Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[PeterPriesthood]

And anyone who says the any such catalyst must be Supernatural should never be trusted.

Some thing/event/force caused the universe to begin. You believe that much, I hope. Whatever that thing/event/force was, it cannot be natural because it was not part of the universe. It is therefore supernatural.

http://orthosphere.org/2012/03/31/nature...in-itself/

That is where logic carries us, at least. You might assert that some things/events/forces are capable of causing themselves, but then you'd have to prove that (if you wish to adhere to the scientific method).

I like what you're saying, but trying to prove anything about religion with logic is dangerous. We'll end up going down the Rabbit Hole, my friend. We need to keep our Faith strong and trust that it will help us discern the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm okay that we don't know everything about the Universe yet. God does though. I'm certain that if he doesn't reveal it all to us in this lifetime, there's at least more life to live once we shed our mortal shells.

[Minimalist]

Whatever that thing/event/force was, it cannot be natural because it was not part of the universe.

Why don't you leave the heavy thinking to people who can handle it?






You can keep reading your fucking bible. It's obvious that fairy tales are your speed and the rest of us will get on with life.

[Esquilax]

Some thing/event/force caused the universe to begin. You believe that much, I hope.

Not necessarily. The universe as we understand it had a beginning, but there's nothing saying its component parts haven't always been floating around, and just had some form of event happen to them that made them as they are today.

We can't measure beyond the big bang, so why would we ever say anything about it, yet?

Whatever that thing/event/force was, it cannot be natural because it was not part of the universe. It is therefore supernatural.

Or a component of the natural world we haven't established yet. The problem here is that you're using a double whammy of false dichotomies and unfounded assertions: you're defining "natural" as only things within the universe as we currently understand it, and then erecting this false dichotomy that if it's not natural, it must be supernatural.

Well, no: the laws of physics are natural things and if, beyond the big bang, there was some configuration of physics that led to, say, a slow, rolling progression towards expansion into the universe we currently have, then what we've got is a natural thing beyond the universe we inhabit causing it to form.

You've got no basis for assuming a supernatural source to anything we don't currently understand, that's just an argument from ignorance. And it will fail you in the end; science isn't likely to stop discovering the real answers to things just because you'd like it to be god.

That is where logic carries us, at least.

Assuming you feed faulty premises into it, yes.

You might assert that some things/events/forces are capable of causing themselves, but then you'd have to prove that (if you wish to adhere to the scientific method).

Oh, like your god, you mean?

[Undeceived]

The problem here is that you're using a double whammy of false dichotomies and unfounded assertions: you're defining "natural" as only things within the universe as we currently understand it, and then erecting this false dichotomy that if it's not natural, it must be supernatural.

Dictionary.com defines supernatural as "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena". Since our natural laws did not apply to the catalyst, that would make it supernatural in every sense of the word. Can you provide a better definition?

---

Why don't you leave the heavy thinking to people who can handle it?

I quote from the video (:55):
"In the beginning, there is nothing. No matter. No energy. Not even empty space, because space itself doesn't exist. No time passes, because there's no such thing as time. From nowhere appears a fireball smaller than an atom."

[Bad Writer]

... trying to prove anything about religion with logic is dangerous. We'll end up going down the Rabbit Hole, my friend. We need to keep our Faith strong and trust that it will help us discern the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I'm okay that we don't know everything about the Universe yet. God does though. I'm certain that if he doesn't reveal it all to us in this lifetime, there's at least more life to live once we shed our mortal shells.

What, and your own special brand of logic keeps you out of Rabbit Holes? You've assumed there is a God, and you base your faith on this assumption. Can you explain why this mode of thinking is correct, or will that be Rabbit Hole territory?

[Esquilax]

Dictionary.com defines supernatural as "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena". Since our natural laws did not apply to the catalyst, that would make it supernatural in every sense of the word. Can you provide a better definition?

I don't need to: yours will do quite well. Remember when I said this:

You've got no basis for assuming a supernatural source to anything we don't currently understand, that's just an argument from ignorance. And it will fail you in the end; science isn't likely to stop discovering the real answers to things just because you'd like it to be god.

Well, barring a few language errors, you've cheerfully admitted that you'll fall into that trap, because things that aren't explainable by natural law or phenomena don't stay that way for long. Just as lightning was from Zeus, and the waves were from Poseidon, and rainbows were from God, this question of the causes of our current universe won't remain supernatural according to your definition forever. In time, it will become very natural, and your kind will simply shift the goalposts onto the next thing, as you've been doing for centuries.

