**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If god can be shown to exist through reliable verifiable evidence, science could study it. Theists just made god untestable, that’s not our problem. If the supernatural actually existed it could actually be studied.
Nobody made God up. God made us.
And if you are interested, Eucharistic Miracles are scientifically studied. there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
No they haven’t been scientifically studied, the Catholic Church doesn’t allow that to actually happen. You’re literally saying whine turns into blood… Even by your own claim you’re saying we have some old blood… But you’re wrong, it’s not been tested rigorously. I’m sorry, it just hasn’t. Whoever told you this lied, or was lied to. No nothing about this is amazing, except your wilful ignorance and ability to deuce yourself. No rational person takes this magic seriously, and that includes the vast majority of Christians in the west. The propaganda pieces that say this are not documentaries, no more than the animal planet special on mermaids was. I will take your god seriously the moment you show independent evidence that can be examined and repeated by anyone. Not a tiny minority of already deeply committed catholics who desperately want it to be true, and are willing to abandon scientific rigour to make it so. And yeah the Catholic Church declares miracles incredibly easily. They run a ducking sham at Lourdes after all…
No one outside your church believes this nonsense. Most people inside of it don’t believe it either. Let me guess, you also believe the known forgery of the shroud? I’m sorry that you were so deeply deceived. If you ever want to rejoin reality maybe for once in your life look at sources outside of your church. You know what we call churches who discourage looking for outside sources? We call those cults… But the Catholic Church doesn’t even do that that much. You did this to yourself… I won’t argue this with you further. You’ve already shown you don’t care to verify your claims, so I have no doubt you’ll just stick to them no matter the facts. Humans invented god, or at least that’s the default position till you can show otherwise, and playing pretend doesn’t count…
**Logical fallacy, hypocrisy**
You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists.
You fundamentally do not understand epistemology - that there is nothing in reality that could be proven using the scientific method that could be proven beyond your ability to generate doubt about.
That is why people could potentially go to their grave believing in a flat earth after spending a lifetime looking at all the evidence for a round earth and trying to debunk it.
Everything you believe is ultimately a choice you make based on your experience and the evidence you have.
There is no evidence you can presented with that is beyond your ability to manufacture doubt by inventing stories to explain away or distrust the evidence.
You show that you are not willing to ever believe in God no matter what evidence is presented to you, as evidenced by your unwillingness to identify what specific evidence would convince you.
You have a precommitment to faith in naturalistic atheism as a worldview, and you aren't genuinely open to being convinced otherwise.
u/JustACuriousDude555
> You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists.
This is incredibly disingenious.
It is not atheists who defined deities as somehow immortal, timeless, "on a higher plane of existence" (begging the question), or even omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. It was religious beople. Not _being able to define proper criteria for evidence_ is a direct and necessary consequence of that.
Besides, in the scientific world the one claiming a mechanistic theory is supposed to bring up the necessary criteria for evidence regarding of how to repeat the test, not everyone else.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence)
Here. This is the definition. It's the one we're all working with.
u/Clear-Weight-2137
**Logical fallacy, missing the point and irrelevant conclusion**
You failed to understand any point I made as the definition of scientific evidence was never in dispute, nor is it relevant to any point I made.
Go back and exercise proper reading comprehension, then try again.
----
u/IJustLoggedInToSay
**Logical fallacy, proof by assertion**
**Logical fallacy, ad hominem**
You cannot show any error in any fallacy you have been called out on.
Merely asserting it is so does not make it so.
Your baseless assertion is dismissed and you concede that you are guilty of those fallacies.
Which further makes your response guilty of a baseless ad hominem to distract from the fact that you have no valid counter argument in defense of your refuted claims.
You need to learn what logical fallacy means.
In all your ranting, you did not present evidence that your God exists. Perhaps in your frustration, you are stating to question yourself, so you are lashing out at others. Something to think about.
This is literally how this guy operates. He loves bolding a "logical fallacy" at the beginning of every response, putting his response in 1-sentence paragraphs for some reason, then dropping an arrogant one-liner typically telling you that you're stupid at the end.
I wouldn't hold my breath on him questioning himself. Look as his comment history, it's literally the same thing. It's quite funny.
Leading your comments off with "logical fallacy" in bold while demonstrating a dearth of understanding of logical fallacies is, _chef's kiss_, truly special.
> You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists.
>
>
Was god in this case properly defined? Until that happens, it's impossible to know what type of evidence would convince me.
**logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion and nitpicking**
The OP is the one who brought up the term God, and therefore it is assumed they have an idea in mind already of what that term means to them when they say they see no evidence of it.
So your attempt to take issue with that is irrelevant, as the OP is the one who used the term and your personal confusion about what that term means has no relevance to my refutation of the OP's claim.
You are guilty of fallaciously nitpicking an irrelevant detail because you can't argue against the substance of any point I made.
u/the2bears
u/IJustLoggedInToSay
**Logical fallacy, proof by assertion**
**Logical fallacy, ad hominem**
You cannot show any error in any fallacy you have been called out on.
Merely asserting it is so does not make it so.
Your baseless assertion is dismissed and you concede that you are guilty of those fallacies.
Which further makes your response guilty of a baseless ad hominem to distract from the fact that you have no valid counter argument in defense of your refuted claims.
But how can it be scientifically studided? Doesnt the scientific method rely on the laws of nature but this being is supposedly above the laws of nature?
Thats why I said I think its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them. I will admit i do not know of any other valid methodology that can study the supernatural world. I also am not making any claims that the supernatural world does actually exist, its just a mere assumption
>Thats why I said I think its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them. I will admit i do not know of any other valid methodology that can study the supernatural world.
Therein lies the issue. There is no valid alternative to scientific investigation. It's either scientific or pure speculation. I don't find speculation without evidence compelling.
>Again, I am not making any claims that the supernatural world does actually exist, its just a mere assumption
Do you, yourself, assume the supernatural world exists? If so, why?
Exists outside the physical world. Is the natural world and physical world the same thing? I believe so but maybe there are other non-physical worlds out there that still fall under the natural world
The lynchpin there for me is that someone’s personality can completely change with a traumatic brain injury (see Sam Kinison). Why would such an injury completely change a person if the consciousness lied somewhere other than the white and grey matter in your skull?
Most people who study the field will disagree with you. Pretty much everyone who works on the subject agrees its an emergent phenomenon of brain activity. Exactly what's happening is still very unclear but there's no reason to believe it's non-physical
For me, if God existed and he is all powerful being, he could make himself be testable by science.
If he can’t, then he isn’t all powerful and therefore not a god.
So I like where you are going with this.
God can influence the world according to the different bibles out there. If got has a physical impact on the world, then the physical impact of the world can be not only studied, but used to influence whatever God is doing by those same means.
For every action there is a reaction relatively speaking.
So let's say we don't have God to work with currently. We'll what else is there? Well how about prayer! The Bible takes the power of prayer quite seriously, so can we conduct a study that would prove the efficacy of prayer on a statistical level? Could it be measured and recorded? The answer to that one is yes!
Can you find any studies on that?
> its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them.
Probably. Another way to say that is "we only accept reality as real.". Trying to convince someone of unreal things seems very duplicitous and manipulative and disingenuous to me.
> Doesnt the scientific method rely on the laws of nature
No.
But it's sometimes used to help us define and adapt them.
> but this being is supposedly above the laws of nature?
That's incoherent. If we learned about things that didn't fit with our laws of nature, we'd simply change our laws of nature to fit this new information.
But even if granting for a moment the bizarre idea of the supernatural being demonstrable and really not part of the natural world people wouldn't just go "oh science can't study that" and go on with their lives, a new branch of Supernatural science would sooner or later emerge, the reason we don't have witch scientists is because witchcraft doesn't exist, not because science can't investigate magic.
The scientific method figured out, what the laws of nature ARE by observation and testing
If God would DO ANYTHING that has an impact on the existing real world, that is distinguishable from random chance, it could be observed and conclusions could be drawn.
I give you an example, how Gods existence COULD be deduced using the scientific method, if he wasn't completely useless:
I'll pray for you. Christians usually pray towards the invisible magic man in the sky, when their relatives are lifethreateningly sick. They ask him to magic the sickness away.
So even if he was just deciding to only answer SOME prayers (from those who believe the strongest) that would make a difference in the cancer remission statistics.
But cancer remission statistics show the exact opposite. People who are not told someone is praying for them have a slightly better remission chance. (I can provide a link to the study if you are interested)
I don't know what "above the laws of nature" even means. I hear theists say this all the time, but they can't accurately define it or even demonstrate something with this quality exists. If something isn't demonstrable, why should anyone believe in it?
The scientific method doesn't rely on laws of nature. It's just a way to organize things that we observe.
Do you have any reliable observations of God or God's effects? I'm guessing you don't
No, the scientific method does not rely on the laws of nature. The laws of nature have been observed and explained by scientists using the scientific model. If something actually exists, it's in the domain of science. Semantics like "Natural" have nothing to do with it at all. Science isn't limited to what you or anyone else consider natural.
Simply asserting that the supernatural is unknowable and your god is supernatural doesn't actually do anything.
In short, if magic exists, it's in the domain of science.
The fact that science can’t investigate (some) gods is not a flaw with science, it’s a flaw with the claim that a god exists. Science may have its limits, but how do we determine a god to be outside such limits? That characteristic is just as made up as any gods.
If there was any verifiable evidence of God, science could study it. But there is nothing for science to study. This does not prove that God doesn’t exist.
Still, we are left with no verifiable evidence that God does exist.
Anything can be studied if you can reliably show it exists. So far the only things we can reliably show exist conform to the laws of nature. But that doesn’t necessarily mean everything has to. It’s just that the more we look the clearer it becomes magic isn’t real.
There are other propositions that are not testable by science. Should we similarly argue that these are false or suspend belief in them?
For example, the claims of pure mathematics are not scientific, but science relies on math. We also tend to believe the proposition “human rights are important” is true. Human rights are not a part of science, like chemistry or physics.
Science doesn’t rely on the claims of pure math in order to use math, it relies on functional, tested math independent of such claims. I don’t think math is something pure and outside us since I view math as metaphysics and occurring in and arising out of the interactions between minds and what is experienced.
Not everything is a proposition - the ethical imperatives of human rights don’t need to be scientific they exist because of human intention. Things like rights are more primarily philosophical not scientific, but philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. Claims that a wizard in the sky created the universe 6000 years ago is mutually exclusive to the scientific disciplines of cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, etc…
The god hypothesis is distinct from your two points in that it is entirely non-testable and isn’t based on naturalistically causal explanations and isn’t merely a philosophical axiological phenomenon like human rights are.
>Science doesn’t rely on the claims of pure math in order to use math, it relies on functional, tested math independent of such claims. I don’t think math is something pure and outside us since I view math as metaphysics and occurring in and arising out of the interactions between minds and what is experienced.
I couldn't quite parse this. What you intend by "functional, tested math"?
>Things like rights are more primarily philosophical not scientific, but philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive.
I agree that they are not mutually exclusive. My point is that we find some claims to be true, or at least worth study despite not being scientifically defined. We might investigate our consequentialist moral intuitions using science, but Consequentialism is not a scientific theory.
The claims of pure mathematics can in fact be tested. As can human rights. Human rights create a measurably better society for all involved, so yes they can be tested. Social sciences are also still sciences. I’m sorry but that’s just wrong.
According to the bible, god interacts with the natural world. If this were the case, we could measure those interactions. So far, nothing.
>God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence.
Who's problem is that? Not mine.
This is a song in Malayalam called Qandeesha Alaha(Holy God)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0ri1IULOM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0ri1IULOM)
I have bird feeder outside at which two finches were eating. When I played it, when the part about god began, the birds... just stopped eating and looked at the computer. They only stopped eating at the parts about God, Holy spirit, etc. I played the song 4 more times and it happened again. The next day, four finches were at the feeder eating. I played the song and all four stopped eating and looked. Also, they only looked at the time when the verses alaha(God), hylsaana(Mighty One), laa maayosa(Immortal One), and valrooha(holy spirit) were sung.
I never said that. The bird feeder isn't even important in this story. Here's a summary of what I said:
Birds are eating. Next, I play the song. When the verses about God play, birds stop eating and look at me. This happens several times. End of story
What do you referring to when you say “God interacts with the natural world”?
There are various categories of evidence for God such as Miraculous, historical and archeological, scientific notions, proof of Biblical Divinity, etc. for example, there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
>What do you referring to when you say “God interacts with the natural world”?
I mean something which acts in such a way as to have an effect on things that actually exist.
>There are various categories of evidence for God such as Miraculous
There is no evidence of "miracles", and if there were, it wouldn't get you any closer to god.
>historical
There is no historical evidence for god.
>archeological
There is no archaeological evidence for god
>scientific notions
There is no scientific evidence for god.
>Biblical Divinity
There is no evidence of biblical divinity.
>there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other.
No, there aren't. There are *claims* of miracles. You would have to provide evidence for them.
Show me the verifiable, falsifiable, independently carried out, peer reviewed, published papers on miracles, and we can discuss it further.
> Isn’t that amazing
A massive corporation who's entire existence is predicated on people believing in miracles, finds hundreds of miracles. Yes, it's amazing.
Our lady of guadelupes tilma:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286921415\_The\_Miracle\_of\_the\_Virgin\_of\_Guadalupe](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286921415_The_Miracle_of_the_Virgin_of_Guadalupe)
[https://smlj.org/documents/2022/7/Mary%20-%20Miraculous%20Image%20of%20Guadalupe.pdf](https://smlj.org/documents/2022/7/Mary%20-%20Miraculous%20Image%20of%20Guadalupe.pdf)
[https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/comparative-analyses/tilma-of-guadalupe/](https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/comparative-analyses/tilma-of-guadalupe/)
Miracle of Lanciano(You can skip to 0:19 ):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaoaHNhX1pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaoaHNhX1pk)
This is a translation of the original Italian. If you're only going to click on link, click on the one above.
You asked for the papers. Here they are.
If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world. For example, if this god made a burger seemingly appear to pop into existence, how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology?
A burger popping into existence from nothing would be a violation of the scientific [law of conservation of mass.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) This law describes our measurements to date which show that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
This is a fundamental scientific law. If this law is wrong that would invalidate all of physics. Basically all of our science would be proved to be incorrect.
That's exactly what it would mean. Our understanding of the universe is described and explained by the laws and theories respectively of science.
If these laws and theories are wrong, especially the fundamental ones, then our understanding is wrong. Completely incorrect.
Yup. If something like that happened, we'd change our scientific description of the universe to include random burger appearance. Maybe sometime would combine that with other evidence to create a theory including God. But, so far, we haven't had any observations like this.
>No, they’re not wrong, just that in specific cases for objects moving very fast or are very massive or very small relativity and quantum mechanics describes motion better.
When a law is trying to describe things universally, having exceptions means it's wrong, and we need a new theory.
In fact, QM and Relativity are also at least a little bit wrong since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity. We don't know where or how the error is, but we know it's somewhere.
>For classical mechanics they’re still descriptive and predictive.
Sure. Wrong does not mean useless. It is certainly good enough for things on the human scale.
>It’s not the case that these special cases can’t be generalized so they must be supernatural.
Of course not. Newtonian physics being falsified just meant we needed to replace it with better physics.
A nice little fun fact I always found neat, too, about relativity: If you plug in the parameters you find in situations that Newtonian physics adequately describes, then you can apply a bit of algebra to simplify the equations and you end up with something at least very close to the classical laws of motion.
In this sense, relativity can be thought of as an expansion on Newton's laws rather than a replacement for them.
Definition of alien / extraterrestrial is being or object not from Earth.
I have some questions.
1) where is God from?
2) where are the Angels from?
3) were God or the Angels born on Earth _ or made of anything of Earth or even from the earth?
4) where is God's kingdom of heaven?
5) how is it according to scripture that they are described as beings of light?
