Beginning of Earth

OK, what is a supernatural phenomenon in the first place? Do you know any examples of supernatural phenomenon?

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

I would read up on Kenneth Miller's opinion on scientific materialism. I think he hits the nail on the head. He is a proffesor of evolutionary biology at Brown University.

I definitely will.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

Science explains the forces of nature. It observes and offers solution to natural occurences. There are supernatural occurences that cannot be explained by science. Thought processes such as spiritualism and theology offer a solution, that is, the science of the supernatural.

Spiritualism isn't ANY kind of science. You do realise that science has rules, right? You can't just make stuff up and say it's science.

The thing with science is, whatever the current explanations for why something acts a certain way or how something is formed is what we currently understand of it. There were times when we thought, for example, that everything in the universe revolved around us. There were times when anyone who didn't believe the Earth was flat was some sort of lunatic. Science is constantly changing because we develop new technology and more minds are out there to work together and search for answers. As human knowledge grows, explanations grow more and more in depth.

There is, for example, gravity. We understand how it works, calculating the gravitational pull between Jupiter and Venus is something we can do. However we are not sure why it works the way it does. We don't have technology that is advanced enough to help us understand, so we have things like dark energy as a placeholder of sorts.

In cases like this I think it's much more likely that there's simply something currently unexplainable going on. It's not unexplainable because of a supernatural occurrence, it's unexplainable because science hasn't the proper tools to discern what it is yet. I'm confident that when given time we'll be able to explain it as lucidly as we can explain why the sky appears blue to us.

Originally Posted by The Fanatic of Zelda

God was invented by some prehistorical man who somehow pulled it from his mind. Case closed.

This kind of statement spits on the beliefs of many ZU members. I would suggest minding how you say what you say. A more appropriate way to make that statement:

"I believe God was invented by some prehistorical man who somehow pulled it from his mind."


"Case closed" also adds a tone of absoluteness. Omit stuff like that as well.

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

Science explains the forces of nature. It observes and offers solution to natural occurences. There are supernatural occurences that cannot be explained by science. Thought processes such as spiritualism and theology offer a solution, that is, the science of the supernatural. You are limiting yourself and existence to scientific materialism, that hinders an open mind. I would read up on Kenneth Miller's opinion on scientific materialism. I think he hits the nail on the head. He is a proffesor of evolutionary biology at Brown University.

Possibly, "magic" or supernatural events are just science we don't understand yet.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

Science explains the forces of nature. It observes and offers solution to natural occurences. There are supernatural occurences that cannot be explained by science. Thought processes such as spiritualism and theology offer a solution, that is, the science of the supernatural. You are limiting yourself and existence to scientific materialism, that hinders an open mind. I would read up on Kenneth Miller's opinion on scientific materialism. I think he hits the nail on the head. He is a proffesor of evolutionary biology at Brown University.

The distinctions you're drawing are artificial and unwarranted. Science is the process of studying anything that can be experienced -- including connecting phenomena to other phenomena -- and correcting for subjective errors as best as possible. If something is known to happen, then it can be studied scientifically.

These barriers you're putting up are illusory.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Spiritualism isn't ANY kind of science. You do realise that science has rules, right? You can't just make stuff up and say it's science.

Well it isn't science because it doesn't observe nature. Perhaps a more appropriate word would be study. Spiritualism and Theology are the study or of the supernatural.

Originally Posted by Radek

Possibly, "magic" or supernatural events are just science we don't understand yet.

Yes, I think Hombre is right in saying they aren't sciences verbatim, but they are certainly studies that deserve a fair shot. To rule them out in the name of scientific materialism is simply closed minded.

Originally Posted by left4Cuccos

The distinctions you're drawing are artificial and unwarranted. Science is the process of studying anything that can be experienced -- including connecting phenomena to other phenomena -- and correcting for subjective errors as best as possible. If something is known to happen, then it can be studied scientifically.