I will, however, note your little equivocation game, there, because the definition of supernatural you've cited, and the definition you evoked were two different things. The definition you've provided is fine, but the one you wanted us to think of, I think, was the one that would make your god a justifiable source for the creation of the universe. These are not the same thing; "unexplainable" is fine, but it does not mean "cannot be explained." And nor does it ascribe the kind of supernatural (divine) source you were intimating.

The most you can come to is a cause we don't understand. As far as you wanted to come was "it's my god," and you cannot do that with the definition you've cited.

I quote from the video (:55):
"In the beginning, there is nothing. No matter. No energy. Not even empty space, because space itself doesn't exist. No time passes, because there's no such thing as time. From nowhere appears a fireball smaller than an atom."

Did the other fifty minutes of the video pass you by?

[Undeceived]

Well, barring a few language errors, you've cheerfully admitted that you'll fall into that trap, because things that aren't explainable by natural law or phenomena don't stay that way for long. Just as lightning was from Zeus, and the waves were from Poseidon, and rainbows were from God, this question of the causes of our current universe won't remain supernatural according to your definition forever. In time, it will become very natural, and your kind will simply shift the goalposts onto the next thing, as you've been doing for centuries.

I will, however, note your little equivocation game, there, because the definition of supernatural you've cited, and the definition you evoked were two different things. The definition you've provided is fine, but the one you wanted us to think of, I think, was the one that would make your god a justifiable source for the creation of the universe. These are not the same thing; "unexplainable" is fine, but it does not mean "cannot be explained." And nor does it ascribe the kind of supernatural (divine) source you were intimating.

The most you can come to is a cause we don't understand. As far as you wanted to come was "it's my god," and you cannot do that with the definition you've cited.

Step two. Picture the thing/event/force that is the catalyst for our universe. What caused it? Another thing/event/force. And so on into infinity. Every thing/event/force is changing, causing the next. Now, if we obey our inclinations and find where infinity yields to a beginning, we come to a point where there was no change. But how can a thing/event/force which doesn't change (meaning it itself has no cause)...how can it cause the next thing/event/force? Answer: the first efficient cause is a personal thing/event/force with the ability to choose to cause the next thing/event/force, in spite of its changeless nature.

Please deliberate with me on this one. Can you think of an alternative?

[Silver]

Can you think of an alternative?

Yes, 42.

[Esquilax]

Step two. Picture the thing/event/force that is the catalyst for our universe.

Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.

What caused it? Another thing/event/force. And so on into infinity. Every thing/event/force is changing, causing the next. Now, if we obey our inclinations and find where infinity yields to a beginning, we come to a point where there was no change.

Why are we discounting plain old infinity?

But how can a thing/event/force which doesn't change (meaning it itself has no cause)...how can it cause the next thing/event/force? Answer: the first efficient cause is a personal thing/event/force with the ability to choose to cause the next thing/event/force, in spite of its changeless nature.

This is a completely content free explanation. For one thing, the answer you've provided features nothing resembling a string of logic or evidence leading from the question itself to your answer, it's at best an assertion with nothing behind it and at worse a complete non-sequitur.

For another, remember that thing I said about feeding false premises into logic, a few posts back? That. Even more strenuously, that.

Please deliberate with me on this one. Can you think of an alternative?

Okay, so first of all, even if I was unable to think of an alternative, that doesn't make your proposition true, that's an argument from ignorance.

Second, yes I can, and in fact I already gave an alternative: the physical laws of the pre- big bang universe, inevitably, via their interactions, slowly built up to a state where the big bang can occur. No mind, no personal being, but a first cause of a sort, nonetheless.

Simple.

Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?

[StuW]

The argument of cause and effect always bugged me when used like this. I'm not proclaiming to be a quantum physicist or astrophysicist after reading a few books by hawking, Einstein and Penrose. When talking about "outside" and "before" the universe existed our understanding of cause and effect is invalid. There is zero reason to believe that effect cannot precede cause. It could be that some event in our far future, such as the collision between the last 2 super-massive black holes causes the event that spawns our universe, after all, they would probably contain all the matter from our current universe in a pre-packed singularity.

See even my basic understanding of physics can come up with a more feasible origin of everything than a skydaddy.