Can't prove the supernatural God

[Pat Mustard]

This whole supernatural thing is bullshit anyway. Prior to 1859 no serious theologian would hace considered god to be outside nature, because they reckoned him the embodiment and regulator of it. What happened in 1859? A small little publication called On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. For about two hundred years at that stage science had been chipping away at god (most notably through geology, Darwin's first love, showing the creation stories in genesis to be a pile of shit), but religion was relatively secure in the position Newton had given god as the creator and policeman of the natural laws.

But with natural selection, Darwin kicked away that support, by showing a mechanism for one of the major areas in science that had no need for a god. The clever theologians now realised that even if Darwin was wrong, the sheer fact that a plausible and workable theory could be thought up which removed god altogether in biology was enough to destroy any pretension to god being a natural being. Thus the idea of removing him from nature, giving him an undetectable effect on reality and all that malarkey was born.

But unfortunately that approach doesn't work, because placing god outside nature, outside detection is admitting that there is nothing behind the claim, no evidence and no possibility of producing evidence (for if evidence of got were to appear, does anyone think.the religionists would keep calling him supernatural?). So instead all that's left to "prove" god is special pleading like "everthing must have a creator to exist. But not god because...look over there a flying monkey!"

[Ignorant]

I curious, why wouldn't "natural world" just be those things that consist of the stuff (physical matter) the universe is made out of and the interaction between that stuff according the the laws of physics? Supernatural things are anything that is not made from matter (existing apart from the universe) and supernatural causes are the causes on the natural world worked by such supernatural things.

Well, most people think that is exactly in what the natural world consists. I, personally, find that to be inadequate, especially when the inadequate distinction is applied to actual interplay between divine action and human action... again, just me. It's an artificial and reductionist distinction which ignores the actual words being used (and their philosophical and theological histories).

[Ignorant]

This whole supernatural thing is bullshit anyway. Prior to 1859 no serious theologian would hace considered god to be outside nature, because they reckoned him the embodiment and regulator of it. ...

Didn't deism begin to develop in the early 1700's?

But with natural selection, Darwin kicked away that support, by showing a mechanism for one of the major areas in science that had no need for a god. The clever theologians now realised that even if Darwin was wrong, the sheer fact that a plausible and workable theory could be thought up which removed god altogether in biology was enough to destroy any pretension to god being a natural being. Thus the idea of removing him from nature, giving him an undetectable effect on reality and all that malarkey was born.

I think you are ignoring an important philosophical/theological development which took place in the 14th century and eventually led to the intellectual crises of the 16th century: The rise of nominalism/voluntarism and its implications for divine agency in the world. This set the stage for deism (which is the modern default understanding of god... how many arguments are centered around how god "started" it all?) to displace participatory being. Once that is set up, it's much easier to view reality without the "need" for god.

[SteveII]

But unfortunately that approach doesn't work, because placing god outside nature, outside detection is admitting that there is nothing behind the claim, no evidence and no possibility of producing evidence (for if evidence of got were to appear, does anyone think.the religionists would keep calling him supernatural?). So instead all that's left to "prove" god is special pleading like "everthing must have a creator to exist. But not god because...look over there a flying monkey!"

Why you think that "god outside nature" is equal to "outside detection"? God chose and continues to choose to intervene in the natural world. You seem to think there is some kind of logical/metaphysical problem with that. There is not.

So, we are left with seeing God work in the world AND the natural theology arguments AND enjoying a rewarding Christian life AND personal relationship with God to support the premise: God exists.

[SteveII]

You are alleging that the writers of the 27 books of the NT believed something that was false (in spite of 3 of them being eyewitnesses) as well as that first generation that would have been contemporaries of Jesus. I am going out on a limb, but I think you don't have any evidence for that other than your belief that miracles cannot happen. So, we are back to miracles didn't happen because miracles can't happen. Circular.

Yes, people believe false things that they are willing to die for all the time. Fanatic belief has never been a defense against simply being wrong.

We don't know miracles didn't happen. What everybody has been trying to tell you is that even if they did, the evidence being presented for believing that they really happened is not just weak, but incredibly weak.