These barriers you're putting up are illusory.

sci·ence
noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Source: Google

The dictionary begs to differ with your definition of science.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

In regards to the universe and the particles it is made up with. It is scientifically sound to say that it has always existed according to the law of conservation of matter; however, logic itself seems to get in the way of eternity, especially when we moving backward in time. It is okay to say that God has already existed because God consists of divine intelligence, which is well outside of human perception. However, to say that matter has always existed is harder because that exists within human perception.

if we are supposed to accept the proposition that God exists, then God must be subject to the same logic as everything else. No free passes.

Originally Posted by Great White North

The problem with this theory is that if that were actually true, we wouldn't be here. If the universe is infinitely old (i.e has always existed), then we would need to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now, and thus would never actually reach now. Just like taking one away from an infinite number (literally the conceptual infinity at opposed to a rational number that is so large we just say it might as well be infinity) will leave you with an infinite number.

So the universe is finite, and approximately 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years old.

by this same logic, if God has existed for an eternal amount of time then we also wouldn't be here now.

Originally Posted by Double A

I don't get this. Time is a series of events. Every single aspect of the universe as it currently stands is the result of events, which themselves are the results of other events. Are you telling me that, if there were an infinite number of events, that the universe would still be stuck in some pre-Big-Bang form for all eternity (i.e. that sufficient events would never pass such that we "reach now")?

if there are an infinite number of events prior to any given point in time, then how can there ever be a sufficient number of events to reach that point?

take for example a barrel of infinite capacity. The bottom of the barrel is an infinite distance away from the top, so it can hold an infinite amount of water. Say you marked a point somewhere on the side of the barrel—could you ever fill the barrel up to that point?

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

If there is an established explanation, I would say yes. Its not like things are being made up to fill in the gaps. The concept of a deity is an established position.

"established" how?

We know the divine exists because there are things that are observed by science, logic, and mathematics that are simply impossible, yet somehow they exist.

such as?

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

So does God play any part in nature? God is a pre-established entity, and he has a pre-established theological position as a creator.

what does "pre-established" mean? In what way is God established and what is it that God has been established prior to?

There are already rules and laws in science that claim that what is observed is impossible, so something is wrong.

such as?

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

There is a place for the natural and a place for the supernatural.

we live in nature, in a natural universe. Science is the art of explaining it—the universe itself and everything in it. If there is a place for the "supernatural" it's not here, in the universe.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's scientifically impossible. By saying that you can conclude it wasn't a course of nature that made it happen. It was something beyond nature. The alternative is not to say the phenomenon is unexplainable, it is to say that it is unexplainable by science.

this honestly doesn't make any sense to me. Nature is...everything. From subatomic particles to the largest cosmic bodies. What could be beyond the very workings of the universe and how could we possibly interact with it? How can something exist in a natural universe and be exempt from the laws of nature?

the concept of the "supernatural" is, to me, completely meaningless.

The belief that God created the universe seems to suffice.

where did God come from? How? Why did God create the universe? How?

simply saying "God did it" is not an explanation, especially if you cannot provide any evidence to back it up. It's just as meaningful as "a wizard did it".

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

There are supernatural occurences that cannot be explained by science.

such as?

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

The dictionary begs to differ with your definition of science.

no, it doesn't. If we can experience a phenomenon in any way, we experience it with our senses, which are used to give us information about the physical world. We are physical. Our senses are physical. Everything we experience is physical.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

sci·ence
noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Source: Google

The dictionary begs to differ with your definition of science.

I can play citation games, too. Wikipedia says "In modern use, 'science' more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself."

Here's something from Rational Wiki:

Originally Posted by Rational Wiki, Science

A common misconception is that science denies the existence of the supernatural. The reality is that science understands that "supernatural" and "magic" are simply copout fig leaves that basically say 'we don't understand this'. In his book Little Journeys to Homes of Great Scientists Elbert Hubbard states "To the scientist the word "supernatual" is a contradiction. Everything that is in the universe is natural; the supernatural is the natural not yet understood. And that which is called the supernatural is often the figment of a disordered, undisciplined or undeveloped imagination."

