Answers needed

[Louis Chérubin]

Louis: I apologise for any upset. But from my point of view, I asked for a definition. So I assumed you were giving me a definition. Do you have an actual definition?

If you were changing the question to, "Do you believe in something which has evidence for it as long as you believe in it"... that is a very strange question. Please feel free to update either the definition or the question I can't properly answer a question if I don't know what I'm being asked. Surely you can appreciate that? I mean, do you believe in ggljgldjdkfhfkjfffff?

I suppose what you are saying is that if there was evidence, that evidence would manifest itself through nature. Is that right? That is more reasonable, although it's also a tautology since there is currently no other way we could get evidence. So we're left with "a supernatural force". Do I believe in a supernatural force? I have no opinion. I have no idea at all if anything exists beyond what we consider nature or not. Science, and myself, can by definition never know anything about it.

You don't have to address my concerns if they are outside the scope of your questions. In which case, I'll just stick with my previous answers I'm afraid I must bring in fallacies when they are being made, in order to further conversation. If that's not to your liking, then feel free to ignore my responses.

No upset taken. :-) I can see how I caused confusion. May I just use the simple dictionary def? A supernatural being. Science deals with the natural world, so I don't expect it to produce observations from super-nature. However, I feel that science can discover limitations of naturalistic explanations. I prefer not to narrow my epistemological palate to empiricism alone, especially when it doesn't provide satisfactory answers to certain questions. BTW, my mini manifesto is soon to come. 

Oh, and to clarify the question, I guess I then meant, "Is there a supernatural being(s)?"

Oh again, you could rephrase the description as, "A supernatural being of the kind that would be implied by natural (empirical) evidence if such evidence existed" (see above). This is a relic of my real-world context (don't ask). 

But who said tautologies were bad? A truth said twice must be doubly true. Right? :-D

---

Many posters have asked what I consider to be evidence of a god. Since so many have been kind enough to share their beliefs, here’s a brief summary of what I’ve mentioned throughout the thread. I have enough scientific acumen to realize that none of this is proof. But what has the course of human thought been through the ages except a search for most reasonable answers? I also want to remind you that whatever you consider to be evidence for a naturalistic explanation of the cosmos can be reasonably (in my estimation) explained with a theistic narrative of origins.

1. Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?
   
2. Origin of morality: Many people jump to aversion towards murder and attempt to explain it’s natural origin (hence the lively discussions I’ve enjoyed here). Why not start with altruism? This behaviour is not sufficiently explained by either social conditioning or natural selection.
   
3. Everything else. This includes the mathematical improbability of evolution, lack of reasonable fossil evidence of evolution, evidence for a young earth. This is the fuel for a forum fire! So I won’t talk about it--please reciprocate the favour. 
   

I’m not trying to convince anyone. I just wanted to honestly and concisely let you know who I am.