that God does not exist then, by your argument, this must be true, right? So do you agree that God does not exists by natural default?
Ah, so we get somewhere: you think the laws of nature are evidence of a mind? Why do you think this?
As is non-belief in God. Or do you think all atheists are supernatural?
To your question that basically ignored the discussion froth past few pages? Yes. And it was far more than it deserved for the disrespect it showed in its asking.
My position is that nothing specific can be put in that category, only that I believe that category is unlikely to be an empty set.
If that's the way you see considered criticism of "proofs of God", so be it.
Wellwisher, you do know that the whole left=logic, right=art side of brain nonsense has been debunked, don't you?
You seem to mention it an awful lot and, well, I think it's cruel that no-one has yet mentioned it to you.
Why only one God?
What are the synonyms?
Natural laws is exactly how one would find an explanation.
Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason.
No it's not.
The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD) is defined as being incapable to be explained by science or the laws of nature, characteristic or relating to ghosts, gods or other supernatural beings or to appear beyond nature.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
The definition of supernatural is extraordinary or is something associated with forces we don't understand or that cannot be explained by science.
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material
supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn''t believe in the supernatural"
not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings"
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to go beyond the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
Is that enough for you Dave, or would you like some more?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
All of this confirms the definition.
You can't weasel out of this. Supernatural literally means beyond natural laws.
You're grasping at straws here.
Point lost. Let's move on.