Because the supernatural is an easy out that doesn't really explain anything and generally results in non testable models science has a high bar for accepting the supernatural--all reasonably possible natural explanations must be considered and discounted before any true science will even begin to consider such an explanation.

The research of Alonso de Salazar Frías in the aftermath of the Navarre witch trials of 1610 (with the full support of Supreme Council of the Inquisition) shows why science requires such a high bar. Salazar's systematic study of witchcraft claims showed the witnesses were either lying or deluded and that supposed magical poisons were harmless. At the end of his study he concluded that not one piece of actually evidence that even one case of witchcraft had actually occurred actually existed. The result of all this was the Instructions of 1614 which lessened the punishment for witchcraft and increased the requirement for empirical evidence. Even in Spain not everyone agreed with the Spanish Inquisition's new guidelines and executions for witchcraft continued in some local communities but the Roman Inquisition did agree and published a detailed metrology regarding witchcraft trials in 1655. Claims of witchcraft and testimonials were no longer enough — hard physical corroborating evidence was now required.

Originally Posted by Rational Wiki, Supernatural

Supernatural refers to phenomena that fit one of the following definitions:

* Supernatural events as "beyond nature": This is the RationalWiki definition of choice. Something presented as "supernatural" is by definition not real, at least not in the way that term is usually defined to mean "an identifiable part of observable reality". In exactly what sense such a thing can be said to exist at all is the central problem for anyone when talking of the supernatural. Without observable reality as a basis point, it's not clear at all how we define, measure, perceive or interact with the supernatural. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, outside the scope of the scientific method. It often refers to... well, hmm. What could possibly not be natural? Perhaps ghosts, angels, gods, and zombies. Probably Uri Geller, too. The problem with this definition is that none of the phenomena commonly described as supernatural fit the definition. Pagan gods were commonly described as having corporeal form, and even interbreeding with humans. The monotheistic God is described as being perceivable through His interactions with the physical world. Zombies are (of course) dead humans that have been raised to something resembling life. Virgin birth does not fit the definition, because it is a physical event. Thus no events commonly described as "supernatural" are "beyond nature," and this definition yields a null set.

* Supernatural events as violating laws of nature: Supernatural phenomena are phenomena that violate the laws of nature. The problem with this definition is that it assumes we comprehensively know the laws of nature in order to identify violations. Thus an islander who has never seen an aircraft or a walky-talky would describe them as "supernatural" because they violate the laws of nature as he understands them -- despite the fact that they are consistent with the laws of nature as they really are. Since we do not comprehensively understand the laws of nature, we cannot meaningfully determine which events truly violate the laws of nature. Something that we find completely and utterly inexplicable could still quite possibly be within the laws of nature, and it's not possible for us to definitively determine whether it is or not.

* Supernatural as a meaningless word: Others believe that the word "supernatural" carries no meaning. For something to be "beyond nature" it would have to have no interaction with nature -- and thus any events in that realm would be beyond our perception or meaningful knowledge. However, that does not exclude the possibility that events described as miracles -- which occur in the natural world, despite being unusual occurrences -- are possible. The key question with "supernatural" events, therefore, is not whether they are supernatural, but rather whether they occur. If they occur, they are not "supernatural," but rather "unexplained." If they do not occur, they are not "supernatural," but rather "fictional."

Demonstrate that there is something not contained entirely in the physical and natural world. Heck, go ahead and tell me what it means to be physical and natural. I'm betting you'll have no meaningful terms left when it comes to talking about gods.

Originally Posted by Double A

From when?

Pretty sure he means from negative infinity.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

My I continually ponder this: Is it possible that the Big Bang and Creationism are dependent on each other, or possibly the same thing in different terms?

I think that the Big Bang is impossible for this reason: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. As well, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can merely be transformed. I believe that the Earth was not formed by The Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

My I continually ponder this: Is it possible that the Big Bang and Creationism are dependent on each other, or possibly the same thing in different terms?