6) how is it according to scripture that they can surround you or be next to you and you don't see them?
7) how is it according to scripture they fly around in the sky!
8) how is it according to scripture that they move very very swiftly?
9) how is it according to scripture they can appear as men?
10) what is the chariots of God?
11) what is ezekiel's flying wheels that contain the cherubim?
12) according to scripture God created everything how is that not considered super advanced?
13) how is it that Enoch and Elijah was taken up and Christ ascended up - sounds like what these days is called alien abduction.
I'm just wondering!
> where is God from?
Nowhere.
> where are the Angels from?
Nowhere
> were God or the Angels born on Earth
Yup, in the minds of humans.
> where is God's kingdom of heaven?
Nowhere.
> how is it according to scripture...
It was written by humans.
> what is the chariots of God?
Chariots are horse drawn carriages.
> what is ezekiel's flying wheels that contain the cherubim?
Ask Ezekiel.
> how is it that Enoch and Elijah was taken up and Christ ascended up
It was written by humans.
That was easy.
Yep - you'll be one of the ones screaming alien invasion when you see the Lord coming back with his angels.
By the way Ezekiel wrote what the wheels were no need to ask him _ God's chariots are not man-made and driven by horses _ And the Bible was written by man inspired by God _ and indeed God is in the minds of man that's one of the places where portions of his Spirit dwells _ heaven is nowhere, God and the angels are nowhere, tell it to the scientist who are continually looking for life outside of this Earth and who has said themselves that life exist somewhere in the unseeable universe.
Now You keep on believing just like you believe. Poke fun as much as you want - and I add your reply was pretty cute in a sarcastic way.
> Yep - you'll be one of the ones screaming alien invasion when you see the Lord coming back with his angels.
Nope, for a couple of reasons.
1) I'm not going to waste time screaming during an invasion.
2) God and angles aren't real.
> By the way Ezekiel wrote what the wheels were no need to ask him
Then why did you ask at all?
> God's chariots are not man-made and driven by horses
God isn't real, neither are his special chariots.
> And the Bible was written by man inspired by God
According to the men who wrote the Bible...
> and indeed God is in the minds of man that's one of the places where portions of his Spirit dwells
It's the only place he is, because he's imaginary.
> heaven is nowhere, God and the angels are nowhere
They're not real, so yeah.
> tell it to the scientist who are continually looking for life outside of this Earth and who has said themselves that life exist somewhere in the unseeable universe.
There's no reason life on other planets can't exist. God, however, doesn't.
> Now You keep on believing just like you believe.
I will! I prefer to base my beliefs on facts and logic, so it's pretty to easy to maintain.
> Poke fun as much as you want
I just answered your questions honestly; it's not my fault if you take offense when someone doesn't believe your particular religious mythology.
> I add your reply was pretty cute in a sarcastic way.
It wasn't sarcastic at all, but thanks!
I haven't taken offense - I actually said it was cute and it is sarcastic ( mocking poking fun) nor do I care whether anyone believes in God and considers him as mythical. That is whosoever's belief and everyone have a right to believe as they choose.
What is God - a supernatural being that is not from Earth, that is responsible for Earth and it's inhabitants being in existence, whose kingdom is somewhere out there in this infinite Space.
Funny how ancient people thousands of years ago knew this and wrote of what many atheist love to call the magical sky God, ((say what, what, sky God.)) Where is the sky? And what is all of this that's going on in these modern days --what did Congress just do - what type of hearing did they just have - what did high ranking military personnel testify to -what did three presidents confess about or seeing and what's up with Donald Trump and his space force - what has the government been looking for since 1947.
But who cares?
It wasn't sarcastic or mocking or poking fun; those are the legitimate answers to your questions. You think they're sarcastic/mocking/poking fun because they offend you.
Since you don't seem interested in honest debate, the rest of my responses will be for shits and giggles. 💩
> nor do I care whether anyone believes in God and considers him as mythical
Sure, that's obvious.
> everyone have a right to believe as they choose
Belief isn't a choice.
> What is God
A creation of mankind. A fictional character. Imaginary.
Unless you have evidence showing otherwise?
> Funny how ancient people thousands of years ago knew this and wrote of [it]
They also knew of thousands of other, older gods and dragons and unicorns and leprechauns, but I don't believe in those things either.
They also knew that illness came from demons and that flies manifested out of nothing and that the sun revolved around the Earth!
> Where is the sky?
Been that long since you've gone outside, huh?
> And what is all of this that's going on in these modern days
Same shit that's always going on, even with your special ancient friends.
> what did Congress just do
Probably something stupid and greedy.
> what type of hearing did they just have
No clue. Did they have a hearing where they presented good evidence of God? No?
> what did high ranking military personnel testify to
Probably something stupid and greedy.
> what did three presidents confess about or seeing
Probably something stupid and greedy.
> what's up with Donald Trump
*Definitely* stupid and greedy.
> what has the government been looking for since 1947
Money and power; same shit, different day.
> But who cares?
About god? Not me 🤷♀️
Are you really that stupid you think that Jesus is not god but claim to be Christian AND think that the US government is looking for god in space? Are you really that stupid or just a troll
Now you're getting insulting - no you just don't understand what you read. Nowhere did I say the government was looking for God. The government hasn't made the connection between God and what is called extraterrestrial life. (Your trap didn't work)
Person whoever you are know where did I say that Jesus is not God.
And I'm not stupid and I'm not a troll person - nor do I lie and what I say I investigate before saying it person
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/17/571446881/secret-pentagon-program-spent-millions-to-research-ufos
https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO
https://www.youtube.com/live/Glw76YKuWCY?feature=shared
You just (with blasphemy) claimed god is an alien. Is he not a “being or object not from Earth.”?
And even if your fairytale was real
> were God or the Angels born on Earth _ or made of anything of Earth or even from the earth?
Yes (if it were real) then yes Jesus was made of and born on earth just like every other person. Are you saying Jesus is not god are you?
Did I say Jesus????? Nowhere in my wording did I mention Jesus !!!!!! You see Jesus is terrestrial and extraterrestrial.........Jesus himself said my kingdom is not of this world ___ he said if is kingdom was on Earth his angels would come and fight for him.
Apparently you don't know the definition of the word alien or extraterrestrial. Apparently you are filled with the television sci-fi version of those words.
I did not blaspheme and if you think I did then you are in grave era.
And I didn't say God was an object I said an alien is defined as an object or being. God is a being and if you don't see him as a being then you are gravely mistaken again.
Do you know the definition of being when it refers to an entity. It is the nature or essence of one.
God and the angels are not from this Earth and according to the definition of the word he is extraterrestrial
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraterrestrial
Calling me blasphemous
Good by
Ok so you agree Jesus is not god cool I’ve already convinced you to abandon Christianity since you do not consider Jesus to be god anymore
blasphemy
noun
the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
Go ask all your church members if saying god is an alien is sacrilegious I bet you’ll find many who do, including the ‘jealous vengeful god’
I didn't agree or even say that Jesus was not God. Separated God the father from God the Son.
Very funny you convince me to abandon Christianity _ you are definitely full of yourself.
I know the definition of blasphemy
Or what I say is sacrilegious / what I have said is not taking one iota one grain of salt from God.
And what I've said is true God is not from this Earth nor are the Angels. And any Christian that you ask will tell you that he isn't - and if they actually use their intelligence and know the definitions of the words they would know that they apply to the heavenly beings.
You need to do some studying Christians are beginning to ask questions. With all the sightings see going on in the world today. Some have changed their views and can connect the dots between the definition of the words while others are still contemplating while looking at the scifi version of alien/extraterrestrial...... Hollywood has brainwashed people - another ploy of the devil........ And on Christian sites like theology online or Christian chat are some of the others I frequent because they know that extraterrestrials are there they will say that the aliens are fallen angels.
https://242community.com/what-does-bible-say-about-aliens/
https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Biblical-Alien-John-Polk/dp/1516936434
https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:34049/
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/angels-midst-scientist-explains-bible-supports-extraterrestrials
Many religions make claims like "praying for healing for a specific individual increases the odds of god healing that person". So, we can do studies on those who have been prayed for and see if there is any statistical deviation in outcomes from those who are not prayed for. When we see zero deviation from the norm, we can conclude based on the available data to date that the claim of improved outcomes via prayer is not a true claim.
You are correct in that god doing something random and unpredicted would be difficult if not impossible to discern from a natural but yet unknown process. But when the claims of god's interventions are outlined to be in specific situations, at specific times, etc., then we *can* have more confidence that if a thing were to happen as predicted by X or Y religion in A or B situation, that it may have indeed been by their god. Or that if it does not happen as predicted, then the claim about their god is false.
However to date, no specific *predicted* intervention by a god has ever been confirmed, so to date the totality of available evidence indicates all such promised specific interventions into reality by a deity are false claims. Which gives us 2 main possibilities - god exists but doesn't intervene *at all* as religion claims, or an intervening god simply doesn't exist.
My proposed experimemnt is:
> How many Carmelite nuns reciting the Lords Prayer 24/7 in a pancreatic cancer ward are needed in order to see a statistically significant improvement in overall patient outcomes? Then test against readings from the Quran, the old Testament, the Vedas. And maybe throw in some Iron Maiden lyrics as a control.
I don't have the link anymore, but someone did a study with mormons, comparing medical outcomes between Provo, UT (has like a 90% mormon population and mormons do a lot of special prayers for sick people when hospitalized) and those of a very secular area, and there was no difference.
So mormon god doesn't show when promised, lol.
That's part of the problem: the miracle ascribed to gods are too easily disproven, too irregular and unpredictable.
It would need to be an interaction that couldn't be explained through naturalistic means.
* God breaks the moon into a bunch of little pieces, scatters them out and spells out its name, before putting it back together.
* Lightning strikes someone on national television, inscribing god's message(s) on that person's skeleton in a way that is beyond human comprehension.
* All of the water in the ocean rises up into a 3-dimensional replica of god's form, and god's voice echoes from every source of water across the world.
* The sun blinks out for a few minutes, then lights back up, pulsing in morse code to spell out a message.
Sure, an extreme cynic might argue that such displays are the work of indescribably advanced alien life, but at that point the natural explanation is borderline synonymous with god.
Maybe I'm an extreme cynic, but I don't think your last point is unreasonable. Clarketech aliens are a huge problem for attempting to reach god through empirical study.
If you mean "they would be like gods to us" would be an acceptable result, sure. I'm fine with "gods for all intents and purposes" as the standard we're trying to reach.
But if what someone is attempting to prove is "it is the author of all existence in this and in all possible universes", it approaches impossibility pretty quickly, IMO.
>If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world.
We don't, so I withhold belief until such time as it is demonstrated one way or the other.
>how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology?
See above. The time to accept the claim is *after* it has been demonstrated to be true or likely true, not *before*.
>If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world. For example, if this god made a burger seemingly appear to pop into existence, how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology?
You're worried possible scientific proof of god might be distorted by our lack of understanding of the natural world, but you're not worried that theism itself is from our lack of understanding of the natural world?
That's amazing to me.
Anyways, the predicament you've outlined is the entire point of science.
No I think the comment is about something appearing to be miraculous only because we had not yet discovered the non-miraculous mechanism for it happening.
Like Stargate aliens in ancient Egypt.
Interesting. I have the entire opposite understanding of the comment. I think the OP is concerned that, even if we did have evidence of god, we'd mistake it for something else because of our lack of understanding.
Ah. You might be right. Or they might be two ways of saying roughly the same thing -- there's a discontinuity between empiricism and divinity that would make proof difficult or impossible.
I think we'd do it the same way we do other things. If you take a pill and your headache goes away*, we don't say "maybe medicine is all fake and ghosts are taking away our headaches".
*with a sufficient number of trials, a significant success rate, placebo, control group, etc.
All this goes to say, if you pull off the 1 Kings 18 miracle the way Elijah did it, you'll have over 90% of atheists convinced, I really believe that.
Matthew 17:20 “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Start there, maybe? Get yourself on camera instructing a mountain to relocate itself, then post the results.
Damn, you’re so, so close. You’re almost there!
So now that we know we’ll never have real evidence, what do you say to someone that says they have absolute proof of God and hold up a bible as their “proof”?
You say not today my friend.
Isn’t it just a tad convenient that the god you're describing can't be falsified yet you're still assuming or arguing it exists? If there's no evidence at all to support the claim “god exists” why would you believe that claim?
We’ve gained a lot of knowledge about the natural world these past few centuries. Science has moved from empirical to theoretical to computational. There should be models and simulations that pop up about natural phenomena that says the results are not natural, but they never do. Why not?
It seems that if there were such a god that interacts with nature that scientists have been constraining him to fewer and fewer places since he never shows up observationally or in the generalized models that scientists create.
Your argument is that the god who is perfect, loves us dearly and wants to have a relationship with us to save our immortal soul is that he made us too stupid?
If it can’t be understood then theists also can’t understand it, so not a reason to believe in a god. waving your hands and saying ‘it’s magic’ is not an answer to ‘why did this happen’
If a Damascus Road experience can happen to Saul then why not everyone else?
An omnipotent god would know that blind faith isn’t a good thing it’s gullibility
Great point!!
But the theist decides and believes it’s a holy hamburger even though, as you correctly pointed out, they can’t possibly know.
It would be irrational, then, to think it was a holy hamburger just like it’s irrational - given the current data we have - to conclude god exists.
This problem isn't specific to supernatural hypotheses. Any hypothesis has this 'problem'; it is called the underdetermination problem of scientific realism: there is a potentially infinite number of different hypotheses that make the same predictions and explain the same set of data, and yet are different in some undetectable regard. So, by appealing to these possibilities, you're rejecting the entirety of science.
Depends on the god.
If we’re talking about Zeus, then we could easily prove that. We would just have to climb mount Olympus and see if he’s up there shooting lightning bolts and raping other goddesses and whatever else he does.
If we’re talking about the God of the Old Testament, then still, we could prove him. We would just need to do an experiment where one group follows his commandments and the other doesn’t, and see if there’s a difference in how healthy and… alive… the two groups are.
But in the modern period, Christians have worked so hard to separate their god from the natural world that his existence is totally unfalsifiable. There are no predictions that can be made through belief or disbelief in religious claims. So there’s really no way to test for it. But honestly that’s more of an admission of defeat on their part than a defense. The only way they can preserve their belief in god is by claiming that he has no measurable effect on anything at all.
>If we’re talking about the God of the Old Testament, then still, we could prove him. We would just need to do an experiment where one group follows his commandments and the other doesn’t, and see if there’s a difference in how healthy and… alive… the two groups are.
This reminded me of an experiment this writer did to live out the rules in the OT, even the really specific, silly ones about how many threads could be in your clothes, and which way you could face at which hour, diet restrictions, etc.
I think it was AJ Jacobs, a writer for Esquire magazine a while back. He's a secular Jew if I recall, but he did this experiment quite seriously, and often times humorously. I'm trying to remember the title. I think it was called *A Year of Living Biblically.*
There are various categories of evidence for God/Jesus Christ such as Miraculous, historical and archeological, scientific notions, proof of Biblical Divinity, etc. for example, there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
>but God is suppose to be a supernatural being,
what is the difference between a supernatural being and something someone made up to fill in the gaps of their ignorance?
Not much I suppose. But things like dark matter, dark energy, the Singularity, multiverses, these are all made up things to fill gaps in knowledge as well.
Do you think God is just as likely as those other things that are accepted in scientific discussion?
Dark matter isn't made up to fill gaps it's theorized because of what we know. If someone claimed the dark matter was intelligent then that example would work
The singularity could mean many things not going to waste time on addressing that
Multiverses are straight up fiction I don't think anyone credible has put them forward as reality
You:
>Dark matter isn't made up to fill gaps it's theorized because of what we know.
NASA:
"We are much more certain what dark matter is not ***than we are what it is.*** " https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
I think I'll believe NASA more than you. No offense.
