Per your definition
No, it is required. Asking for evidence which CANNOT be examined is ludicrous- asking for such evidence in fact is what is 'dragging' it out.
Peace be unto you
what if God could be proven?
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
Per your definition
No, it is required. Asking for evidence which CANNOT be examined is ludicrous- asking for such evidence in fact is what is 'dragging' it out.
Peace be unto you
And, I told you, Allah and the angel Gabriel.
Complete nonsense. We are part of nature, by definition. The argument is a non-starter.
It can't, unless of course, you're aware of some mechanism in the brain that can interact with the supernatural? You'd be up for a Nobel if you were.
Yes, that would be reasonable. And what exactly is that "signal" and how is it converted to "natural?"
Yes it would make religion respectable.
Jesus was expected to return during the time of the apostles, everyone is holding their breath waiting.
Its not a matter of what if God could be proven. That was suppose to happen with the return of Jesus. 2000 years later we find each apostle was made into patsy.
And when you examine them, will all the natural laws vanish? Will the gravity reflect the state of the standing still earth or the floating people?
Peace be unto you
The non-event of the rapture is a way one can examine its pretense.
Then, as per your logic, your gods don't exist. You are unable to examine them and verify their existence.
If all you have is the word of one man (Muhammad) who claimed to examine an angel, and no one else was able to make the same examination, we are left to only conclude that one man was either lying or insane.
Vanish?
The examples would be contraventions of natural law - hence supernatural.
Any speculation as to what would happen to the rest of the natural laws is merely that - speculation (and a strawman, since we have no way of knowing what would happen if ANY natural laws were broken).
Strawman again.
Will you not attempt to measure the natural forces, to determine what is going on first?
Perhaps suddenly the acceleration due to gravity changed which can account for the observation.
In order for something to be supernatural it would have to occur when something is NOT explained by natural laws (correct?)- so your natural measurements should be normal but the phenomenon would be abnormal.
Can you observe this 'supernatural' force- no. because the moment it comes into observation it can be incorporated into the 'natural laws' as just another force- specifics of which would be unknown..
Also you would have to assume that this 'supernatural event' is via mechanism where the natural laws are not altered (which otherwise would explain the phenomenon through natural means).... In essence the supernatural force would not change the natural force. As if the natural forces are altered then the phenomenon would be explained by the change in natural forces.
So you're working with the assumption: Supernatural events occur via mechanism where there is no affect on the natural forces. - This assumption of such a mechanism must first be shown not the supernatural itself.
First of all even considering 'supernatural' you have to say that it is an assumption proposed by theists. So we begin our thoughts from the following initial assumption:
The fact (what theists claim) that the 'supernatural' created the 'natural'
This means that the supernatural has an affect on the natural forces, yielding the above assumption that supernatural doesn't change the natural laws in basically a paradox.
So your claim that the supernatural changes an event without utilizing natural laws is bogus and thus so is your definition. Or at least is not defining what theist claim exists.. So your definition of supernatural actually doesn't conform to God- so you're asking for a completely different thing.
Peace be unto you
Again you're ignoring the point.
Which part of "examine" did you miss?
Really?
Another assumption: if something happens that cannot be accounted for by/ contravenes natural law then it's supernatural.
Strawman again.
Another assumption and strawman.
And another example of missing the point.
An assumption on your part.
You're ignoring the definition I have given more than once.
Nit-picking strawman. Again.
Supernatural is supernatural.
Tell me, are you and hay-you the same person?
You're equally worth talking to - i.e. less and less as time goes by.
I'm out.
There is a difference between what exists and how it interacts. Manipulation of nature without natural means is supernatural- but only thing you will be able to examine is the natural effect of it. The manipulator thus is supernatural as he is causing a manipulation without using something natural. But the effect of it is natural to a natural perceive like us.
I'm not ignoring your definition of supernatural but rather that as someone who examines it, we can't observe the supernatural act of manipulation only the natural resultant.
No...
Peace be unto you