I think that the Big Bang is impossible for this reason: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. As well, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can merely be transformed. I believe that the Earth was not formed by The Big Bang.

the Big Bang theory does not claim that any matter or energy was created nor destroyed. The Big Bang theory also does not attempt to explain the formation of the Earth. The Big Bang is merely a cosmological model of the early development of the Universe, some short time after it came into existence through whatever indeterminable means, theorizing that the Universe began as a singularity and rapidly expanded.

Originally Posted by Cor Sicarius

My I continually ponder this: Is it possible that the Big Bang and Creationism are dependent on each other, or possibly the same thing in different terms?

I think that the Big Bang is impossible for this reason: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. As well, Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It can merely be transformed. I believe that the Earth was not formed by The Big Bang.

You really need to study up on this stuff. Even reading the introductory blurbs about them on Wikipedia would probably suffice.

The conservation laws for matter and energy are the result of consistent observations. Albinism isn't impossible simply because all one has seen previously were normally-colored individuals of a species. But even this fact is irrelevant to what you bring up, because whatever happened at time zero or slightly later could have been the very origin for the behavior that our conservation laws describe.

No one except those ignorant of cosmology think that Earth is a product of the Big Bang. Earth is the product of gravity and matter that didn't become part of the sun or other planets, comets, asteroids, etc. The sun was the product of a rotating disc of hydrogen, helium, and relatively trace amounts of heavier elements. This rotating disc used to be more cloud-like, instead of relatively flat, and that was the product of previous-generation stars that exploded and/or shed their outer layers. Ultimately, you wind up "at" the Big Bang, but Earth is as much a product of the Big Bang as Obama's presidency is a product of the Puritans' migration to North America.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

The belief that God created the universe seems to suffice.

You missed my point entirely. We know that gravity is linked to the presence of mass. Yet to leave it at that would be to leave the existence of gravity almost entirely unexplained.

Why, then, would creation be treated differently? If there is a hypothesis (not even sure if you can call it that) that the existence of the universe is linked to "something God did", what makes that a more sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe than "gravity is linked to 'something mass did' " is a sufficient explanation for the existence of gravity?

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

Science explains the forces of nature. It observes and offers solution to natural occurences. There are supernatural occurences that cannot be explained by science.

I addressed this in my previous post.

1. Cannot be currently explained by science =/= will never be explained by science. There is too little information to make such a judgment, and to assume that X will never be explained by science is to disregard all of the other things that science has explained. It also disregards the vast majority of the universe, which we have no idea about.

2. It is contradictory to say "this thing has no explanation, therefore it is explained by..."

To say that science will figure it out in the future, and we are not there yet is a hasty assumption. When science declare's an observed phenomenon impossible, it is a clear sign that there is something happening beyond what we know, something paranormal.

It's not a hasty assumption, given that we've made great strides toward figuring out everything else. If anything the hasty assumption is that we will never figure it out.

Science does not declare observed phenomena impossible (since it would be contradictory to label something "impossible" if it already happened). What is actually declared is "we cannot explain this using established explanations", and, as I've mentioned above, jumping from there to "we will never explain this" is a premature judgment. And jumping again from there to "God did it" demonstrates the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Thought processes such as spiritualism and theology offer a solution, that is, the science of the supernatural. You are limiting yourself and existence to scientific materialism, that hinders an open mind.

This is somewhat off topic, but I need to address this pet peeve of mine.

To attribute one's rejection of supernaturalism to a lack of an open mind is to fundamentally misunderstand what an open mind is.

An open mind is willing to consider all positions, which means that you are willing to examine and compare arguments from all competing positions. Being open to considering all positions does NOT commit you to accepting them without evidence. In fact, by doing that you simultaneously reject other alternative explanations without evidence, which is the opposite of open-mindedness. Being skeptical is NOT close-minded.

Or to put it another way, an open-minded position regarding the supernatural would be something like "it COULD exist, but until evidence has been provided and examined then I have no reason to believe that it DOES".

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

if we are supposed to accept the proposition that God exists, then God must be subject to the same logic as everything else. No free passes.