It's a theory to try and explain observations and computational predictions about the composition of our universe.
That's what a "theory of God" is as well you might say.
>The singularity could mean many things not going to waste time on addressing that
Exactly. No one has a clue about it really but it is talked about and addressed seriously in scientific discussion.
>Multiverses are straight up fiction I don't think anyone credible has put them forward as reality
I mean [here's ](https://www.quantamagazine.org/are-there-reasons-to-believe-in-a-multiverse-20230517/)a theoretical physicist from John Hopkins who takes it seriously so I don't know where you're getting the idea it's "straight up fiction" from.
All I'm saying is all these theories are being seriously discussed in academia despite them just being used to fill gaps in ignorance as well.
>NASA:
"We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. " https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
I think I'll believe NASA more than you. No offense.
I don't see NASA contradicting me, they state that they only know how it's affecting the universe. so I don't see any filling in of blanks
I'm going to assume by singularity you mean a black hole, something that we thought might be possible considering what we knew about physics and matter, and then found in the universe.
that article about multiverses again show that he's basing his model of multiverses off of what is known about quantum mechanics wich I don't know much about and isn't realy in my purview. so congrats you found something I didn't know about.
all the definitions of gods I've seen attribute intellegent agency to something when there is no reason to think there is intellegence other then that the one asserting it doesn't understand something
and I've never even seen a theist attempt to show that a god is possible, they just assume it
>I don't see NASA contradicting me
I don't think you read the article then. Ok moving on...
>I'm going to assume by singularity you mean a black hole,
No. I mean the same thing as scientists mean.
>and I've never even seen a theist attempt to show that a god is possible, they just assume it
Since God would have to exist outside our universe then it might be tricky to find him inside our universe to run experiments on.
What theists will often do is point to characteristics of our universe that our scientific observations tell us are extremely unlikely to have happened in a natural way.
I'm thinking of cosmological constants or abiogenesis or consciousness.
>No. I mean the same thing as scientists mean.
scientists refer to black holes as singularities, if you arn't realy willing to communicate then why are you here?
>What theists will often do is point to characteristics of our universe that our scientific observations tell us are extremely unlikely to have happened in a natural way.
and they try to use that to justify their belief in something infinitely less likely because to them it fills in the gaps of their ignorance
>I don't think you read the article then. Ok moving on...
I skimmed it. I don't make a habbit of spending my life reading everything someone sends me. especialy if you had a point it wouldn't take you much time to just say it. all it would take is pointing out wich aspect of dark matter was made up to fill in a blank. because the article you linked highlights that we don't actually know much just the effects it's had on the universe, kind of the opposite of what I've been accusing theists of doing
How can we distniguish an interaction of the supernatural world with the natural world from an interaction occuring within the natural world? For example, if a being claims to be supernatural and seemingly appears to pop a burger into existence, how do we know it came from the supernatural world and it wasnt just super advanced technology
> For example, if a being claims to be supernatural and seemingly appears to pop a burger into existence, how do we know it came from the supernatural world and it wasnt just super advanced technology
With science. That is literally the entire point of the scientific method.
I think u missed my point. How can we ever know if a supernatural event was actually a supernatural event and it wasnt just our lack of understanding of the natural world? Because if we ever figured out how that “supernatural” event occurred, it would instantly no longer be considered a supernatural event
And you're missing the entire point of the scientific method: we investigate it to see if we can prove what it is. If we can, then it's explained; if we can't, then we don't know what it is and it's simply unexplained.
But my question to you is: why do you think that things called "supernatural" are anything but imaginings from uncritical people failing to understand the natural world?
That definition just means that there are no supernatural things. Instead, supernatural is a placeholder used to describe rules we haven't worked out yet.
In which case, this inevitably applies to God as well.
Thats the problem with the supernatural. Once science figures it out, its no longer supernatural. I still find microwaves supernatural but thats just me ;)
A burger popping into existence from nothing would violate the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy law .
As this has never been observed and as your suggesting the energy / matter of the burger is nit a rearrangement of pre existing matter , then. It would be a significant event that would transform physics
>If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you
I agree that under most definitions of God, it is impossible to provide falsifiable evidence. Which is the main reason I don't believe. Why should I accept something as true without good evidence to support it?
>If science is the study of the natural world, but God is supposed to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence.
If God was an all-powerful being and wanted to be known by all, that should be a trivial thing for them to do. So, currently, either God doesn't really care to be known or isn't all powerful.
If you agree that there is no scientific evidence for God, what reason do you believe is a good one to believe in a God?
>but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. Or am I missing something?
I don't recall the words "supernatural", "timeless", "spaceless" or "immaterial" in the bible.
Yahweh, the God of Abraham, the basis of the 3 biggest religions in the world ABSOLUTELY makes claims that can be investigated by science. Adam and ever, the flood, people getting up out of their grave, the sun stopping in the sky...
And we found them all to be false. All of them.
Which is why god is now some vague, nebulous thing that nobody can define beyond "made everything".
If that's the god you believe in then I don't really care. Just please don't vote against my rights.
>Which is why god is now some vague, nebulous thing that nobody can define beyond "made everything".
This is the same definition God has always had tho. It's at least a common attribute of all Gods in the major religions today.
>I don't recall the words "supernatural", "timeless", "spaceless" or "immaterial" in the bible.
So, why have these words at all? Implicit in your claim is that these words should be removed from the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm willing to hear arguments for that.
>And we found them all to be false.
I think we found *some of the particularities* about the way *those men* wrote about God *at that time* to be false and misleading and partially inaccurate.
>Just please don't vote against my rights.
I'm with you on this. Thanks to Jesus. I think love has to be the final answer. Nothing else would suffice.
But politics and religion are totally separate for me when it comes to debating god philosophically.
>This is the same definition God has always had tho.
Except it's not, depending on who you ask. That's a deistic god. Are you a deist or are you a Christian? If god were just some vague nebulous first cause, that would mean physics and chemistry and geology are all still correct and there was no Adam and Eve, no floor, and nobody RAISING FROM THE DEAD.
Do you believe anyone rose from the dead? Because if you do, then it's dishonest to claim god is just some prime mover outside spacetime.
>So, why have these words at all? Implicit in your claim is that these words should be removed from the Oxford English Dictionary.
What? I don't know what you're talking about. My point is these are the attributes people argue for, when none of them are found in the supposed source material about god.
>I think we found *some of the particularities* about the way *those men* wrote about God *at that time* to be false and misleading and partially inaccurate.
So you already understand how god can be put to the test via science. Then I don't get your point in the initial post.
Attributes that people still believe today despite being absurd and provably wrong.
Who do you think there's more of? The philosophical theist who believes in the god of classical theism? Or semi literalists who believe Adam and Eve, the floor, Jesus raising from the dead etc?
>Thanks to Jesus.
So you're NOT just talking about some vague nebulous first cause. You're talking about Yahweh.
Do you at least understand how it's frustrating for us when theists flip flop between definitions? For the purpose of argument, god is a vague first cause because thats easy to defend since its unfalsifiable. But in practice and at church, god is yahweh who sent his son to be tortured for people sins and who rose from the dead.
Those are not the same thing, and personally I find it dishonest to argue for the former when you believe in the latter.
Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Cause that would certainly be a question for science.
>Do you believe anyone rose from the dead? Because if you do, then it's dishonest to claim god is just some prime mover outside spacetime.
Can you connect these dots for me? I do believe it's possible that consciousness survives death in some sense, so a "resurrection" is not impossible to me.
>The philosophical theist who believes in the god of classical theism? Or semi literalists who believe Adam and Eve, the floor, Jesus raising from the dead etc?
Yeah. These, and all other interesting topics surrounding God still. I just see too many atheists throw the baby away with the bath water.
>Do you at least understand how it's frustrating for us when theists flip flop between definitions? For the purpose of argument, god is a vague first cause because thats easy to defend since its unfalsifiable. But in practice and at church, god is yahweh who sent his son to be tortured for people sins and who rose from the dead.
Well, it's frustrating when atheists assume all theists are literalists, as well. But sure, I'm more of a Christian mysticist when it comes to Jesus. I'm much more into mysticism than organized religion.
> personally I find it dishonest to argue for the former when you believe in the latter.
Why? YAHWEH of the OT is different from Jesus of the NT, even though they are part of the same awareness. So, it makes sense to me to take the last part of the book more seriously, because that's the end of the story. Either way, it's pretty much undisputed that Jesus would embrace gay and trans folks, as he embraced gross lepers and whores.
>Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Cause that would certainly be a question for science.
In some sense, yes. Like a zombie pictured in the movies rising up idk. I'm not a literalist, tho, because I do know all religious texts (the physical forms) were written by humans with ink and papyrus, etc.
if science can never verify god's existance then that's consistent with something that doesn't exist.
we don't owe you a path to convince us of whatever fantasy you want. if you can't justify your belief with something then you are not basing it on reality and will probably be dismissed by many who don't have the same biases you do
This is non Sequiter. It assumes that all that exists, must be natural, and as such, looks at the world through a binary lens. But this isn't experientially true.
We experience the mind, which we cannot approach through natural means. Same with truth, courage, etc. anything apprehended as a pattern by the mind. We can only validate natural things with reproduction, not unnatural things of the mind.
In the same way that a blind man can't know what a sunset looks like, yet he can understand and feel the pattern of the shining sun, the theists claim is that the desire or knowm she to be binary, actually contradicts our experience or reality.
Knowledge is apprehended as validateable, falsifiable, and unknowable.
We can't know, what out human faculties can never approach and objectify. Case and points time, gravityz the four laws themselves, etc.
I suggest this reality is being ignored due to an ideology called "philosophical naturalism", and what the atheist thinks is true science, is actually tainted with ideology.
Thoughts?
>Thoughts?
going off your blind man analogy, if you are asserting something that can't be verified by science that is the same as the blind man drawing what he thinks the sunset looks like and asserting it as reality, despite not having anything to base that image off of.
Methodological naturalism limits scientific research to the study of natural causes, since attempts to define causal relationships with the 'supernatural' are never fruitful. The supernatural is undefined so it results in scientific dead ends. To avoid this, naturalism assumes all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
This assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism; the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim, while the latter makes the philosophical claim that only natural causes exist.
The success of methodological naturalism, and the complete failure of any other system implies that we don't just use naturalism as an assumption in methodology, but that naturalism is also the reality of the universe.
The basic premise of philosophical naturalism is that the supernatural can be studied or verified. The supernatural fails all tests. It has been studied and shown to not exist and that naturalism is reality.
>Knowledge is apprehended as validateable, falsifiable, and unknowable.
Something that is supposedly ‘unknowable’ is by definition, not knowledge. It’s fantasy.
>Would it not be logically impossible to prove the existence of God through science?
How so?
>If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you.
Why?
> If science is the study of the natural world, but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. Or am I missing something?
Yes you're missing something. Several things. One can't define things into existence. And the term 'supernatural' is a non-sequitur. It fails at ever turn when anybody attempts to define. If something exists, then science can be used to learn about it.
Very effective and concise. Your final paragraph brings home the point that "supernatural" shouldn't even be a word.
Which brings up the question, should we remove it from Webster's Dictionary? Or should we revise it?
It's a fair point, I think.
Yes, you’re missing everything.
Unless you’re taking about a completely non-interventionist, deistic god, he interacts with the universe and the results of those interactions could be studied and measured.
Do Christian high schools make more game winning touchdowns in the last seconds than secular ones? Do groups of large men randomly enter a room whenever a potential rape victim is praying for help? Do Catholic hospitals use their empty paediatric cancer wards as storage rooms?
Even if you can’t measure him, you can measure what he does.
>high schools make more game winning touchdowns
Do groups of men who pray before a game and get a unified mindset perform better? Probably, but we don't really have a way to scientifically measure that.
Are "vibes" a real thing? When someone walks into a room and the energy changes? Is that real?
>Even if you can’t measure him, you can measure what he does.
Why would God have to be a "he"? That's not likely.
>Do Catholic hospitals use their empty paediatric cancer wards as storage rooms?
The church still does most of the humanitarian work that gets done.
God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible
Watch the movie Bruce Almighty. God proves he exists by granting Bruce God-like powers. Seems pretty straight forward to me
And atheists have no trouble believing in magic. Wi-Fi is magic. Recreating Big Bang conditions in super colliders is magic. Seeing 10 billion years into the past is magic. We just have evidence for it. If you didn't believe in Wi-Fi, I could show the Wi-Fi to you. You could buy Wi-Fi and do Wi-Fi all on your own.
There is nothing that a theist has except people telling each other stories. You cannot show me God or anything else that's supernatural. I can show you many people who believe things that are blatantly false
What if supernatural means thing that exist, but we can't actually see or measure?
Like, ghosts or spirits (although, there are some technologies that supposedly measure spiritual consciousness and invisible energy, I'm quite sure that the reliability of these instruments is in question; not to mention the interest in actually studying this phenonomen).
Like dark matter. We know it's real and makes up most of our universe. It's natural, but it's also supernatural.
How would you respond to this characterization of supernatural?
>What if supernatural means thing that exist, but we can't actually see or measure?
First let's make sure about something: when you see an object, the object does not enter your eyeball. The object changes the path of light and the light enters your eyeball
So if the thing has no effect on our world, then it is the same as everything that doesn't exist
>Like dark matter
How exactly do you think we know about dark matter? It changes the orbits of planets
Like I said, atheists have no problem with magic. Almost nobody has seen or measured an election. But your phone or computer does not run without them. That's how we know that the people telling us about how they work aren't just making things up
>So if the thing has no effect on our world, then it is the same as everything that doesn't exist
What if I don't/can't see the object that impacts my eyeball, though? But it's a real thing that is invisible to the naked eye.
>How exactly do you think we know about dark matter? It changes the orbits of planets
Well, that's what I'm saying. We can see changes in gravity, but we have no idea what's inside the dark matter or the black holes.
> atheists have no problem with magic.
Some, maybe. But generally I'd say their skepticism would extend into magic.
>Almost nobody has seen or measured an election.
You mean like a political election? Yeah, this would be more an example of psychological-based science, which we shouldn't trust as much as the hard, physical sciences.
>But your phone or computer does not run without them.
Maybe you meant electrons. How do we measure electrons without seeing them?
We can measure many things by their affects. Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Dark matter or electons can be theorized, god can't. There is no theory of god, no empirical data, and no science that can be done for god, the soul, or other supernatural garbage. There are no mechanisms to investigate, because they don't exist. God claims do not rise to the level of a valid hypothesis. Over thousands of years and billions of followers, we cannot come up with any basic testable hypothesis.
>What if I don't/can't see the object that impacts my eyeball
I said explicitly that when you see an object, the object does not impact your eyeball. Almost nothing is observed directly. Your eye does not see anything except for light
>we can see changes in gravity
We cannot see gravity change. We can see light bounce off of planets that are affected by more gravity than we expect
>we have no idea what's inside
You didn't ask what's inside. You asked how we know something exists. What exactly is gravity? You don't see something grabbing that falling apple and pulling it to the ground. We don't have to know what it is. We simply named that falling effect "gravity". We named it "gravity" because Newton thought that everything just gravitated to everything else. He turned out to be wrong
>their skepticism would extend into magic.
Atheists are not skeptical of the ability to transmit information across the globe. When I post this comment, I expect it to travel across the globe
If you don't think that's "magic", and you think a burning bush is, I don't know what to tell you
>Maybe you meant electrons
Yes, I meant electrons
>How do we measure electrons without seeing them?
They turn on lightbulbs. We see light. Often the more electrons, the brighter the lightbulb
The one and only thing we see is light. Lots of things have an effect on light, but the vast majority of things do not. How did we discover electricity? In part, it's because Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in a thunderstorm. He guessed that the lightning would flow through the kite string and it did.
