Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[RoadRunner79]

I already answered in the 2nd post (I believe) in this particular series.  I'm not claiming an actual infinity in respect to God either.  If you just say that God is incomplete, then I ask in what way (so I can clarify my position better).   For one it may depend on how you are using the term incomplete.

I was pretty specific that I am not claiming God is incomplete. If God is not or does not contain any actual infinites, the issue of completeness is irrelevant as it is not a contradiction. Thank you for the direct answer.

I have no issue’s answering questions directly. I just don’t like games, or constantly jumping around avoiding any discussion.

[LadyForCamus]

(I put this in the wrong thread earlier)

About this ‘supernatural’ business:

If something can be evident, or generate evidence of its existence in the physical world via interaction with it, then it’s a part of this world, and not supernatural.  If you’re going to assert that a thing can exist in the world, affect it, and leave evidence behind, yet it is somehow not a part of it, you’re going to have to defend that position via describing the specific, positive attributes that disqualify it from the category of, ‘natural.’

Just once I would like a theist to take an honest crack at explaining to me what the supernatural actually is, and in what ways it is distinct from the categories of ‘natural’ and ‘non-existent’.

Your definition of supernatural is wrong. You're actually creating your confusion by defining the word so it makes no sense.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

 
There is nothing in the definition that limits its interaction with natural things (those things that are governed by the laws of nature). 

Further, a miracle is not a violation of the physical laws, it is an effect in the natural world with a supernatural cause. To say it another way, a physical law describes the expected effect given certain conditions. If there is a supernatural cause, those certain conditions obviously do not obtain.

Redefining something as ‘beyond scientific understanding’ is neither an explanation, nor a positive descriptor of the particular thing in question. You’re attempting to construct a new category of things out of our gaps in knowledge from another. Let me ask you, how do we make the determination that something is beyond science’s ability to explore?

Further, is there a reliable method for making the distinction between natural things that as of yet do not have a scientific explaination, and things that are unexplainable?

[SteveII]

Your definition of supernatural is wrong. You're actually creating your confusion by defining the word so it makes no sense.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

 
There is nothing in the definition that limits its interaction with natural things (those things that are governed by the laws of nature). 

Further, a miracle is not a violation of the physical laws, it is an effect in the natural world with a supernatural cause. To say it another way, a physical law describes the expected effect given certain conditions. If there is a supernatural cause, those certain conditions obviously do not obtain.

Redefining something as ‘beyond scientific understanding’ is neither an explanation, nor a positive descriptor of the particular thing in question.  Let me ask you, how do we make the determination that something is beyond science’s ability to explore?

I'm not redefining anything. That is the definition. 

The best way is context. Events contrary to what we know about the laws of nature are more likely miracles when there is a context that suggest a supernatural cause. For example, if Jesus tells a crippled man from birth to stand up, take up his mat and walk, that would seem more likely a miracle than not. 

If a whole church is praying for a little boy (like my brother-in-law) who had a brain tumor and on the morning of his surgery he had a CT scan for the surgeon to map his cuts, there was no tumor. Never came back. That might be a miracle.

If someone looses their car keys and prays and then finds them. Probably not. 

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.

[polymath257]

The logical possibility is demonstrated by the consistency of the math. That is *all* that is required to show that the concept is consistent.

Metaphysics is usually simply re-arranging preconceptions.  It is flawed from the beginning. The *only* relevant questions are whether the concept of infinity is logically inconsistent (it isn't) and whether observation supports some actual infinity. I agree that we have no *positive proof* of an infinite space, for example, but the current evidence certainly allows for that possibility. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether an actual infinity is *logically* contradictory. And the math shows that it isn't.

That we are talking about 'concrete' objects is irrelevant to the logical possibility. All that is required is an infinite extent of space (certainly a logical possibility) and concrete objects scattered in that infinite space.

Ahh--so all we need to do is declare some axiom (like the Axiom of Infinity) and PRESTO -- there exists the possibility of an infinite number of concrete objects in the real world. Got it. Glad to know your basis for your argument is so well founded. 

Whether some object is concrete or not is "irrelevant"!?  You don't even realize you are positing  metaphysical possibilities using a discipline that the real world has no constraints upon. No wonder you couldn't come up with an article.

The fact that there is no internal contradiction means it isn't logically eliminated. So, yes, we get to assume any axiom that isn't contradictory. The *logic* isn't violated.