I'm not neccesarly speaking of a God. I'm speaking of any supernatural force that cannot be explained by science. Of course, but as I have said before, some of the logic behind God's actions is beyond human perception. In the same way that a mystery or paradox is beyond human conception.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

"established" how?

Established by time, faith, study, and insight. The recognition of a deity has existed and been established since prehistoric times.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

such as?

Time progressing through an eternal past. I've mentioned this before.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

this honestly doesn't make any sense to me. Nature is...everything. From subatomic particles to the largest cosmic bodies. What could be beyond the very workings of the universe and how could we possibly interact with it? How can something exist in a natural universe and be exempt from the laws of nature?

the concept of the "supernatural" is, to me, completely meaningless.

Anything that does not obey the laws of science is supernatural. Because it doesn't follow the laws of science, it doesn't follow the course of nature. It can be observed, but it cannot be explained. If it cannot be explained by science, then it isn't natural. Science can offer an explanation for all natural things.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

no, it doesn't. If we can experience a phenomenon in any way, we experience it with our senses, which are used to give us information about the physical world. We are physical. Our senses are physical. Everything we experience is physical.

Alright, I see your point.

Originally Posted by Double A

You missed my point entirely. We know that gravity is linked to the presence of mass. Yet to leave it at that would be to leave the existence of gravity almost entirely unexplained.

Why, then, would creation be treated differently? If there is a hypothesis (not even sure if you can call it that) that the existence of the universe is linked to "something God did", what makes that a more sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe than "gravity is linked to 'something mass did' " is a sufficient explanation for the existence of gravity?

I see what you are saying. I agree with you, and I have to say that I revoke my point as God being an explanation. I do however see it as a clue that will point towards further discovery.

So mass is a clue to the existence of gravity. It leads towards the discovery of gravity, which is a plausible explanation for why we aren't floating everywhere. In the same way these supernatural occurences point all fingers towards God having created. We don't know how God created, and we never will because it is beyond our perception. But that is beside the point. The point is that God created.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. Cannot be currently explained by science =/= will never be explained by science. There is too little information to make such a judgment, and to assume that X will never be explained by science is to disregard all of the other things that science has explained. It also disregards the vast majority of the universe, which we have no idea about.

It wouldn't be an assumption if the laws of nature and logic declare it scientifically impossible.

Originally Posted by Double A

It's not a hasty assumption, given that we've made great strides toward figuring out everything else. If anything the hasty assumption is that we will never figure it out.

Science does not declare observed phenomena impossible (since it would be contradictory to label something "impossible" if it already happened). What is actually declared is "we cannot explain this using established explanations", and, as I've mentioned above, jumping from there to "we will never explain this" is a premature judgment. And jumping again from there to "God did it" demonstrates the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Isn't the concept of eternity a mystery to logic? Inexplicable? Perhaps even impossible? It's a paradox.

In fact paradoxes often offer mysteries to the human mind that do exist; however, will always be permanent mysteries because its beyond human perception. I'm using the word supernatural because it is the most concrete way to explain something beyond human perception. If we go back to my original post, perception was the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Double A

This is somewhat off topic, but I need to address this pet peeve of mine.

To attribute one's rejection of supernaturalism to a lack of an open mind is to fundamentally misunderstand what an open mind is.

An open mind is willing to consider all positions, which means that you are willing to examine and compare arguments from all competing positions. Being open to considering all positions does NOT commit you to accepting them without evidence. In fact, by doing that you simultaneously reject other alternative explanations without evidence, which is the opposite of open-mindedness. Being skeptical is NOT close-minded.

Or to put it another way, an open-minded position regarding the supernatural would be something like "it COULD exist, but until evidence has been provided and examined then I have no reason to believe that it DOES".

Its a pet peeve of mine as well. I fully understand the definition. I am simply saying that full reliance on scientific materialism is closed mindedness. To cast aside the supernatural without consideration because people have a bias towards scientific materialism is closed minded.