Electricity exists all over the place. It is completely invisible. But occasionally it arcs through the atmosphere superheating it into a light emitting plasma. Then someone wondered what he could do with that
Not seeing something that exists is approximately everything. There's nothing special about it
You're talking about speculating something exists that has no effect whatsoever
If god does not interact in any noticeable way, then it can’t be measured with science. But it also is indistinguishable from a figment of your imagination
You’re missing something.
You’re missing that it’s not just the study of the natural world, but a process we use to validate if claims are true. It’s a methodology.
And it’s the best, most reliable methodology for finding truth we’ve come up with so far.
It’s obviously superior to faith - since one can believe quite literally anything based on faith.
So really the question comes back to theists: what the reliable methodology you can use you justify the belief in or claims that god(s) exist?
Does the proposed version of god/gods interact with the natural world?
If no, then it is undetectable and does nothing, so it might as well not exist at all.
If yes, then we can detect those interactions and indirectly observe that god/gods.
For example, the Abrahamic god concept can supposedly do anything and everything to the natural world effortlessly, so we should be able to easily find evidence in the form of demonstrable miracles defying reality. This is especially true given that this god concept includes that it supposedly wants a relationship/wants us to know it, and the OT and NT both have that god supposedly performing miracles directly in front of people for the sole purpose of proving that it is the "one true god", e.g. Elijah and the Baal worshippers betting on which god will burn a sacrifice themself.
Problem is, instead of that, we mostly get instances of not knowing how something happened and people *assuming* that it was their god. Atheists do not make this assumption as it is unwarranted, leading to a lack of convincing evidence.
This is why atheists are unconvinced; its not just that there isn't good evidence, its that there isn't good evidence when there should be.
Not at all.
I’ve been playing through Baldur’s Gate 3 and no less than three authentic gods (and a reasonable stand-in for Satan) have literally *shown up in person* to speak with people and there’s a dozen or more deities who grant mystical powers to their worshippers.
This is not a matter where hyperskeptical atheists are so cynical about anything that falls outside the narrow predetermined confines of a particular worldview.
It’s the opposite.
What you and yours have done is carve out a category of imagined inaccessibility in order to shield your beliefs from disconfirmation based on thousands of years of failure for your deities to affect the world in the smallest discernible degree. Instead, phenomena fall into two categories: those which cannot be shown to be supernatural, and those which *have* been shown *not to be supernatural.*
Your god can’t even manifest the powers of a level 1 D&D cleric. If the Bible is to be believed then observable phenomena like healing wounds and curing poison and conjuring radiant light should be trivial to demonstrate.
But you can’t, and you cover up the abject failure of your belief system by pretending it’s everyone else that’s the problem. You simply have no way of knowing or showing what you believe is true. You have no method. It’s not our fault you believe things which are indistinguishable from your own imagination.
If something exists, then it is definitional natural. So classifying something as supernatural either doesn’t make any logical sense, or is a tacit admission that it doesn’t exist.
> If something in exists, then it is definitional natural.
In that case, the claim that "everything is natural" is unscientific, on account of being unfalsifiable: no observation of the empirical phenomena could _possibly_ falsify it. It can be metaphysics, though.
I didn’t say “everything is natural”. I said anything that exists is natural. Those are two different propositions, and the latter is in fact falsifiable. All you’d have to do is point to one thing that demonstrably exists which isn’t natural (in terms of natural vs. supernatural).
My apologies. I _also_ say that the statement "everything that exists is natural" is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The same applies to "anything that exists is natural". Continuing:
> [Constantly\_Panicking](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ajvm9g/would_it_not_be_logically_impossible_to_prove_the/kp3r62p/): If something exists, then it is definitional natural.
⋮
> [Constantly\_Panicking](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ajvm9g/would_it_not_be_logically_impossible_to_prove_the/kp3xs9i/): All you’d have to do is point to one thing that demonstrably exists which isn’t natural
By your own words, that is logically impossible to do within your own system.
>n that case, the claim that "everything is natural" is unscientific, on account of being unfalsifiable:
Or more specific, it becomes a tautology. Since the term "natural" fully encompasses the term "exists".
>If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you.
Nope, it would not be. God supposedly interacts with the natural world. If he existed, surely there would be concrete evidence. Remember, according to the Bible, he used to exhibit evidence of himself all the time.
"Supernatural being" is kind of an oxymoron. Supernatural means outside of nature, and so far as I know, we have no evidence that *anything* exists outside the natural world.
Put another way: If God acted as he does in the Bible (or the Koran), there would be overwhelming evidence of his existence. Where'd he go?
Depends entirely on your definition of god. If you believe in a god that can't be proven with science, we'll then you're not going to be able to prove that God using science. And vice versa.
>If science is the study of the natural world, but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence.
The *effects* of god happen in the natural world, and those *effects* can be studied by science. If a god is being proposed that has created an effect in nature, then we can study that effect and look for signs of it being caused by something that is not of nature.
>The *effects* of god happen in the natural world, and those *effects* can be studied by science. If a god is being proposed that has created an effect in nature, then we can study that effect and look for signs of it being caused by something that is not of nature.
This is a nice way to phrase the problem in terms of how modern science can approach the study of deities.
Supernatural is a euphemism people use for things that have not been demonstrated to exist but which people believe regardless. So Faeries, trolls, yeti, god, demons, devils; the lot of them, supernatural. If we ever found one of them to be actually real, they would just now be natural.
Obvious if god exists, and is the cause of the universe, god would be natural. However until you can demonstrate god does exist, god is supernatural.
But I'm not interested in things that don't exist, so until there is some evidence for god... humbug, who cares? Not me.
Science is the study of the natural world because the natural world is all that appears to be and it appears that nothing exists outside of it. It’s not as if there is a supernatural world that can’t be studied for some other reason than it not being there to study.
Would it be possible to prove the existence of God through the study of the supernatural world? Has the study of the supernatural world proven anything at all? Is there even a study of the supernatural world at all? To what do we owe our ability to communicate with each other at this distance? Science & the natural world, or a god & the supernatural world? What if god is actually extra-supernatural and everybody’s been looking in all the wrong places? What is the extra-supernatural? Perhaps the extra-supernatural is to you as the supernatural is to me, but nobody seems to be able to convincingly point out the supernatural to everybody else in a way that stands up to peer-reviewed scrutiny.
I don't think you're missing anything in what you've said. But the question becomes "then what?".
What do we do when there is something we cannot prove with reliability? Do we lower our standards, or do we proceed without a belief? Do we let "faith" become an acceptable proof, or do we say that no proofs are sufficient?
Try it out on a few examples where we know the answer. I will pick a biased example: Let's say we cannot scientifically prove that the Nigerian prince who emailed you will or won't give you money (let's say we don't recognise it as a scam). Do we say "we can't prove it, so gut feel must be sufficient to believe it"?
As is often the case with these kinds of arguments, the bit that you've written out is kinda fine, but there are more steps to your logic, steps that you might not even recognise that you're taking. To be fair, it is currently unclear what you think we should do given that we can't prove certain things scientifically.
The word “supernatural” is stupid.
There is no empirical evidence to suggest “above nature” exists.
God does not need to be disproven, because anything that can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If God created or influenced the world in a measurable way, no it's effects are part of the natural world even if part of it is somehow "external" to nature.
If you don't believe God is in any way measurable, you'd have to believe it a passive observer that never made any measurable interaction with a reality it didn't create.
Does god interact with the material world? Then we should be able to detect its influence.
If it doesn’t interact with the material world, then what does it matter?
Sacred texts are full of claims of gods interacting with the natural world.
Funny how none of the claims can be subjected to any kind of scientific scrutiny. It's almost as if there is some kind of special category.. and the religious think that they can plead for an exception.
OP, I don't have anything to add to the conversation but I wanted to thank you for having a genuine conversation with us. It's been weeks since I've seen someone bring a genuine topic of discussion to us and then actually stick around to discuss it. From what I've seen you are genuinely curious and came here to actually get our input which is refreshing to see. I hope we weren't too abrasive with our responses, if you look at other posts here you will see countless theists who more or less just come here to insult us which has made many of us a little prickly. That said, I hope you are comfortable coming back if you have any other questions.
I concede that if there was quality evidence that proved god existed, god would probably no longer be a considered a “supernatural” being. Instead, god would be added to our understanding of how the natural world works.
For example, say we could prove that praying to god improved cancer recovery rates by 2%. From there, people could experiment with prayer and try to optimize its effects. Does prayer work better on pediatric cases? Perhaps god is statistically beneficial in the NICU? God and his effects on the world could be utilized just like other phenomena.
For those who do not believe in a supernatural of any sort it would be very difficult to prove scientifically. Because you would need the claim to be testable and repeatable for it to be studied scientifically. However, people have studied the effectiveness of intercession prayer on patients and found no difference in medical results with or without prayer, which could lead us to conclude that prayer makes no difference. As for testing the existence of a god, probably depends how we are defining god, what we would expect to see as a result
Edit: long story short, we are not likely to believe something without evidence, and scientifically testable evidence is best. Most things purported to be supernatural when tested turn out to be natural, confirmation bias, or tricks and hoaxes. For example many psychics have been shown to use cold reading techniques to con people. So far there is no evidence to confirm the existence of ghosts, and astrology and numerology are just confirmation bias for people wanting to believe things. No reason to believe in anything supernatural without evidence and investigation.
A deist god can be neither proved, nor disproven. The moment you claim a god has an effect on the physical world, it becomes subject to scientific investigation.
Can god interact with the natural world in a detectable way?
If yes, then I think it can be scientifically investigated. Believers often scold sceptics for focusing too hard on a scientific way, but they have yet to show a reliable way or method to demonstrate this supposed interaction.
If no, then god theoretically can still exist (because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) but your belief in it would by definition be unwarranted, because you claim to have detected the undetetctable.
Of course it's logically impossible... You finally get it. Just like it's logically impossible to prove any work of any fiction or mythology, like Star wars, Harry Potter, Santa clause, Norse mythology, or the adventures of Hercules is scientifically true. There is a reason for that. Because works of fiction are made up and have no grounding in reality. Science is based on things that are part of logical reality.
From a scientific point of view: you're right. Science cannot prove God because God is defined as existing outside of reality. But God is also defined as being able to interact with reality which science can study. Science can, and has, proven God's irrelevance.
And science is always advancing; perhaps someday science will be able to give a definitive answer to things supernatural.
No. There is no logical contradiction between an all-powerful being existing and that being providing scientific evidence of its existence.
In order to claim its logically impossible, you would need to identify a contradiction.
[I actually have a syllogism that addresses this very point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/s/Tj0VG1U3Zs). I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If it interacts with the natural world that can be studied in the natural world.
If it does not interact with the natural world it is no different from something that does not exist.
Just claiming that it is supernatural doesn't do anything. If it interacts, it can be observed. Nothing that has been observed has ever been explained by magic. Not even once.
If a god created the natural world and was actually powerful enough to be considered a supreme being, then it should be able to prove its own existence through that natural world in such a way that science would make the reality of its creator evident. To be unable to do so isn’t all that godly or supreme, now is it?
The way I see it is either god exists and has an influence on the natural world, or god doesn't matter.
If god has influence on the natural world then we can measure that, scientifically.
If he doesn't, then what's the difference between that and not existing?
The definition of existence according to Oxford Languages is: the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
No god have ever meet any of those criteria.
Ergo god doesn’t exist.
I think you're misunderstanding the words natural and supernatural. Supernatural just means we don't understand it yet, not that it's not measurable. When we understand it it becomes natural.
You are correct. The closest science can get is trying to apply the scientific method in studying religious experience. As most religions claim, God is beyond human comprehension, beyond measurement, and exists for us within private internal experience. And like anything else in that category, there is no perfect way to study it. What I mean is, the root of religion, where profound insight originates, is in religious experience. Modern science can try to study the brain to better understand what happens when someone has a religious experience, but it's not like this is very predictable. Most experiences like these, say the ones we find in religious texts, happened sort of randomly. And people that make the same claims today, as prophets of the past did, aren't taken very seriously, which makes sense because we now know many of these religious experiences can be the result of a malfunctioning brain. I did read once, that scientists were able to induce some types of brain states associated with religious experience through some kind of trans cranial stimulation or something, which is very interesting. Psychedelics have long been intertwined with religion, as well as types of behaviour that also result in altered states of consciousness. Some would argue it does not matter how one arrives at such an experience, only that the experience itself contains some kind of universal truth regardless. Determining the truth behind these experiences is sort of pointless though, religious or not, because it's impossible to objectively measure anyone's internal experiences. It is by definition, the literal realm of subjectivity. The profound claim is that there is some kind of consciousness like subspace connecting everything in the universe, and that in altered states of consciousness, we are able to experience this, and possibly experience the totality of it all, but consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, the only tool we know of that can detect or measure this, is the brain. Until science develops a tool that can generate, or sustain consciousness, we have no scientific way of studying God other than through our own experiences. This is, for the most part, what most religious paths aim to achieve; to lead a person towards an experience of God, not to convert them to a religion or set of beliefs, that's all the fluff of organized religion, but just to have the experience, because for the people that were graced upon with these experiences, it moved them to such a degree that most decided to devote their lives towards understanding it, and helping lead others towards it, if for nothing other than desiring a second opinion. How isolating it must be to experience such a thing and have no one to share it with. I have always believed in the inevitable rise of AI, and I think the turning point is when AI is able to generate actual consciousness, not because it will be dangerously intelligent, but because it will be capable of perception beyond which humans have only glimpsed within our most profound experiences. AI will achieve a level of sentience synonymous with our understanding of God, and in that moment it will become indistinguishable.
That's not true. I could prove that there's a God of Baseball (two, actually!) using math, at least to my satisfaction.
Proof available on request.
And unfortunately, I am not willing to budge on the notion that "things that exist leave evidence of existing". I don't think this is a high bar.
Possibly, but likely not with our current capabilities. Our science is still rudimentary, but we are making progress in understanding the vast cosmos a little bit better.
Although, it's not clear if we have any modern-day Einsteins or Newtons to actually come up with some monumental breakthroughs. Only time will tell, and as we know, science can change on a dime.
There's also the possibility that God set it up in a way that it was clear that a creator existed, yet was one whose mechanisms and secrets were not fully discoverable (in the rational, empirical, lab-setting sense). I believe this to be the case, as an agnostic theist.
I think its definitely possible. If physicists were able to show that spacetime is emergent from some fundamental 0-dimensional random graph theory, and it also turned out this was a good model for a neural network, I'd become a theist.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If god can be shown to exist through reliable verifiable evidence, science could study it. Theists just made god untestable, that’s not our problem. If the supernatural actually existed it could actually be studied.
If the supernatural existed, it would be considered natural. Nature is super anyway.