BTW, who are the three eyewitnesses and what, exactly, did they witness that has you so impressed?

Your position is reasonable given your worldview. However, the positions defended by several of you are not as reasonable and range from not accurate to simple denial and circular reasoning.

We will have to agree to disagree on the strength of the NT and the early growth of Christianity as evidence for Jesus' claim. 

John, Peter, James all wrote letters that agree with the claim that Jesus was God and came to redeem mankind through his death and resurrection.

[robvalue]

I don't know Steve. Since the supernatural is not something that's been demonstrated to be real, people can pretty much define it to be whatever they want.

Ignorant: I don't understand how studying something tells us what an entity "naturally" does. Scientific enquiry models reality. We may find out what slugs are made of, and we may model how they behave and what they are capable of, to the best of our ability. But science doesn't prescribe reality, or nature. It attempts to describe it. So I don't think it's valid to say we have defined the nature of anything; we've just modelled it as best we can, given what we know.

This again hits the problem with supernatural that we (a) assume we have all the information about something and (b) when something happens which supposedly doesn't fit with this information, we call it supernatural. Why not just call it unexplained? If we do later find a natural explanation, we were categorically wrong to ever call it supernatural. So it's an attempt to predict the future.

Maybe if we understood it better, it would no longer seem "supernatural". This again suggests subjectivity, as it depends on knowledge. And any particular claim of supernatural occurences is just a claim that our current knowledge was complete; followed by the admission that it actually isn't, in order to create a new category.

This is a video I made about it before, it seems to address all of this.

https://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ

[IATIA]

The "supernatural" has yet to be demonstrated, the same as god.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant: I don't understand how studying something tells us what an entity "naturally" does. Scientific enquiry models reality. [1] We may find out what slugs are made of, and we may model how they behave and what they are capable of, to the best of our ability. But science doesn't prescribe reality, or nature. It attempts to describe it. [2] So I don't think it's valid to say we have defined the nature of anything; we've just modelled it as best we can, given what we know. [3]

This again hits the problem with supernatural that we (a) assume we have all the information about something [4] and (b) when something happens which supposedly doesn't fit with this information, we call it supernatural. [5] Why not just call it unexplained? [6] If we do later find a natural explanation, we were categorically wrong to ever call it supernatural. So it's an attempt to predict the future. [7]

Maybe if we understood it better, it would no longer seem "supernatural". This again suggests subjectivity, as it depends on knowledge. And any particular claim of supernatural occurences is just a claim that our current knowledge was complete; [8] followed by the admission that it actually isn't, in order to create a new category.

I always enjoy those videos =)

1) Right. Question: According to the current scientific models of slugs' reality, do/can slugs create universes? Do those models have boundary conditions?

2) I'll remind you of my words here, with which I say the exact same thing:

     "The more we observe it and study it, the more we discover and learn about its nature. Thank you scientific method." Here
     
     "If the thing does something that was previously thought to be beyond its nature, scientific investigation must begin. If the act is within its natural powers, then it must be the case that the scientific method can discover this power." Here

3) I couldn't agree more, and the models which we develop use boundary conditions which set limits on the natures of things. We don't definine the nature this way arbitrarily. Instead, our observations and scientific investigations have provided data with which we can develop  (hopefully) a model which best fits that data. So far, does the model of a slug's reality need to account for its possible universe creating powers? No. That would be absurd.

4) I don't assume that, and few thinkers in the theological tradition ever thought that "knowing-everything-about-something" was even possible for human beings. <= Read that again.

5) I will, again, draw your attention to a previous post in which I list several possibilities, only ONE of which was a supernatural conclusion: HERE

6) We often do.

7) If people call things like abiogenesis or evolution or whatever "supernatural", then they are well rebuked by this comment. Abiogenesis is possible in principle, and probably in fact. If it were ever observed, and people called it supernatural, it would be premature.