In many ways, a future discovery that many scientific materialists hinge on isn't neccessarily imminent or even plausible. I may believe that scientific materialism COULD exist, but until evidence has been provided and examined then I have no reason to believe it DOES.

It seems that until there is evidence, we will all be hanging on the fence. I personally believe that enough fingers point at the supernatural to rienforce the hypothesis that God exists. This is a matter of both observation and faith, so I don't think anyone will come out of this disscussion on top. Until further evidence is unleashed to prove either scientific materialism or supernatural forces.

I would again refer Kenneth Miller's opinion on open-mindedness in science. I think he sums it up nicely. He can also articulate it much better than I can.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

I see what you are saying. I agree with you, and I have to say that I revoke my point as God being an explanation. I do however see it as a clue that will point towards further discovery.

Typically, clues can be examined. This isn't a "clue", but a notion.

In the same way these supernatural occurences point all fingers towards God having created. We don't know how God created, and we never will because it is beyond our perception. But that is beside the point. The point is that God created.

This (bolded) is the second leap of logic you've made. If we take the assumption that science will never be able to explain these things (itself a long leap of logic), it is a longer leap of logic to assume that there was a sentient being behind it all (as you have implied by using "God" as a name rather than as an ordinary noun).

It wouldn't be an assumption if the laws of nature and logic declare it scientifically impossible.

Not scientifically impossible, but impossible to explain with the knowledge we currently have (there's an important distinction).

Remember, the existence of the scientific method owes itself to the fact that we don't know everything there is to know. The notion of "scientifically impossible" makes the assumption that we DO know everything there is for humans to know and that something can be directly observed to be outside of this knowledge (which doesn't make sense really - if it is outside of the farthest boundaries of human knowledge, then how can one know it exists at all?).

Its a pet peeve of mine as well. I fully understand the definition. I am simply saying that full reliance on scientific materialism is closed mindedness. To cast aside the supernatural without consideration because people have a bias towards scientific materialism is closed minded.

Bias isn't the issue here though. The reason the supernatural is so often disregarded is because its defenders never offer evidence supporting their claims beyond arguments centred around the Argument from Ignorance fallacy (not as rude as it sounds).

If no evidence is consistently provided for a particular proposition, then is it really close minded to eventually drop all consideration for that proposition until evidence IS provided?

In many ways, a future discovery that many scientific materialists hinge on isn't neccessarily imminent or even plausible. I may believe that scientific materialism COULD exist, but until evidence has been provided and examined then I have no reason to believe it DOES.

Fair enough.

However, Occam's Razor states that "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." That is, the proposition that makes the fewest assumptions is superior to the proposition that makes more assumptions, when there is no clear-cut answer. It would appear that materialism is less complex than its supernatural counterpart since it does not assume the existence of the supernatural as well as all of the principles governing the supernatural.

Since it offers fewer unsubstantiated assumptions, materialism is a better "default" position when one seeks the truth.

It seems that until there is evidence, we will all be hanging on the fence. I personally believe that enough fingers point at the supernatural to rienforce the hypothesis that God exists. This is a matter of both observation and faith, so I don't think anyone will come out of this disscussion on top. Until further evidence is unleashed to prove either scientific materialism or supernatural forces.

Indeed. That's why being a skeptic is most conducive to finding the truth.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

I'm not neccesarly speaking of a God. I'm speaking of any supernatural force that cannot be explained by science.

same deal.

although I would argue that, by definition, the thing you are speaking of cannot logically exist. If it cannot be empirically observed then it cannot exist. If it can be empirically observed then it can be explained by science.

Of course, but as I have said before, some of the logic behind God's actions is beyond human perception. In the same way that a mystery or paradox is beyond human conception.

what sort of mysteries or paradoxes are beyond our conception? A mystery is something we currently don't understand, not something that we inherently cannot understand.

Time progressing through an eternal past. I've mentioned this before.

it has not been observed that time has progressed through an eternal past.

Anything that does not obey the laws of science is supernatural. Because it doesn't follow the laws of science, it doesn't follow the course of nature.