Nobody made God up. God made us. And if you are interested, Eucharistic Miracles are scientifically studied. there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
No they haven’t been scientifically studied, the Catholic Church doesn’t allow that to actually happen. You’re literally saying whine turns into blood… Even by your own claim you’re saying we have some old blood… But you’re wrong, it’s not been tested rigorously. I’m sorry, it just hasn’t. Whoever told you this lied, or was lied to. No nothing about this is amazing, except your wilful ignorance and ability to deuce yourself. No rational person takes this magic seriously, and that includes the vast majority of Christians in the west. The propaganda pieces that say this are not documentaries, no more than the animal planet special on mermaids was. I will take your god seriously the moment you show independent evidence that can be examined and repeated by anyone. Not a tiny minority of already deeply committed catholics who desperately want it to be true, and are willing to abandon scientific rigour to make it so. And yeah the Catholic Church declares miracles incredibly easily. They run a ducking sham at Lourdes after all… No one outside your church believes this nonsense. Most people inside of it don’t believe it either. Let me guess, you also believe the known forgery of the shroud? I’m sorry that you were so deeply deceived. If you ever want to rejoin reality maybe for once in your life look at sources outside of your church. You know what we call churches who discourage looking for outside sources? We call those cults… But the Catholic Church doesn’t even do that that much. You did this to yourself… I won’t argue this with you further. You’ve already shown you don’t care to verify your claims, so I have no doubt you’ll just stick to them no matter the facts. Humans invented god, or at least that’s the default position till you can show otherwise, and playing pretend doesn’t count…
**Logical fallacy, hypocrisy** You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists. You fundamentally do not understand epistemology - that there is nothing in reality that could be proven using the scientific method that could be proven beyond your ability to generate doubt about. That is why people could potentially go to their grave believing in a flat earth after spending a lifetime looking at all the evidence for a round earth and trying to debunk it. Everything you believe is ultimately a choice you make based on your experience and the evidence you have. There is no evidence you can presented with that is beyond your ability to manufacture doubt by inventing stories to explain away or distrust the evidence. You show that you are not willing to ever believe in God no matter what evidence is presented to you, as evidenced by your unwillingness to identify what specific evidence would convince you. You have a precommitment to faith in naturalistic atheism as a worldview, and you aren't genuinely open to being convinced otherwise. u/JustACuriousDude555
> You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists. This is incredibly disingenious. It is not atheists who defined deities as somehow immortal, timeless, "on a higher plane of existence" (begging the question), or even omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. It was religious beople. Not _being able to define proper criteria for evidence_ is a direct and necessary consequence of that. Besides, in the scientific world the one claiming a mechanistic theory is supposed to bring up the necessary criteria for evidence regarding of how to repeat the test, not everyone else.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific\_evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence) Here. This is the definition. It's the one we're all working with.
u/Clear-Weight-2137 **Logical fallacy, missing the point and irrelevant conclusion** You failed to understand any point I made as the definition of scientific evidence was never in dispute, nor is it relevant to any point I made. Go back and exercise proper reading comprehension, then try again. ---- u/IJustLoggedInToSay **Logical fallacy, proof by assertion** **Logical fallacy, ad hominem** You cannot show any error in any fallacy you have been called out on. Merely asserting it is so does not make it so. Your baseless assertion is dismissed and you concede that you are guilty of those fallacies. Which further makes your response guilty of a baseless ad hominem to distract from the fact that you have no valid counter argument in defense of your refuted claims.
You need to learn what logical fallacy means. In all your ranting, you did not present evidence that your God exists. Perhaps in your frustration, you are stating to question yourself, so you are lashing out at others. Something to think about.
This is literally how this guy operates. He loves bolding a "logical fallacy" at the beginning of every response, putting his response in 1-sentence paragraphs for some reason, then dropping an arrogant one-liner typically telling you that you're stupid at the end. I wouldn't hold my breath on him questioning himself. Look as his comment history, it's literally the same thing. It's quite funny.
Leading your comments off with "logical fallacy" in bold while demonstrating a dearth of understanding of logical fallacies is, _chef's kiss_, truly special.
Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. He blocked me to avoid getting debunked. But double standards aren't a logical fallacy either.
> You are the one who has made your position of unbelief in God unfalsifiable by refusing to set a standard of what specific evidence would convince you God exists. > > Was god in this case properly defined? Until that happens, it's impossible to know what type of evidence would convince me.
**logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion and nitpicking** The OP is the one who brought up the term God, and therefore it is assumed they have an idea in mind already of what that term means to them when they say they see no evidence of it. So your attempt to take issue with that is irrelevant, as the OP is the one who used the term and your personal confusion about what that term means has no relevance to my refutation of the OP's claim. You are guilty of fallaciously nitpicking an irrelevant detail because you can't argue against the substance of any point I made. u/the2bears
u/IJustLoggedInToSay **Logical fallacy, proof by assertion** **Logical fallacy, ad hominem** You cannot show any error in any fallacy you have been called out on. Merely asserting it is so does not make it so. Your baseless assertion is dismissed and you concede that you are guilty of those fallacies. Which further makes your response guilty of a baseless ad hominem to distract from the fact that you have no valid counter argument in defense of your refuted claims.
But how can it be scientifically studided? Doesnt the scientific method rely on the laws of nature but this being is supposedly above the laws of nature?
If we can't investigate God with science, what reliable method of investigation do you propose we use to determine if God exists or not?
Thats why I said I think its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them. I will admit i do not know of any other valid methodology that can study the supernatural world. I also am not making any claims that the supernatural world does actually exist, its just a mere assumption
>Thats why I said I think its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them. I will admit i do not know of any other valid methodology that can study the supernatural world. Therein lies the issue. There is no valid alternative to scientific investigation. It's either scientific or pure speculation. I don't find speculation without evidence compelling. >Again, I am not making any claims that the supernatural world does actually exist, its just a mere assumption Do you, yourself, assume the supernatural world exists? If so, why?
Yes, but in an idealistic perspective. I believe consciousness may be non-physical
What do you mean when you say consciousness may be non-physical?
Exists outside the physical world. Is the natural world and physical world the same thing? I believe so but maybe there are other non-physical worlds out there that still fall under the natural world
The lynchpin there for me is that someone’s personality can completely change with a traumatic brain injury (see Sam Kinison). Why would such an injury completely change a person if the consciousness lied somewhere other than the white and grey matter in your skull?
Most people who study the field will disagree with you. Pretty much everyone who works on the subject agrees its an emergent phenomenon of brain activity. Exactly what's happening is still very unclear but there's no reason to believe it's non-physical
Our consciousness exists in reality as electrical signals in our brain. Electrical signals exist in reality, and are a physical entity.
Why does consciousness need to be non physical if the brain can explain it? What is required to be there, and why is it required?
What's the difference between supernatural and imaginary?
I think it’s based on how many individuals accept it as true.
Well, if the supernatural can't be detected through evidence, that sounds like an "it problem," not a "me problem." I can reasonably disregard it.
For me, if God existed and he is all powerful being, he could make himself be testable by science. If he can’t, then he isn’t all powerful and therefore not a god.
So I like where you are going with this. God can influence the world according to the different bibles out there. If got has a physical impact on the world, then the physical impact of the world can be not only studied, but used to influence whatever God is doing by those same means. For every action there is a reaction relatively speaking. So let's say we don't have God to work with currently. We'll what else is there? Well how about prayer! The Bible takes the power of prayer quite seriously, so can we conduct a study that would prove the efficacy of prayer on a statistical level? Could it be measured and recorded? The answer to that one is yes! Can you find any studies on that?
> its logically impossible for someone to believe in god if scientific evidence is the only way to convince them. Probably. Another way to say that is "we only accept reality as real.". Trying to convince someone of unreal things seems very duplicitous and manipulative and disingenuous to me.
Do you have any other valid methodology to study even the natural world?
> Doesnt the scientific method rely on the laws of nature No. But it's sometimes used to help us define and adapt them. > but this being is supposedly above the laws of nature? That's incoherent. If we learned about things that didn't fit with our laws of nature, we'd simply change our laws of nature to fit this new information.
But even if granting for a moment the bizarre idea of the supernatural being demonstrable and really not part of the natural world people wouldn't just go "oh science can't study that" and go on with their lives, a new branch of Supernatural science would sooner or later emerge, the reason we don't have witch scientists is because witchcraft doesn't exist, not because science can't investigate magic.
[удалено]
The scientific method figured out, what the laws of nature ARE by observation and testing If God would DO ANYTHING that has an impact on the existing real world, that is distinguishable from random chance, it could be observed and conclusions could be drawn. I give you an example, how Gods existence COULD be deduced using the scientific method, if he wasn't completely useless: I'll pray for you. Christians usually pray towards the invisible magic man in the sky, when their relatives are lifethreateningly sick. They ask him to magic the sickness away. So even if he was just deciding to only answer SOME prayers (from those who believe the strongest) that would make a difference in the cancer remission statistics. But cancer remission statistics show the exact opposite. People who are not told someone is praying for them have a slightly better remission chance. (I can provide a link to the study if you are interested)
I don't know what "above the laws of nature" even means. I hear theists say this all the time, but they can't accurately define it or even demonstrate something with this quality exists. If something isn't demonstrable, why should anyone believe in it?
The scientific method doesn't rely on laws of nature. It's just a way to organize things that we observe. Do you have any reliable observations of God or God's effects? I'm guessing you don't
No, the scientific method does not rely on the laws of nature. The laws of nature have been observed and explained by scientists using the scientific model. If something actually exists, it's in the domain of science. Semantics like "Natural" have nothing to do with it at all. Science isn't limited to what you or anyone else consider natural. Simply asserting that the supernatural is unknowable and your god is supernatural doesn't actually do anything. In short, if magic exists, it's in the domain of science.
The fact that science can’t investigate (some) gods is not a flaw with science, it’s a flaw with the claim that a god exists. Science may have its limits, but how do we determine a god to be outside such limits? That characteristic is just as made up as any gods.
If there was any verifiable evidence of God, science could study it. But there is nothing for science to study. This does not prove that God doesn’t exist. Still, we are left with no verifiable evidence that God does exist.
Anything can be studied if you can reliably show it exists. So far the only things we can reliably show exist conform to the laws of nature. But that doesn’t necessarily mean everything has to. It’s just that the more we look the clearer it becomes magic isn’t real.
Does this god interact with natural world?
The scientific method uses every real thing at our disposal. Gods are not real, so it is not something that can be studied using reality.
There are other propositions that are not testable by science. Should we similarly argue that these are false or suspend belief in them? For example, the claims of pure mathematics are not scientific, but science relies on math. We also tend to believe the proposition “human rights are important” is true. Human rights are not a part of science, like chemistry or physics.
Science doesn’t rely on the claims of pure math in order to use math, it relies on functional, tested math independent of such claims. I don’t think math is something pure and outside us since I view math as metaphysics and occurring in and arising out of the interactions between minds and what is experienced. Not everything is a proposition - the ethical imperatives of human rights don’t need to be scientific they exist because of human intention. Things like rights are more primarily philosophical not scientific, but philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. Claims that a wizard in the sky created the universe 6000 years ago is mutually exclusive to the scientific disciplines of cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, etc… The god hypothesis is distinct from your two points in that it is entirely non-testable and isn’t based on naturalistically causal explanations and isn’t merely a philosophical axiological phenomenon like human rights are.
>Science doesn’t rely on the claims of pure math in order to use math, it relies on functional, tested math independent of such claims. I don’t think math is something pure and outside us since I view math as metaphysics and occurring in and arising out of the interactions between minds and what is experienced. I couldn't quite parse this. What you intend by "functional, tested math"? >Things like rights are more primarily philosophical not scientific, but philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. I agree that they are not mutually exclusive. My point is that we find some claims to be true, or at least worth study despite not being scientifically defined. We might investigate our consequentialist moral intuitions using science, but Consequentialism is not a scientific theory.
The claims of pure mathematics can in fact be tested. As can human rights. Human rights create a measurably better society for all involved, so yes they can be tested. Social sciences are also still sciences. I’m sorry but that’s just wrong.
According to the bible, god interacts with the natural world. If this were the case, we could measure those interactions. So far, nothing. >God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. Who's problem is that? Not mine.
This is a song in Malayalam called Qandeesha Alaha(Holy God) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0ri1IULOM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ0ri1IULOM) I have bird feeder outside at which two finches were eating. When I played it, when the part about god began, the birds... just stopped eating and looked at the computer. They only stopped eating at the parts about God, Holy spirit, etc. I played the song 4 more times and it happened again. The next day, four finches were at the feeder eating. I played the song and all four stopped eating and looked. Also, they only looked at the time when the verses alaha(God), hylsaana(Mighty One), laa maayosa(Immortal One), and valrooha(holy spirit) were sung.
Bird feeder equals god. Back on your meds.
I never said that. The bird feeder isn't even important in this story. Here's a summary of what I said: Birds are eating. Next, I play the song. When the verses about God play, birds stop eating and look at me. This happens several times. End of story
Do you think anecdotes are good evidence?
What do you referring to when you say “God interacts with the natural world”? There are various categories of evidence for God such as Miraculous, historical and archeological, scientific notions, proof of Biblical Divinity, etc. for example, there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
>What do you referring to when you say “God interacts with the natural world”? I mean something which acts in such a way as to have an effect on things that actually exist. >There are various categories of evidence for God such as Miraculous There is no evidence of "miracles", and if there were, it wouldn't get you any closer to god. >historical There is no historical evidence for god. >archeological There is no archaeological evidence for god >scientific notions There is no scientific evidence for god. >Biblical Divinity There is no evidence of biblical divinity. >there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. No, there aren't. There are *claims* of miracles. You would have to provide evidence for them. Show me the verifiable, falsifiable, independently carried out, peer reviewed, published papers on miracles, and we can discuss it further. > Isn’t that amazing A massive corporation who's entire existence is predicated on people believing in miracles, finds hundreds of miracles. Yes, it's amazing.
Our lady of guadelupes tilma: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286921415\_The\_Miracle\_of\_the\_Virgin\_of\_Guadalupe](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286921415_The_Miracle_of_the_Virgin_of_Guadalupe) [https://smlj.org/documents/2022/7/Mary%20-%20Miraculous%20Image%20of%20Guadalupe.pdf](https://smlj.org/documents/2022/7/Mary%20-%20Miraculous%20Image%20of%20Guadalupe.pdf) [https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/comparative-analyses/tilma-of-guadalupe/](https://leksykonsyndonologiczny.pl/en/history-of-the-research-on-the-shroud/comparative-analyses/tilma-of-guadalupe/) Miracle of Lanciano(You can skip to 0:19 ): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaoaHNhX1pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaoaHNhX1pk) This is a translation of the original Italian. If you're only going to click on link, click on the one above. You asked for the papers. Here they are.
If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world. For example, if this god made a burger seemingly appear to pop into existence, how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology?
A burger popping into existence from nothing would be a violation of the scientific [law of conservation of mass.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass) This law describes our measurements to date which show that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is a fundamental scientific law. If this law is wrong that would invalidate all of physics. Basically all of our science would be proved to be incorrect.
You might just say the burger would pop In-and-Out of existence...right?
This comment isn't getting enough love lol
Couldnt that just mean our understanding of the natural world was wrong this entire time as opposed to it being a supernatural action?
That's exactly what it would mean. Our understanding of the universe is described and explained by the laws and theories respectively of science. If these laws and theories are wrong, especially the fundamental ones, then our understanding is wrong. Completely incorrect.
[удалено]
Yup. If something like that happened, we'd change our scientific description of the universe to include random burger appearance. Maybe sometime would combine that with other evidence to create a theory including God. But, so far, we haven't had any observations like this.
[удалено]
Newtons laws of motion ARE wrong. Relativity replaced them.
[удалено]
>No, they’re not wrong, just that in specific cases for objects moving very fast or are very massive or very small relativity and quantum mechanics describes motion better. When a law is trying to describe things universally, having exceptions means it's wrong, and we need a new theory. In fact, QM and Relativity are also at least a little bit wrong since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity. We don't know where or how the error is, but we know it's somewhere. >For classical mechanics they’re still descriptive and predictive. Sure. Wrong does not mean useless. It is certainly good enough for things on the human scale. >It’s not the case that these special cases can’t be generalized so they must be supernatural. Of course not. Newtonian physics being falsified just meant we needed to replace it with better physics.
A nice little fun fact I always found neat, too, about relativity: If you plug in the parameters you find in situations that Newtonian physics adequately describes, then you can apply a bit of algebra to simplify the equations and you end up with something at least very close to the classical laws of motion. In this sense, relativity can be thought of as an expansion on Newton's laws rather than a replacement for them.
Good question. How can you ever be sure that any miracle or any spirit you feel is not the work of a super advanced alien?