Metaphysics is bunk. Pure and simple. There is no such thing as valid metaphysical reasoning: only metaphysical assumptions, usually invalid ones.

I won't come up with a metaphysics article because I consider *all* metaphysics articles to be bunk. But, the math and physics articles are very clear about the *logical* possibility of an actual infinite.

The problem I have with 'concrete' objects is that I don't consider the word 'concrete' to be well defined. For example, is an electron a 'concrete object'? Give reasons for your answer. is a neutrino a 'concrete object'? is a photon? These are the *actual* objects from which the universe is built. These are the ones that matter. Whatever your vague notion of 'concreteness' is irrelevant to the actual physics. And if your metaphysics doens't allow the actual physics, then it is simply invalid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Looking through a microscope at a some sub-atomic particle that isn't behaving as expected would never be thought of as a miracle--there is no context to think that it would be. That concept is called epistemological naturalism and that is how a Christian who is also a scientist would approach his/her work.

-and yet looking at the same..without a microscope..somehow -is- a miracle, unless it involves finding lost keys.   : shrugs :

[Peebothuhlu]

*Holds up hand*

Um... so did we get a responce to the whole:

"Look. Here's an uncaused cause." As in atomic decay.

And

"Look. Here's something into existence coming from nothing." As in Hawking radiation.

Just curious.

Not at work.

[KevinM1]

I'd call Jesus healing the sick a myth, given there's a complete lack of independent verification of the event.

I'd call a kid with a brain tumor being healed before surgery a yet unknown natural phenomenon, and the churchgoer prayers a coincidence.

[178Kristy]

That literraly happened. Someone was healed miraculously from something not even surgery can heal you of. I don't remember the exact name of what it is but also in the brain I believe. There's a movie about it called Miracles from Heaven. You can do some research on it. Blind restoring sight can also happen, I speak for myself here.

[SteveII]

Ahh--so all we need to do is declare some axiom (like the Axiom of Infinity) and PRESTO -- there exists the possibility of an infinite number of concrete objects in the real world. Got it. Glad to know your basis for your argument is so well founded. 

Whether some object is concrete or not is "irrelevant"!?  You don't even realize you are positing  metaphysical possibilities using a discipline that the real world has no constraints upon. No wonder you couldn't come up with an article.

The fact that there is no internal contradiction means it isn't logically eliminated. So, yes, we get to assume any axiom that isn't contradictory. The *logic* isn't violated.

Metaphysics is bunk. Pure and simple. There is no such thing as valid metaphysical reasoning: only metaphysical assumptions, usually invalid ones.

I won't come up with a metaphysics article because I consider *all* metaphysics articles to be bunk. But, the math and physics articles are very clear about the *logical* possibility of an actual infinite.

The problem I have with 'concrete' objects is that I don't consider the word 'concrete' to be well defined. For example, is an electron a 'concrete object'? Give reasons for your answer. is a neutrino a 'concrete object'? is a photon? These are the *actual* objects from which the universe is built. These are the ones that matter. Whatever your vague notion of 'concreteness' is irrelevant to the actual physics. And if your metaphysics doens't allow the actual physics, then it is simply invalid.

Good. Further conversation on this is impossible because this conversation is about metaphysical concepts and you just declared all metaphysics to be "bunk". I'll leave you with a list of the "Central Questions" of metaphysics--but you probably don't care about any of them, they're just "bunk"...

2.1 Ontology (Being)
2.2 Identity and change
2.3 Space and time
2.4 Causality
2.5 Necessity and possibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysic..._questions


It also sucks for science, since these and other metaphysical concepts are required to have a philosophy of science--without which science cannot exist. Damn, what a shame when they all find out...

[KevinM1]

That literraly happened. Someone was healed miraculously from something not even surgery can heal you of. I don't remember the exact name of what it is but also in the brain I believe. There's a movie about it called Miracles from Heaven. You can do some research on it. Blind restoring sight can also happen, I speak for myself here.

It wasn't the brain, it was the 'stomach' (actually, intestines).  And, in the movie version at least, the condition does have several treatments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal...procedures).  A quick search for what the book was about doesn't mention the actual diagnosis, but I don't care enough to do a deep dive.

Regardless, there's nothing precluding these things from being yet unknown natural phenomena.  Indeed, I'd say it's far, far more likely that it's that rather than some god randomly saving a child from something they afflicted that child with in the first place.