I'll assume you mean the laws of nature, as it is not the place of science to dictate the laws by which nature must follow but rather to determine what those laws are. The "laws of science" are, if anything, the rules which govern proper scientific study; empiricism, falsifiability, and so on.

and yes, if something could be observed violating the laws of nature then I suppose it would be "supernatural". However, our understanding of nature is far from perfect and any apparent violation of the laws of nature as we know them could very well mean that our understanding of these laws is flawed, rather than that there are things which do not follow the laws.

for instance, recently one of the laws of nature was put into question when particles were apparently observed as traveling faster than light. This could have meant one of three things: the observation was incorrect, our understanding of the laws of nature was incorrect, or "supernatural" phenomena were at play.

turns out it was the first one. The particles, in fact, had not traveled faster than light as apparently observed. If the observation had been correct, though, then the second option would be the one the scientists would use and here's why:

the laws of nature are the laws that dictate reality. If something is observed as violating what we understand as the laws of nature then clearly our understanding of these laws is flawed and must be amended to account for these observations. That is how science—the study of reality—works.

there isn't some big Rule Book somewhere that tells us exactly how nature is supposed to work. Science is the art of figuring all of that out. All we have are our observations and if we can observe something then we can figure out how it works and what laws might be behind it. If there is an observation of some phenomenon that cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding of the laws of nature then we experiment on it until we have a better understanding how it works and how it fits in with everything else.

if we can observe a phenomenon then we can understand it through repeated observations and experimentation and, eventually, fit it into our understanding of the laws of nature. The "laws of nature" are based on our observations and scientific inquiry, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Westerly Winds

So does God play any part in nature? God is a pre-established entity, and he has a pre-established theological position as a creator. If something points towards the existance of a creator, that makes God a plausible option. There are already rules and laws in science that claim that what is observed is impossible, so something is wrong. Either the laws and theories of science are wrong, or something beyond pure scientific laws has influenced nature.

To say that science will figure it out in the future, and we are not there yet is a hasty assumption. When science declare's an observed phenomenon impossible, it is a clear sign that there is something happening beyond what we know, something paranormal.

You are making the assumption that because something happens, it is on nature's own accord. However, the laws of nature are understood, and they make clear sense. Something like an eternal past or the creation of matter from nothing are principles that transcend our human perception.

...What.

I just told you, if it is observable, it isn't impossible. It is CLEARLY possible, because it has been observed.

To say science will never figure it out, and God is the only answer is an even more hasty assumption.



What if I were to tell you, that you are wrong, and were to say that it is actually the Greek gods who are responsible for such "impossible" phenomena. What possible justification do you have to disregard the Greek pantheon, and place your own god in their place?

You have none.

by this same logic, if God has existed for an eternal amount of time then we also wouldn't be here now.

No, because according to physicists time is a property of the universe. God is quite clearly external to the universe.

Time is a series of events. God existing outside of time would be to suggest that he "nothing'd" (for lack of a better word) for his entire existence.

Originally Posted by Double A

Not scientifically impossible, but impossible to explain with the knowledge we currently have (there's an important distinction).

Remember, the existence of the scientific method owes itself to the fact that we don't know everything there is to know. The notion of "scientifically impossible" makes the assumption that we DO know everything there is for humans to know and that something can be directly observed to be outside of this knowledge (which doesn't make sense really - if it is outside of the farthest boundaries of human knowledge, then how can one know it exists at all?).

However there are many laws we know to be correct. For example, Einstien's laws concerning the conservation of matter and energy. It doesn't make the assumption that we do know everything, it just makes the assumption that certain parts of what we know are correct. I dont think it takes too big of a leap of faith to make that jump.

This (bolded) is the second leap of logic you've made. If we take the assumption that science will never be able to explain these things (itself a long leap of logic), it is a longer leap of logic to assume that there was a sentient being behind it all (as you have implied by using "God" as a name rather than as an ordinary noun).