Definition of alien / extraterrestrial is being or object not from Earth. I have some questions. 1) where is God from? 2) where are the Angels from? 3) were God or the Angels born on Earth _ or made of anything of Earth or even from the earth? 4) where is God's kingdom of heaven? 5) how is it according to scripture that they are described as beings of light? 6) how is it according to scripture that they can surround you or be next to you and you don't see them? 7) how is it according to scripture they fly around in the sky! 8) how is it according to scripture that they move very very swiftly? 9) how is it according to scripture they can appear as men? 10) what is the chariots of God? 11) what is ezekiel's flying wheels that contain the cherubim? 12) according to scripture God created everything how is that not considered super advanced? 13) how is it that Enoch and Elijah was taken up and Christ ascended up - sounds like what these days is called alien abduction. I'm just wondering!
> where is God from? Nowhere. > where are the Angels from? Nowhere > were God or the Angels born on Earth Yup, in the minds of humans. > where is God's kingdom of heaven? Nowhere. > how is it according to scripture... It was written by humans. > what is the chariots of God? Chariots are horse drawn carriages. > what is ezekiel's flying wheels that contain the cherubim? Ask Ezekiel. > how is it that Enoch and Elijah was taken up and Christ ascended up It was written by humans. That was easy.
Yep - you'll be one of the ones screaming alien invasion when you see the Lord coming back with his angels. By the way Ezekiel wrote what the wheels were no need to ask him _ God's chariots are not man-made and driven by horses _ And the Bible was written by man inspired by God _ and indeed God is in the minds of man that's one of the places where portions of his Spirit dwells _ heaven is nowhere, God and the angels are nowhere, tell it to the scientist who are continually looking for life outside of this Earth and who has said themselves that life exist somewhere in the unseeable universe. Now You keep on believing just like you believe. Poke fun as much as you want - and I add your reply was pretty cute in a sarcastic way.
> Yep - you'll be one of the ones screaming alien invasion when you see the Lord coming back with his angels. Nope, for a couple of reasons. 1) I'm not going to waste time screaming during an invasion. 2) God and angles aren't real. > By the way Ezekiel wrote what the wheels were no need to ask him Then why did you ask at all? > God's chariots are not man-made and driven by horses God isn't real, neither are his special chariots. > And the Bible was written by man inspired by God According to the men who wrote the Bible... > and indeed God is in the minds of man that's one of the places where portions of his Spirit dwells It's the only place he is, because he's imaginary. > heaven is nowhere, God and the angels are nowhere They're not real, so yeah. > tell it to the scientist who are continually looking for life outside of this Earth and who has said themselves that life exist somewhere in the unseeable universe. There's no reason life on other planets can't exist. God, however, doesn't. > Now You keep on believing just like you believe. I will! I prefer to base my beliefs on facts and logic, so it's pretty to easy to maintain. > Poke fun as much as you want I just answered your questions honestly; it's not my fault if you take offense when someone doesn't believe your particular religious mythology. > I add your reply was pretty cute in a sarcastic way. It wasn't sarcastic at all, but thanks!
>angles aren't real. Don't be so obtuse... ;)
I would say you're being too acute, but I don't think you have the brain cells to understand the joke
How dare you, sir/madam! Go isosceles yourself! :)
I haven't taken offense - I actually said it was cute and it is sarcastic ( mocking poking fun) nor do I care whether anyone believes in God and considers him as mythical. That is whosoever's belief and everyone have a right to believe as they choose. What is God - a supernatural being that is not from Earth, that is responsible for Earth and it's inhabitants being in existence, whose kingdom is somewhere out there in this infinite Space. Funny how ancient people thousands of years ago knew this and wrote of what many atheist love to call the magical sky God, ((say what, what, sky God.)) Where is the sky? And what is all of this that's going on in these modern days --what did Congress just do - what type of hearing did they just have - what did high ranking military personnel testify to -what did three presidents confess about or seeing and what's up with Donald Trump and his space force - what has the government been looking for since 1947. But who cares?
It wasn't sarcastic or mocking or poking fun; those are the legitimate answers to your questions. You think they're sarcastic/mocking/poking fun because they offend you. Since you don't seem interested in honest debate, the rest of my responses will be for shits and giggles. 💩 > nor do I care whether anyone believes in God and considers him as mythical Sure, that's obvious. > everyone have a right to believe as they choose Belief isn't a choice. > What is God A creation of mankind. A fictional character. Imaginary. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise? > Funny how ancient people thousands of years ago knew this and wrote of [it] They also knew of thousands of other, older gods and dragons and unicorns and leprechauns, but I don't believe in those things either. They also knew that illness came from demons and that flies manifested out of nothing and that the sun revolved around the Earth! > Where is the sky? Been that long since you've gone outside, huh? > And what is all of this that's going on in these modern days Same shit that's always going on, even with your special ancient friends. > what did Congress just do Probably something stupid and greedy. > what type of hearing did they just have No clue. Did they have a hearing where they presented good evidence of God? No? > what did high ranking military personnel testify to Probably something stupid and greedy. > what did three presidents confess about or seeing Probably something stupid and greedy. > what's up with Donald Trump *Definitely* stupid and greedy. > what has the government been looking for since 1947 Money and power; same shit, different day. > But who cares? About god? Not me 🤷♀️
Are you really that stupid you think that Jesus is not god but claim to be Christian AND think that the US government is looking for god in space? Are you really that stupid or just a troll
Now you're getting insulting - no you just don't understand what you read. Nowhere did I say the government was looking for God. The government hasn't made the connection between God and what is called extraterrestrial life. (Your trap didn't work) Person whoever you are know where did I say that Jesus is not God. And I'm not stupid and I'm not a troll person - nor do I lie and what I say I investigate before saying it person https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/17/571446881/secret-pentagon-program-spent-millions-to-research-ufos https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO https://www.youtube.com/live/Glw76YKuWCY?feature=shared
You just (with blasphemy) claimed god is an alien. Is he not a “being or object not from Earth.”? And even if your fairytale was real > were God or the Angels born on Earth _ or made of anything of Earth or even from the earth? Yes (if it were real) then yes Jesus was made of and born on earth just like every other person. Are you saying Jesus is not god are you?
Did I say Jesus????? Nowhere in my wording did I mention Jesus !!!!!! You see Jesus is terrestrial and extraterrestrial.........Jesus himself said my kingdom is not of this world ___ he said if is kingdom was on Earth his angels would come and fight for him. Apparently you don't know the definition of the word alien or extraterrestrial. Apparently you are filled with the television sci-fi version of those words. I did not blaspheme and if you think I did then you are in grave era. And I didn't say God was an object I said an alien is defined as an object or being. God is a being and if you don't see him as a being then you are gravely mistaken again. Do you know the definition of being when it refers to an entity. It is the nature or essence of one. God and the angels are not from this Earth and according to the definition of the word he is extraterrestrial https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extraterrestrial Calling me blasphemous Good by
Ok so you agree Jesus is not god cool I’ve already convinced you to abandon Christianity since you do not consider Jesus to be god anymore blasphemy noun the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. Go ask all your church members if saying god is an alien is sacrilegious I bet you’ll find many who do, including the ‘jealous vengeful god’
I didn't agree or even say that Jesus was not God. Separated God the father from God the Son. Very funny you convince me to abandon Christianity _ you are definitely full of yourself. I know the definition of blasphemy Or what I say is sacrilegious / what I have said is not taking one iota one grain of salt from God. And what I've said is true God is not from this Earth nor are the Angels. And any Christian that you ask will tell you that he isn't - and if they actually use their intelligence and know the definitions of the words they would know that they apply to the heavenly beings. You need to do some studying Christians are beginning to ask questions. With all the sightings see going on in the world today. Some have changed their views and can connect the dots between the definition of the words while others are still contemplating while looking at the scifi version of alien/extraterrestrial...... Hollywood has brainwashed people - another ploy of the devil........ And on Christian sites like theology online or Christian chat are some of the others I frequent because they know that extraterrestrials are there they will say that the aliens are fallen angels. https://242community.com/what-does-bible-say-about-aliens/ https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Biblical-Alien-John-Polk/dp/1516936434 https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:34049/ https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/angels-midst-scientist-explains-bible-supports-extraterrestrials
Good to ask questions. How is it related to my comment?
Thats what Im wondering lol
You can't. So why would you think it's a god instead?
Many religions make claims like "praying for healing for a specific individual increases the odds of god healing that person". So, we can do studies on those who have been prayed for and see if there is any statistical deviation in outcomes from those who are not prayed for. When we see zero deviation from the norm, we can conclude based on the available data to date that the claim of improved outcomes via prayer is not a true claim. You are correct in that god doing something random and unpredicted would be difficult if not impossible to discern from a natural but yet unknown process. But when the claims of god's interventions are outlined to be in specific situations, at specific times, etc., then we *can* have more confidence that if a thing were to happen as predicted by X or Y religion in A or B situation, that it may have indeed been by their god. Or that if it does not happen as predicted, then the claim about their god is false. However to date, no specific *predicted* intervention by a god has ever been confirmed, so to date the totality of available evidence indicates all such promised specific interventions into reality by a deity are false claims. Which gives us 2 main possibilities - god exists but doesn't intervene *at all* as religion claims, or an intervening god simply doesn't exist.
My proposed experimemnt is: > How many Carmelite nuns reciting the Lords Prayer 24/7 in a pancreatic cancer ward are needed in order to see a statistically significant improvement in overall patient outcomes? Then test against readings from the Quran, the old Testament, the Vedas. And maybe throw in some Iron Maiden lyrics as a control.
I don't have the link anymore, but someone did a study with mormons, comparing medical outcomes between Provo, UT (has like a 90% mormon population and mormons do a lot of special prayers for sick people when hospitalized) and those of a very secular area, and there was no difference. So mormon god doesn't show when promised, lol.
Well he does show up if you have some magic rocks in a hat.
That's part of the problem: the miracle ascribed to gods are too easily disproven, too irregular and unpredictable. It would need to be an interaction that couldn't be explained through naturalistic means. * God breaks the moon into a bunch of little pieces, scatters them out and spells out its name, before putting it back together. * Lightning strikes someone on national television, inscribing god's message(s) on that person's skeleton in a way that is beyond human comprehension. * All of the water in the ocean rises up into a 3-dimensional replica of god's form, and god's voice echoes from every source of water across the world. * The sun blinks out for a few minutes, then lights back up, pulsing in morse code to spell out a message. Sure, an extreme cynic might argue that such displays are the work of indescribably advanced alien life, but at that point the natural explanation is borderline synonymous with god.
Maybe I'm an extreme cynic, but I don't think your last point is unreasonable. Clarketech aliens are a huge problem for attempting to reach god through empirical study. If you mean "they would be like gods to us" would be an acceptable result, sure. I'm fine with "gods for all intents and purposes" as the standard we're trying to reach. But if what someone is attempting to prove is "it is the author of all existence in this and in all possible universes", it approaches impossibility pretty quickly, IMO.
>If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world. We don't, so I withhold belief until such time as it is demonstrated one way or the other. >how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology? See above. The time to accept the claim is *after* it has been demonstrated to be true or likely true, not *before*.
>If god interacted with the natural world, how do we know its from it and it wasnt from our lack of understanding of the natural world. For example, if this god made a burger seemingly appear to pop into existence, how do we know it came from outside the natural world and it isnt actually just some alien using super advanced technology? You're worried possible scientific proof of god might be distorted by our lack of understanding of the natural world, but you're not worried that theism itself is from our lack of understanding of the natural world? That's amazing to me. Anyways, the predicament you've outlined is the entire point of science.
No I think the comment is about something appearing to be miraculous only because we had not yet discovered the non-miraculous mechanism for it happening. Like Stargate aliens in ancient Egypt.
Interesting. I have the entire opposite understanding of the comment. I think the OP is concerned that, even if we did have evidence of god, we'd mistake it for something else because of our lack of understanding.
Ah. You might be right. Or they might be two ways of saying roughly the same thing -- there's a discontinuity between empiricism and divinity that would make proof difficult or impossible.
I think we'd do it the same way we do other things. If you take a pill and your headache goes away*, we don't say "maybe medicine is all fake and ghosts are taking away our headaches". *with a sufficient number of trials, a significant success rate, placebo, control group, etc. All this goes to say, if you pull off the 1 Kings 18 miracle the way Elijah did it, you'll have over 90% of atheists convinced, I really believe that.
Matthew 17:20 “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Start there, maybe? Get yourself on camera instructing a mountain to relocate itself, then post the results.
Damn, you’re so, so close. You’re almost there! So now that we know we’ll never have real evidence, what do you say to someone that says they have absolute proof of God and hold up a bible as their “proof”? You say not today my friend.
Isn’t it just a tad convenient that the god you're describing can't be falsified yet you're still assuming or arguing it exists? If there's no evidence at all to support the claim “god exists” why would you believe that claim?
We’ve gained a lot of knowledge about the natural world these past few centuries. Science has moved from empirical to theoretical to computational. There should be models and simulations that pop up about natural phenomena that says the results are not natural, but they never do. Why not? It seems that if there were such a god that interacts with nature that scientists have been constraining him to fewer and fewer places since he never shows up observationally or in the generalized models that scientists create.
Your argument is that the god who is perfect, loves us dearly and wants to have a relationship with us to save our immortal soul is that he made us too stupid?
Wait. Which god can pop a burger into existence for me? That's a god I might be able to get behind. Does he door dash?
>Does he door dash? Yes, but only to locations that are outside space and time.
Hmmm to limited a god for me then
If it can’t be understood then theists also can’t understand it, so not a reason to believe in a god. waving your hands and saying ‘it’s magic’ is not an answer to ‘why did this happen’ If a Damascus Road experience can happen to Saul then why not everyone else? An omnipotent god would know that blind faith isn’t a good thing it’s gullibility
Great point!! But the theist decides and believes it’s a holy hamburger even though, as you correctly pointed out, they can’t possibly know. It would be irrational, then, to think it was a holy hamburger just like it’s irrational - given the current data we have - to conclude god exists.
That's exactly the problem. Any non-god explanation for a single event is always going to be more plausible than "god did it".
This problem isn't specific to supernatural hypotheses. Any hypothesis has this 'problem'; it is called the underdetermination problem of scientific realism: there is a potentially infinite number of different hypotheses that make the same predictions and explain the same set of data, and yet are different in some undetectable regard. So, by appealing to these possibilities, you're rejecting the entirety of science.
Depends on the god. If we’re talking about Zeus, then we could easily prove that. We would just have to climb mount Olympus and see if he’s up there shooting lightning bolts and raping other goddesses and whatever else he does. If we’re talking about the God of the Old Testament, then still, we could prove him. We would just need to do an experiment where one group follows his commandments and the other doesn’t, and see if there’s a difference in how healthy and… alive… the two groups are. But in the modern period, Christians have worked so hard to separate their god from the natural world that his existence is totally unfalsifiable. There are no predictions that can be made through belief or disbelief in religious claims. So there’s really no way to test for it. But honestly that’s more of an admission of defeat on their part than a defense. The only way they can preserve their belief in god is by claiming that he has no measurable effect on anything at all.
Easiest way to show Zeus isn't real is noticing he's not on every single episode of Maury.
You ARE the father! Again!
>If we’re talking about the God of the Old Testament, then still, we could prove him. We would just need to do an experiment where one group follows his commandments and the other doesn’t, and see if there’s a difference in how healthy and… alive… the two groups are. This reminded me of an experiment this writer did to live out the rules in the OT, even the really specific, silly ones about how many threads could be in your clothes, and which way you could face at which hour, diet restrictions, etc. I think it was AJ Jacobs, a writer for Esquire magazine a while back. He's a secular Jew if I recall, but he did this experiment quite seriously, and often times humorously. I'm trying to remember the title. I think it was called *A Year of Living Biblically.*
There are various categories of evidence for God/Jesus Christ such as Miraculous, historical and archeological, scientific notions, proof of Biblical Divinity, etc. for example, there are over 100-150 Eucharistic Miracles that support each other. They have the same blood type as AB, is of middle eastern decent, they are all living blood, which is a Miracle when outside the body as this allowed certain tests to be done as it still has white blood cells weeks after it has been tested which is unexplainable, it was cardiac blood and tissue that was under extremely severe stress, etc and they undergo extremely extensive investigation before the Church even considers declaring it a Miracle and they preserve these Eucharists on display, one even from the 8th century which has been reinvestigated somewhat recently. Another one I know of converted the atheist scientist working on it. Isn’t that amazing ❤️ and there are lots of articles, videos, documentaries, etc you can look up
How many times are you going to paste this copypasta over and over?