8) No, it is a claim about what we actually do know, not that we know everything. We know that a certain amount/orientation of brain tissue is necessary for understanding and investigating general relativity. The more primitive neural network of an ant, while complex and impressive in its own way, is not equipped with the processing power necessary to understand the concept. Now suppose an ant communicates, in some way, its perfect understanding of the theory. Based on what we know about neurology's relationship with intelligence and comprehension, we can conclude that the ant is somehow acting in a way that goes beyond its own neurology. Hopefully, you would consider an ant's comprehension and communication of general relativity as a possibly supernatural act.

[robvalue]

I appreciate the thorough commentary Thank you, I'm glad you liked my video! If you're interested, I have an index of my best ones, serious and otherwise, here.

I agree that we can conclude that an entity has acted in a way that is not at all consistent with our current models and understanding. This leaves two possibilities:

1) Our current models and understanding of this entity, reality itself and the "rules" of reality (including how anything external to our reality may be interacting) are incomplete

Or

2) Rules/natures are being "broken"

I don't see how you can ever eliminate possibility one. We make models... you talked about boundaries? Sure. We can set limits on what our modelled slug is able to do. But we never have any guarantees that our model is correct. Only that it is accurate enough, for the behaviour we have observed so far.

My case is that to positively conclude that something supernatural is going on, nature is being violated or rules are being broken, is to claim to have dismissed option 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm not trying to say supernatural things are impossible, or haven't happened, I'm only addressing claims people make that supernatural things have happened. I believe this is always an argument from ignorance (pardon the pun) because it is concluding knowledge about what we don't know.

If people just say unexpained, I'm totally fine with that. It's when they make actual claims that I object. We can compare what happens to what we know; but why would new data ever be categorised as "supernatural" when "unexplained" works just fine? If you don't make such claims yourself, then I obviously have no issue with you! Many people do, on this very forum, on a daily basis. They also strawman me by claiming that I state "supernatural things can't happen", when I've never said such a thing. All I've said is that I think it's impossible to identify them, if they have happened, under whatever definition of supernatural is being used.

You say we often call things unexplained. Can you give an example of an exception, that you'd call not merely unexplained but supernatural?

[Ignorant]

I appreciate the thorough commentary Thank you, I'm glad you liked my video!

I agree that we can conclude that an entity has acted in a way that is not at all consistent with our current models and understanding. This leaves two possibilities:

1) Our current models and understanding of this entity, reality itself and the "rules" of reality are incomplete

Or

2) Rules/natures are being "broken"

I don't see how you can ever eliminate possibility one. We make models... you talked about boundaries? Sure. We can set limits on what our modelled slug is able to do. But we never have any guarantees that our model is accurate. Only that it is accurate enough, for the behaviour we have observed so far.

My case is that to positively conclude that something supernatural is going on, nature is being violated or rules are being broken, is to claim to have dismissed option 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. [1] [2] I'm not trying to say supernatural things are impossible, or haven't happened, I'm only addressing claims people make that supnertual things have happened. I believe this is always an argument from ignorance (pardon the pun) because it is concluding knowledge about what we don't know.

If people just say unexpained, I'm totally fine with that. It's when they make actual claims that I object. We can compare what happens to what we know; but why would new data ever be categorised as "supernatural" when "unexplained" works just fine? If you don't make such claims yourself, then I obviously have no issue with you! [3] Many people do, on this very forum, on a daily basis.

1) It is clear that what constitutes a "reasonable doubt" for you and for me are two different things.

2) I mentioned in my previous post that the conclusion that something supernatural is happening is not due to an assertion that we know everything about reality. Careful theists will readily admit that we don't and can't know everything about reality. It appears, however, that you are not sure we can "know" anything at all about reality. I think we can. When something occurs in a what that cannot in principle occur through what we KNOW, then it is a candidate for supernatural (<= notice how it is not therefore supernatural).

Do you think it is possible, in principle, given an ants neurology (or a slug's), that an ant can understand general relativity in the same way that a human does? <= Seriously...

3) Just for the record, as a Catholic, I accept many claims to supernatural realities and action both in history and in the present time. Despite this, I do not intend a defense of those claims. I merely wish to help distinguish the terms in a more helpful way.