I use the term God because that is in particular what I believe in, but a paranormal force. It is inconsequential whether the force is sentient or not.

Originally Posted by Double A

Typically, clues can be examined. This isn't a "clue", but a notion.

It can be examined, but not by a human intellect. It is a mystery which is hard, if not impossible to understand. This is where faith often separates from science. I personally believe God will never be proven nor disproven by humans. In order to find God one must open their hearts to belief. To further investigate the clue you must take a leap of faith. To some this seems impracticle, to others it is simply following a clue.

Originally Posted by Double A

Bias isn't the issue here though. The reason the supernatural is so often disregarded is because its defenders never offer evidence supporting their claims beyond arguments centred around the Argument from Ignorance fallacy (not as rude as it sounds).

If no evidence is consistently provided for a particular proposition, then is it really close minded to eventually drop all consideration for that proposition until evidence IS provided?

That is true, but if there are laws of science contradicting the phenomenon, then there is evidence contrary to materialism. This isn't overwhelming evidence, but it is often enough to take the leap of faith in the supernatural. The evidence for the supernatural is often found in the contradictions of the natural. It is rarely found in the details of the supernatural because those details are often not understood.

Originally Posted by Double A

Fair enough.

However, Occam's Razor states that "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." That is, the proposition that makes the fewest assumptions is superior to the proposition that makes more assumptions, when there is no clear-cut answer. It would appear that materialism is less complex than its supernatural counterpart since it does not assume the existence of the supernatural as well as all of the principles governing the supernatural.

Since it offers fewer unsubstantiated assumptions, materialism is a better "default" position when one seeks the truth.

I would find many of the biological systems to be a direct counterexample to this. Many of the biochemical pathways of life are much more complex than anyone had ever imagined or assumed. A lot of these pathways are like Rube Goldberg mechanisms.

A hypothetical example could go like this. Say certain people thought that God actively turned light into energy for plants, and other people believed that the plant went through a light and dark reaction that involved the stimulation of electrons, emission of oxygen, and formation of long carbon chains. In this case materialism is correct, but it is certainly more complex.

Originally Posted by Azrael Black

What if I were to tell you, that you are wrong, and were to say that it is actually the Greek gods who are responsible for such "impossible" phenomena. What possible justification do you have to disregard the Greek pantheon, and place your own god in their place?

You have none.

I'm not speaking about any one God over another. As I have mentioned above it would be a paranormal force which does not have to be sentient or individual.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

what sort of mysteries or paradoxes are beyond our conception? A mystery is something we currently don't understand, not something that we inherently cannot understand.

The concept of eternity. That is, an eternal past. Try to imagine how the written history of the universe would look if it has existed eternally in the past.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

it has not been observed that time has progressed through an eternal past.

Then the universe must have been created, and matter cannot be created.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

I'll assume you mean the laws of nature, as it is not the place of science to dictate the laws by which nature must follow but rather to determine what those laws are. The "laws of science" are, if anything, the rules which govern proper scientific study; empiricism, falsifiability, and so on.

and yes, if something could be observed violating the laws of nature then I suppose it would be "supernatural". However, our understanding of nature is far from perfect and any apparent violation of the laws of nature as we know them could very well mean that our understanding of these laws is flawed, rather than that there are things which do not follow the laws.

To assume that our knowledge is flawed would rule out the supernatural. All things have to be taken into consideration. I understand that in many cases materialism comes out on top because materialism occurs more commonly than supernatural occurences.

When statues begin to weep blood, then you know something is up. Anyone knows that it is scientifically impossible for a statue to weep blood, but somehow it happens. The answer lies in the supernatural. To be fair, a lot of these instances are hoaxes, but the catholic church (just to pick on an organization) has done extensive research on the phenomenon, and they have proven some legitamite. I also believe that their scientific based research is done by a secular group of scientists (that is off the top of my head). Anyone who simply dismisses the phenomenon as a simple hoax is being closed minded by not taking the supernatural into consideration. Especially when the supernatural has an overwhelming case and point.