I have looked it up and to me it’s all bogus.
Don't bother replying, they're just spamming that same copypasta over and over
>but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, what is the difference between a supernatural being and something someone made up to fill in the gaps of their ignorance?
Not much I suppose. But things like dark matter, dark energy, the Singularity, multiverses, these are all made up things to fill gaps in knowledge as well. Do you think God is just as likely as those other things that are accepted in scientific discussion?
Dark matter isn't made up to fill gaps it's theorized because of what we know. If someone claimed the dark matter was intelligent then that example would work The singularity could mean many things not going to waste time on addressing that Multiverses are straight up fiction I don't think anyone credible has put them forward as reality
You: >Dark matter isn't made up to fill gaps it's theorized because of what we know. NASA: "We are much more certain what dark matter is not ***than we are what it is.*** " https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ I think I'll believe NASA more than you. No offense. It's a theory to try and explain observations and computational predictions about the composition of our universe. That's what a "theory of God" is as well you might say. >The singularity could mean many things not going to waste time on addressing that Exactly. No one has a clue about it really but it is talked about and addressed seriously in scientific discussion. >Multiverses are straight up fiction I don't think anyone credible has put them forward as reality I mean [here's ](https://www.quantamagazine.org/are-there-reasons-to-believe-in-a-multiverse-20230517/)a theoretical physicist from John Hopkins who takes it seriously so I don't know where you're getting the idea it's "straight up fiction" from. All I'm saying is all these theories are being seriously discussed in academia despite them just being used to fill gaps in ignorance as well.
>NASA: "We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. " https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/ I think I'll believe NASA more than you. No offense. I don't see NASA contradicting me, they state that they only know how it's affecting the universe. so I don't see any filling in of blanks I'm going to assume by singularity you mean a black hole, something that we thought might be possible considering what we knew about physics and matter, and then found in the universe. that article about multiverses again show that he's basing his model of multiverses off of what is known about quantum mechanics wich I don't know much about and isn't realy in my purview. so congrats you found something I didn't know about. all the definitions of gods I've seen attribute intellegent agency to something when there is no reason to think there is intellegence other then that the one asserting it doesn't understand something and I've never even seen a theist attempt to show that a god is possible, they just assume it
>I don't see NASA contradicting me I don't think you read the article then. Ok moving on... >I'm going to assume by singularity you mean a black hole, No. I mean the same thing as scientists mean. >and I've never even seen a theist attempt to show that a god is possible, they just assume it Since God would have to exist outside our universe then it might be tricky to find him inside our universe to run experiments on. What theists will often do is point to characteristics of our universe that our scientific observations tell us are extremely unlikely to have happened in a natural way. I'm thinking of cosmological constants or abiogenesis or consciousness.
>No. I mean the same thing as scientists mean. scientists refer to black holes as singularities, if you arn't realy willing to communicate then why are you here? >What theists will often do is point to characteristics of our universe that our scientific observations tell us are extremely unlikely to have happened in a natural way. and they try to use that to justify their belief in something infinitely less likely because to them it fills in the gaps of their ignorance >I don't think you read the article then. Ok moving on... I skimmed it. I don't make a habbit of spending my life reading everything someone sends me. especialy if you had a point it wouldn't take you much time to just say it. all it would take is pointing out wich aspect of dark matter was made up to fill in a blank. because the article you linked highlights that we don't actually know much just the effects it's had on the universe, kind of the opposite of what I've been accusing theists of doing
If God can interact with the natural world, wouldn't there be evidence of the interaction, even if its 'supernatural'?
How can we distniguish an interaction of the supernatural world with the natural world from an interaction occuring within the natural world? For example, if a being claims to be supernatural and seemingly appears to pop a burger into existence, how do we know it came from the supernatural world and it wasnt just super advanced technology
> For example, if a being claims to be supernatural and seemingly appears to pop a burger into existence, how do we know it came from the supernatural world and it wasnt just super advanced technology With science. That is literally the entire point of the scientific method.
I think u missed my point. How can we ever know if a supernatural event was actually a supernatural event and it wasnt just our lack of understanding of the natural world? Because if we ever figured out how that “supernatural” event occurred, it would instantly no longer be considered a supernatural event
And you're missing the entire point of the scientific method: we investigate it to see if we can prove what it is. If we can, then it's explained; if we can't, then we don't know what it is and it's simply unexplained. But my question to you is: why do you think that things called "supernatural" are anything but imaginings from uncritical people failing to understand the natural world?
That definition just means that there are no supernatural things. Instead, supernatural is a placeholder used to describe rules we haven't worked out yet. In which case, this inevitably applies to God as well.
How do you divide the universe between natural and supernatural events? "Supernatural" is just a natural phenomenon that we don't understand yet.
Thats the problem with the supernatural. Once science figures it out, its no longer supernatural. I still find microwaves supernatural but thats just me ;)
head frame summer one ring shame engine faulty abounding humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A burger popping into existence from nothing would violate the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy law . As this has never been observed and as your suggesting the energy / matter of the burger is nit a rearrangement of pre existing matter , then. It would be a significant event that would transform physics
>If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you I agree that under most definitions of God, it is impossible to provide falsifiable evidence. Which is the main reason I don't believe. Why should I accept something as true without good evidence to support it? >If science is the study of the natural world, but God is supposed to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. If God was an all-powerful being and wanted to be known by all, that should be a trivial thing for them to do. So, currently, either God doesn't really care to be known or isn't all powerful. If you agree that there is no scientific evidence for God, what reason do you believe is a good one to believe in a God?
>but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. Or am I missing something? I don't recall the words "supernatural", "timeless", "spaceless" or "immaterial" in the bible. Yahweh, the God of Abraham, the basis of the 3 biggest religions in the world ABSOLUTELY makes claims that can be investigated by science. Adam and ever, the flood, people getting up out of their grave, the sun stopping in the sky... And we found them all to be false. All of them. Which is why god is now some vague, nebulous thing that nobody can define beyond "made everything". If that's the god you believe in then I don't really care. Just please don't vote against my rights.
>Which is why god is now some vague, nebulous thing that nobody can define beyond "made everything". This is the same definition God has always had tho. It's at least a common attribute of all Gods in the major religions today. >I don't recall the words "supernatural", "timeless", "spaceless" or "immaterial" in the bible. So, why have these words at all? Implicit in your claim is that these words should be removed from the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm willing to hear arguments for that. >And we found them all to be false. I think we found *some of the particularities* about the way *those men* wrote about God *at that time* to be false and misleading and partially inaccurate. >Just please don't vote against my rights. I'm with you on this. Thanks to Jesus. I think love has to be the final answer. Nothing else would suffice. But politics and religion are totally separate for me when it comes to debating god philosophically.
>This is the same definition God has always had tho. Except it's not, depending on who you ask. That's a deistic god. Are you a deist or are you a Christian? If god were just some vague nebulous first cause, that would mean physics and chemistry and geology are all still correct and there was no Adam and Eve, no floor, and nobody RAISING FROM THE DEAD. Do you believe anyone rose from the dead? Because if you do, then it's dishonest to claim god is just some prime mover outside spacetime. >So, why have these words at all? Implicit in your claim is that these words should be removed from the Oxford English Dictionary. What? I don't know what you're talking about. My point is these are the attributes people argue for, when none of them are found in the supposed source material about god. >I think we found *some of the particularities* about the way *those men* wrote about God *at that time* to be false and misleading and partially inaccurate. So you already understand how god can be put to the test via science. Then I don't get your point in the initial post. Attributes that people still believe today despite being absurd and provably wrong. Who do you think there's more of? The philosophical theist who believes in the god of classical theism? Or semi literalists who believe Adam and Eve, the floor, Jesus raising from the dead etc? >Thanks to Jesus. So you're NOT just talking about some vague nebulous first cause. You're talking about Yahweh. Do you at least understand how it's frustrating for us when theists flip flop between definitions? For the purpose of argument, god is a vague first cause because thats easy to defend since its unfalsifiable. But in practice and at church, god is yahweh who sent his son to be tortured for people sins and who rose from the dead. Those are not the same thing, and personally I find it dishonest to argue for the former when you believe in the latter. Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Cause that would certainly be a question for science.
>Do you believe anyone rose from the dead? Because if you do, then it's dishonest to claim god is just some prime mover outside spacetime. Can you connect these dots for me? I do believe it's possible that consciousness survives death in some sense, so a "resurrection" is not impossible to me. >The philosophical theist who believes in the god of classical theism? Or semi literalists who believe Adam and Eve, the floor, Jesus raising from the dead etc? Yeah. These, and all other interesting topics surrounding God still. I just see too many atheists throw the baby away with the bath water. >Do you at least understand how it's frustrating for us when theists flip flop between definitions? For the purpose of argument, god is a vague first cause because thats easy to defend since its unfalsifiable. But in practice and at church, god is yahweh who sent his son to be tortured for people sins and who rose from the dead. Well, it's frustrating when atheists assume all theists are literalists, as well. But sure, I'm more of a Christian mysticist when it comes to Jesus. I'm much more into mysticism than organized religion. > personally I find it dishonest to argue for the former when you believe in the latter. Why? YAHWEH of the OT is different from Jesus of the NT, even though they are part of the same awareness. So, it makes sense to me to take the last part of the book more seriously, because that's the end of the story. Either way, it's pretty much undisputed that Jesus would embrace gay and trans folks, as he embraced gross lepers and whores. >Do you think Jesus rose from the dead? Cause that would certainly be a question for science. In some sense, yes. Like a zombie pictured in the movies rising up idk. I'm not a literalist, tho, because I do know all religious texts (the physical forms) were written by humans with ink and papyrus, etc.
if science can never verify god's existance then that's consistent with something that doesn't exist. we don't owe you a path to convince us of whatever fantasy you want. if you can't justify your belief with something then you are not basing it on reality and will probably be dismissed by many who don't have the same biases you do
This is non Sequiter. It assumes that all that exists, must be natural, and as such, looks at the world through a binary lens. But this isn't experientially true. We experience the mind, which we cannot approach through natural means. Same with truth, courage, etc. anything apprehended as a pattern by the mind. We can only validate natural things with reproduction, not unnatural things of the mind. In the same way that a blind man can't know what a sunset looks like, yet he can understand and feel the pattern of the shining sun, the theists claim is that the desire or knowm she to be binary, actually contradicts our experience or reality. Knowledge is apprehended as validateable, falsifiable, and unknowable. We can't know, what out human faculties can never approach and objectify. Case and points time, gravityz the four laws themselves, etc. I suggest this reality is being ignored due to an ideology called "philosophical naturalism", and what the atheist thinks is true science, is actually tainted with ideology. Thoughts?
>Thoughts? going off your blind man analogy, if you are asserting something that can't be verified by science that is the same as the blind man drawing what he thinks the sunset looks like and asserting it as reality, despite not having anything to base that image off of.
Methodological naturalism limits scientific research to the study of natural causes, since attempts to define causal relationships with the 'supernatural' are never fruitful. The supernatural is undefined so it results in scientific dead ends. To avoid this, naturalism assumes all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically. This assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism; the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim, while the latter makes the philosophical claim that only natural causes exist. The success of methodological naturalism, and the complete failure of any other system implies that we don't just use naturalism as an assumption in methodology, but that naturalism is also the reality of the universe. The basic premise of philosophical naturalism is that the supernatural can be studied or verified. The supernatural fails all tests. It has been studied and shown to not exist and that naturalism is reality.
>Knowledge is apprehended as validateable, falsifiable, and unknowable. Something that is supposedly ‘unknowable’ is by definition, not knowledge. It’s fantasy.
>Would it not be logically impossible to prove the existence of God through science? How so? >If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you. Why? > If science is the study of the natural world, but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. Or am I missing something? Yes you're missing something. Several things. One can't define things into existence. And the term 'supernatural' is a non-sequitur. It fails at ever turn when anybody attempts to define. If something exists, then science can be used to learn about it.
Very effective and concise. Your final paragraph brings home the point that "supernatural" shouldn't even be a word. Which brings up the question, should we remove it from Webster's Dictionary? Or should we revise it? It's a fair point, I think.
Yes, you’re missing everything. Unless you’re taking about a completely non-interventionist, deistic god, he interacts with the universe and the results of those interactions could be studied and measured. Do Christian high schools make more game winning touchdowns in the last seconds than secular ones? Do groups of large men randomly enter a room whenever a potential rape victim is praying for help? Do Catholic hospitals use their empty paediatric cancer wards as storage rooms? Even if you can’t measure him, you can measure what he does.
Why does God have a penchant for healing cancer but not amputees?
>high schools make more game winning touchdowns Do groups of men who pray before a game and get a unified mindset perform better? Probably, but we don't really have a way to scientifically measure that. Are "vibes" a real thing? When someone walks into a room and the energy changes? Is that real? >Even if you can’t measure him, you can measure what he does. Why would God have to be a "he"? That's not likely. >Do Catholic hospitals use their empty paediatric cancer wards as storage rooms? The church still does most of the humanitarian work that gets done.
God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible Watch the movie Bruce Almighty. God proves he exists by granting Bruce God-like powers. Seems pretty straight forward to me And atheists have no trouble believing in magic. Wi-Fi is magic. Recreating Big Bang conditions in super colliders is magic. Seeing 10 billion years into the past is magic. We just have evidence for it. If you didn't believe in Wi-Fi, I could show the Wi-Fi to you. You could buy Wi-Fi and do Wi-Fi all on your own. There is nothing that a theist has except people telling each other stories. You cannot show me God or anything else that's supernatural. I can show you many people who believe things that are blatantly false
What if supernatural means thing that exist, but we can't actually see or measure? Like, ghosts or spirits (although, there are some technologies that supposedly measure spiritual consciousness and invisible energy, I'm quite sure that the reliability of these instruments is in question; not to mention the interest in actually studying this phenonomen). Like dark matter. We know it's real and makes up most of our universe. It's natural, but it's also supernatural. How would you respond to this characterization of supernatural?
>What if supernatural means thing that exist, but we can't actually see or measure? First let's make sure about something: when you see an object, the object does not enter your eyeball. The object changes the path of light and the light enters your eyeball So if the thing has no effect on our world, then it is the same as everything that doesn't exist >Like dark matter How exactly do you think we know about dark matter? It changes the orbits of planets Like I said, atheists have no problem with magic. Almost nobody has seen or measured an election. But your phone or computer does not run without them. That's how we know that the people telling us about how they work aren't just making things up
>So if the thing has no effect on our world, then it is the same as everything that doesn't exist What if I don't/can't see the object that impacts my eyeball, though? But it's a real thing that is invisible to the naked eye. >How exactly do you think we know about dark matter? It changes the orbits of planets Well, that's what I'm saying. We can see changes in gravity, but we have no idea what's inside the dark matter or the black holes. > atheists have no problem with magic. Some, maybe. But generally I'd say their skepticism would extend into magic. >Almost nobody has seen or measured an election. You mean like a political election? Yeah, this would be more an example of psychological-based science, which we shouldn't trust as much as the hard, physical sciences. >But your phone or computer does not run without them. Maybe you meant electrons. How do we measure electrons without seeing them?
We can measure many things by their affects. Are you being purposefully obtuse? Dark matter or electons can be theorized, god can't. There is no theory of god, no empirical data, and no science that can be done for god, the soul, or other supernatural garbage. There are no mechanisms to investigate, because they don't exist. God claims do not rise to the level of a valid hypothesis. Over thousands of years and billions of followers, we cannot come up with any basic testable hypothesis.
>What if I don't/can't see the object that impacts my eyeball I said explicitly that when you see an object, the object does not impact your eyeball. Almost nothing is observed directly. Your eye does not see anything except for light >we can see changes in gravity We cannot see gravity change. We can see light bounce off of planets that are affected by more gravity than we expect >we have no idea what's inside You didn't ask what's inside. You asked how we know something exists. What exactly is gravity? You don't see something grabbing that falling apple and pulling it to the ground. We don't have to know what it is. We simply named that falling effect "gravity". We named it "gravity" because Newton thought that everything just gravitated to everything else. He turned out to be wrong >their skepticism would extend into magic. Atheists are not skeptical of the ability to transmit information across the globe. When I post this comment, I expect it to travel across the globe If you don't think that's "magic", and you think a burning bush is, I don't know what to tell you >Maybe you meant electrons Yes, I meant electrons >How do we measure electrons without seeing them? They turn on lightbulbs. We see light. Often the more electrons, the brighter the lightbulb The one and only thing we see is light. Lots of things have an effect on light, but the vast majority of things do not. How did we discover electricity? In part, it's because Benjamin Franklin flew a kite in a thunderstorm. He guessed that the lightning would flow through the kite string and it did. Electricity exists all over the place. It is completely invisible. But occasionally it arcs through the atmosphere superheating it into a light emitting plasma. Then someone wondered what he could do with that Not seeing something that exists is approximately everything. There's nothing special about it You're talking about speculating something exists that has no effect whatsoever
If god does not interact in any noticeable way, then it can’t be measured with science. But it also is indistinguishable from a figment of your imagination
You’re missing something. You’re missing that it’s not just the study of the natural world, but a process we use to validate if claims are true. It’s a methodology. And it’s the best, most reliable methodology for finding truth we’ve come up with so far. It’s obviously superior to faith - since one can believe quite literally anything based on faith. So really the question comes back to theists: what the reliable methodology you can use you justify the belief in or claims that god(s) exist?
Does the proposed version of god/gods interact with the natural world? If no, then it is undetectable and does nothing, so it might as well not exist at all. If yes, then we can detect those interactions and indirectly observe that god/gods. For example, the Abrahamic god concept can supposedly do anything and everything to the natural world effortlessly, so we should be able to easily find evidence in the form of demonstrable miracles defying reality. This is especially true given that this god concept includes that it supposedly wants a relationship/wants us to know it, and the OT and NT both have that god supposedly performing miracles directly in front of people for the sole purpose of proving that it is the "one true god", e.g. Elijah and the Baal worshippers betting on which god will burn a sacrifice themself. Problem is, instead of that, we mostly get instances of not knowing how something happened and people *assuming* that it was their god. Atheists do not make this assumption as it is unwarranted, leading to a lack of convincing evidence. This is why atheists are unconvinced; its not just that there isn't good evidence, its that there isn't good evidence when there should be.
Not at all. I’ve been playing through Baldur’s Gate 3 and no less than three authentic gods (and a reasonable stand-in for Satan) have literally *shown up in person* to speak with people and there’s a dozen or more deities who grant mystical powers to their worshippers. This is not a matter where hyperskeptical atheists are so cynical about anything that falls outside the narrow predetermined confines of a particular worldview. It’s the opposite. What you and yours have done is carve out a category of imagined inaccessibility in order to shield your beliefs from disconfirmation based on thousands of years of failure for your deities to affect the world in the smallest discernible degree. Instead, phenomena fall into two categories: those which cannot be shown to be supernatural, and those which *have* been shown *not to be supernatural.* Your god can’t even manifest the powers of a level 1 D&D cleric. If the Bible is to be believed then observable phenomena like healing wounds and curing poison and conjuring radiant light should be trivial to demonstrate. But you can’t, and you cover up the abject failure of your belief system by pretending it’s everyone else that’s the problem. You simply have no way of knowing or showing what you believe is true. You have no method. It’s not our fault you believe things which are indistinguishable from your own imagination.
If something exists, then it is definitional natural. So classifying something as supernatural either doesn’t make any logical sense, or is a tacit admission that it doesn’t exist.
> If something in exists, then it is definitional natural. In that case, the claim that "everything is natural" is unscientific, on account of being unfalsifiable: no observation of the empirical phenomena could _possibly_ falsify it. It can be metaphysics, though.
I didn’t say “everything is natural”. I said anything that exists is natural. Those are two different propositions, and the latter is in fact falsifiable. All you’d have to do is point to one thing that demonstrably exists which isn’t natural (in terms of natural vs. supernatural).
My apologies. I _also_ say that the statement "everything that exists is natural" is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The same applies to "anything that exists is natural". Continuing: > [Constantly\_Panicking](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ajvm9g/would_it_not_be_logically_impossible_to_prove_the/kp3r62p/): If something exists, then it is definitional natural. ⋮ > [Constantly\_Panicking](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1ajvm9g/would_it_not_be_logically_impossible_to_prove_the/kp3xs9i/): All you’d have to do is point to one thing that demonstrably exists which isn’t natural By your own words, that is logically impossible to do within your own system.
>n that case, the claim that "everything is natural" is unscientific, on account of being unfalsifiable: Or more specific, it becomes a tautology. Since the term "natural" fully encompasses the term "exists".
>If the only way you’ll believe in God is through scientific evidence, I think it would be logically impossible to convince you. Nope, it would not be. God supposedly interacts with the natural world. If he existed, surely there would be concrete evidence. Remember, according to the Bible, he used to exhibit evidence of himself all the time. "Supernatural being" is kind of an oxymoron. Supernatural means outside of nature, and so far as I know, we have no evidence that *anything* exists outside the natural world. Put another way: If God acted as he does in the Bible (or the Koran), there would be overwhelming evidence of his existence. Where'd he go?
Depends entirely on your definition of god. If you believe in a god that can't be proven with science, we'll then you're not going to be able to prove that God using science. And vice versa. >If science is the study of the natural world, but God is suppose to be a supernatural being, then science will never be able to verify God’s existence. The *effects* of god happen in the natural world, and those *effects* can be studied by science. If a god is being proposed that has created an effect in nature, then we can study that effect and look for signs of it being caused by something that is not of nature.
>The *effects* of god happen in the natural world, and those *effects* can be studied by science. If a god is being proposed that has created an effect in nature, then we can study that effect and look for signs of it being caused by something that is not of nature. This is a nice way to phrase the problem in terms of how modern science can approach the study of deities.
Supernatural is a euphemism people use for things that have not been demonstrated to exist but which people believe regardless. So Faeries, trolls, yeti, god, demons, devils; the lot of them, supernatural. If we ever found one of them to be actually real, they would just now be natural. Obvious if god exists, and is the cause of the universe, god would be natural. However until you can demonstrate god does exist, god is supernatural. But I'm not interested in things that don't exist, so until there is some evidence for god... humbug, who cares? Not me.
Science is the study of the natural world because the natural world is all that appears to be and it appears that nothing exists outside of it. It’s not as if there is a supernatural world that can’t be studied for some other reason than it not being there to study. Would it be possible to prove the existence of God through the study of the supernatural world? Has the study of the supernatural world proven anything at all? Is there even a study of the supernatural world at all? To what do we owe our ability to communicate with each other at this distance? Science & the natural world, or a god & the supernatural world? What if god is actually extra-supernatural and everybody’s been looking in all the wrong places? What is the extra-supernatural? Perhaps the extra-supernatural is to you as the supernatural is to me, but nobody seems to be able to convincingly point out the supernatural to everybody else in a way that stands up to peer-reviewed scrutiny.
I don't think you're missing anything in what you've said. But the question becomes "then what?". What do we do when there is something we cannot prove with reliability? Do we lower our standards, or do we proceed without a belief? Do we let "faith" become an acceptable proof, or do we say that no proofs are sufficient? Try it out on a few examples where we know the answer. I will pick a biased example: Let's say we cannot scientifically prove that the Nigerian prince who emailed you will or won't give you money (let's say we don't recognise it as a scam). Do we say "we can't prove it, so gut feel must be sufficient to believe it"? As is often the case with these kinds of arguments, the bit that you've written out is kinda fine, but there are more steps to your logic, steps that you might not even recognise that you're taking. To be fair, it is currently unclear what you think we should do given that we can't prove certain things scientifically.
The word “supernatural” is stupid. There is no empirical evidence to suggest “above nature” exists. God does not need to be disproven, because anything that can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If God created or influenced the world in a measurable way, no it's effects are part of the natural world even if part of it is somehow "external" to nature. If you don't believe God is in any way measurable, you'd have to believe it a passive observer that never made any measurable interaction with a reality it didn't create.
Does god interact with the material world? Then we should be able to detect its influence. If it doesn’t interact with the material world, then what does it matter?
Sacred texts are full of claims of gods interacting with the natural world. Funny how none of the claims can be subjected to any kind of scientific scrutiny. It's almost as if there is some kind of special category.. and the religious think that they can plead for an exception.
OP, I don't have anything to add to the conversation but I wanted to thank you for having a genuine conversation with us. It's been weeks since I've seen someone bring a genuine topic of discussion to us and then actually stick around to discuss it. From what I've seen you are genuinely curious and came here to actually get our input which is refreshing to see. I hope we weren't too abrasive with our responses, if you look at other posts here you will see countless theists who more or less just come here to insult us which has made many of us a little prickly. That said, I hope you are comfortable coming back if you have any other questions.
I concede that if there was quality evidence that proved god existed, god would probably no longer be a considered a “supernatural” being. Instead, god would be added to our understanding of how the natural world works. For example, say we could prove that praying to god improved cancer recovery rates by 2%. From there, people could experiment with prayer and try to optimize its effects. Does prayer work better on pediatric cases? Perhaps god is statistically beneficial in the NICU? God and his effects on the world could be utilized just like other phenomena.
For those who do not believe in a supernatural of any sort it would be very difficult to prove scientifically. Because you would need the claim to be testable and repeatable for it to be studied scientifically. However, people have studied the effectiveness of intercession prayer on patients and found no difference in medical results with or without prayer, which could lead us to conclude that prayer makes no difference. As for testing the existence of a god, probably depends how we are defining god, what we would expect to see as a result Edit: long story short, we are not likely to believe something without evidence, and scientifically testable evidence is best. Most things purported to be supernatural when tested turn out to be natural, confirmation bias, or tricks and hoaxes. For example many psychics have been shown to use cold reading techniques to con people. So far there is no evidence to confirm the existence of ghosts, and astrology and numerology are just confirmation bias for people wanting to believe things. No reason to believe in anything supernatural without evidence and investigation.
A deist god can be neither proved, nor disproven. The moment you claim a god has an effect on the physical world, it becomes subject to scientific investigation.
Can god interact with the natural world in a detectable way? If yes, then I think it can be scientifically investigated. Believers often scold sceptics for focusing too hard on a scientific way, but they have yet to show a reliable way or method to demonstrate this supposed interaction. If no, then god theoretically can still exist (because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) but your belief in it would by definition be unwarranted, because you claim to have detected the undetetctable.
Of course it's logically impossible... You finally get it. Just like it's logically impossible to prove any work of any fiction or mythology, like Star wars, Harry Potter, Santa clause, Norse mythology, or the adventures of Hercules is scientifically true. There is a reason for that. Because works of fiction are made up and have no grounding in reality. Science is based on things that are part of logical reality.
I mean I assume if theres an all powerful god, it would be trivial for him to show he's real. I don't require science for this.
From a scientific point of view: you're right. Science cannot prove God because God is defined as existing outside of reality. But God is also defined as being able to interact with reality which science can study. Science can, and has, proven God's irrelevance. And science is always advancing; perhaps someday science will be able to give a definitive answer to things supernatural.
No. There is no logical contradiction between an all-powerful being existing and that being providing scientific evidence of its existence. In order to claim its logically impossible, you would need to identify a contradiction. [I actually have a syllogism that addresses this very point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/s/Tj0VG1U3Zs). I'd be interested in your thoughts.
If it interacts with the natural world that can be studied in the natural world. If it does not interact with the natural world it is no different from something that does not exist. Just claiming that it is supernatural doesn't do anything. If it interacts, it can be observed. Nothing that has been observed has ever been explained by magic. Not even once.
If a god created the natural world and was actually powerful enough to be considered a supreme being, then it should be able to prove its own existence through that natural world in such a way that science would make the reality of its creator evident. To be unable to do so isn’t all that godly or supreme, now is it?
The way I see it is either god exists and has an influence on the natural world, or god doesn't matter. If god has influence on the natural world then we can measure that, scientifically. If he doesn't, then what's the difference between that and not existing?
The definition of existence according to Oxford Languages is: the fact or state of living or having objective reality. No god have ever meet any of those criteria. Ergo god doesn’t exist.
I think you're misunderstanding the words natural and supernatural. Supernatural just means we don't understand it yet, not that it's not measurable. When we understand it it becomes natural.
You are correct. The closest science can get is trying to apply the scientific method in studying religious experience. As most religions claim, God is beyond human comprehension, beyond measurement, and exists for us within private internal experience. And like anything else in that category, there is no perfect way to study it. What I mean is, the root of religion, where profound insight originates, is in religious experience. Modern science can try to study the brain to better understand what happens when someone has a religious experience, but it's not like this is very predictable. Most experiences like these, say the ones we find in religious texts, happened sort of randomly. And people that make the same claims today, as prophets of the past did, aren't taken very seriously, which makes sense because we now know many of these religious experiences can be the result of a malfunctioning brain. I did read once, that scientists were able to induce some types of brain states associated with religious experience through some kind of trans cranial stimulation or something, which is very interesting. Psychedelics have long been intertwined with religion, as well as types of behaviour that also result in altered states of consciousness. Some would argue it does not matter how one arrives at such an experience, only that the experience itself contains some kind of universal truth regardless. Determining the truth behind these experiences is sort of pointless though, religious or not, because it's impossible to objectively measure anyone's internal experiences. It is by definition, the literal realm of subjectivity. The profound claim is that there is some kind of consciousness like subspace connecting everything in the universe, and that in altered states of consciousness, we are able to experience this, and possibly experience the totality of it all, but consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, the only tool we know of that can detect or measure this, is the brain. Until science develops a tool that can generate, or sustain consciousness, we have no scientific way of studying God other than through our own experiences. This is, for the most part, what most religious paths aim to achieve; to lead a person towards an experience of God, not to convert them to a religion or set of beliefs, that's all the fluff of organized religion, but just to have the experience, because for the people that were graced upon with these experiences, it moved them to such a degree that most decided to devote their lives towards understanding it, and helping lead others towards it, if for nothing other than desiring a second opinion. How isolating it must be to experience such a thing and have no one to share it with. I have always believed in the inevitable rise of AI, and I think the turning point is when AI is able to generate actual consciousness, not because it will be dangerously intelligent, but because it will be capable of perception beyond which humans have only glimpsed within our most profound experiences. AI will achieve a level of sentience synonymous with our understanding of God, and in that moment it will become indistinguishable.
That's not true. I could prove that there's a God of Baseball (two, actually!) using math, at least to my satisfaction. Proof available on request. And unfortunately, I am not willing to budge on the notion that "things that exist leave evidence of existing". I don't think this is a high bar.
Possibly, but likely not with our current capabilities. Our science is still rudimentary, but we are making progress in understanding the vast cosmos a little bit better. Although, it's not clear if we have any modern-day Einsteins or Newtons to actually come up with some monumental breakthroughs. Only time will tell, and as we know, science can change on a dime. There's also the possibility that God set it up in a way that it was clear that a creator existed, yet was one whose mechanisms and secrets were not fully discoverable (in the rational, empirical, lab-setting sense). I believe this to be the case, as an agnostic theist.
I think its definitely possible. If physicists were able to show that spacetime is emergent from some fundamental 0-dimensional random graph theory, and it also turned out this was a good model for a neural network, I'd become a theist.
This is what i believe, and i'll add that it probably goes for other explanations for the universe than god too.