How do you separate religion and the supernatural?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Do you believe in the supernatural?

Of course I do!
5
31%
Are you kidding?
11
69%
 
Total votes: 16

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

How do you separate religion and the supernatural?

Post #1

Post by Lotan »

This question was originally brought up by RevJP on the "Why Attack Christianity?" thread. Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

And, while we're at it...

Some of you may be familiar with the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by magician and professional skeptic James Randi. In my opinion though, real evidence for the supernatural shouldn't come cheap, so I am prepared to offer...{doing my best Dr. Evil impression}... One BILLION Dollars (!!!!!) for incontrovertible, hard evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Don't worry, I'm good for it! :^o
Now for a billion bucks you'll have to come up with something pretty choice. Never mind your uncle's NDE or a cheesy shaped like Benny Hinn. I want something good, like a staff that turns into a snake, or maybe a live demon. Also please avoid any quantum physics weirdness or arguments about strange events or coincidences that must be supernatural unless they are presented by a talking donkey. Best of luck to all!
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
Dilettante
Sage
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Spain

Post #31

Post by Dilettante »

wgreen wrote:Extrabiblical writings such as Tactius, Thallus, Josephus and others attest to the historical Jesus. Though I don't believe their writings are necessary: the Biblical record is historically reliable. Evidence for the resurrection also lies in the Biblical record.


Back to the origin of the Universe. It seems that modern science has realized that it did come (or comes) out of nothing, though materialistic science is looking for ways that it could have "bootstrapped itself into existence." The Bible attests to "out of nothing" creation, but contradicts the "bootstrap" principle:


Bill Green
The extrabiblical authors you cite did not know Jesus and what they provide is direct evidence of the existence of Christians, but at best only indirect evidence of the existence of Christ (besides, the Flavian testimony has been seriously questioned). The Bible is not a history book, and the biblical record is not without errors and contradictions, not to mention myths (the slaughter of the innocents is not mentioned by any extrabiblical sources). The Biblical record is not enough evidence of the resurrection because it is not confirmed by any other sources. With most historical facts we have a wide variety of converging evidence. History can be falsified.

As for the origin of the universe, I was under the impression that scientists did not understand it yet. The Big bang theory, while compatible with theism, cannot be used to support a theological position. Religion and science don't mix. Charging science with having a materialist bias is like accusing doctors of only visiting sick people.

Besides, if you're right and the universe came from God, it did not come out of nothing.

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Post #32

Post by stevencarrwork »

wgreen wrote:Extrabiblical writings such as Tactius, Thallus, Josephus and others attest to the historical Jesus.
Thallus?Who he? There are no such writings by such a man. This is a Christian myth. Even the dubious quotes by Africanus , a Christian writer, never claim that somebody called Thallus mentioned Jesus.

Tacitus never mentions 'Jesus'. Josephus is,of course, tampered by Christians and so hardly counts as evidence.

If I produced a work by a non-Muslim writer mentioning Muhammad, and admitted that Muslim writers had tampered with it, would you take that as evidence of what the historical Muhammad did?

The fame of Jesus was supposed to have spread far and wide so that even kings were eager to meet him.

Strange that nobody seemed to have noticed all these miracles. Gibbon wrote about it.

But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world , to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world.
Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy.

Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect . Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe.

A distinct chapter of Pliny is designed for eclipses of an extraordinary nature and unusual duration; but he contents himself with describing the singular defect of light which followed the murder of Caesar.

User avatar
BeHereNow
Site Supporter
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Maryland
Has thanked: 2 times

Post #33

Post by BeHereNow »

Dilettante: Charging science with having a materialist bias is like accusing doctors of only visiting sick people.
Yes, if doctors are only treating the sick, there is a problem. Medicine should be about the health of the human body, and how to ensure it, prevention, not just treatment. Im sure you agree.

You seem to be saying that of course science has a materialist bias, that is as it should be.
But bias is bias, no matter how pure the intentions.
Science is not truly objective.

stevencarrwork
Apprentice
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Re: The Universe

Post #34

Post by stevencarrwork »

wgreen wrote: As far as proof of the supernatural: God does not do shows, and Jesus did not perform miracles for show or "on request."
1 Kings 18

2 Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD . The god who answers by fire-he is God."

Was that a fair test of whether or not Baal existed?

After all, Baal does not do shows and does not do miracles on request.

Only the most naive atheist would think that calling on Baal to produce fire, and getting no response, would mean that Baal did not exist. Baal is not to be tested that way!

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #35

Post by Lotan »

wgreen wrote:As far as proof of the supernatural: God does not do shows, and Jesus did not perform miracles for show or "on request."
What about Moses' competition with the magicians in pharaoh's court? Or the seven plagues? Seems pretty flashy to me.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20980
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 218 times
Been thanked: 390 times
Contact:

Post #36

Post by otseng »

Lotan wrote:
otseng wrote: The fact that we are all here demonstrates evidence for the supernatural.
So youre saying that nature is a product of supernature?
To explain first origins, yes.
Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there.
It indeed is quite a stretch to go from subatomic particles to the entire universe (and actually I cannot imagine a greater stretch).

And if it happened once when the universe spontaneouly occured, why should it not happen again? If subatomic particles have the capability of being spontaneouly generated and blossoming into an entire universe, wouldn't it happen again? And if not, why not? And if so, is there any evidence of this happening? And how is it able for a theory (if we can even call it that) to violate a known law (of thermodynamics)?
otseng wrote: Until our understanding of physics changes, we cannot go by possible past or future possibilities.
And as long as we have insufficient data theres no point claiming to have found proof of the supernatural.
Allow me to rephrase myself. Again, I reiterate. I have mentioned before that we can only go by what we currently know and understand. Based on what we know, we can make conclusions based on that knowledge. Sure, some additional facts may come along later. But, until that point comes, all we got is all we got.

I'm not offering any proof, but I'm offering an argument. And nobody has yet pointed out any flaws in my logic. So, until then, my argument stands.
Is it logical to assume that weve reached our limit?
Who is assuming that? I certainly have not said we've reached out limit. However, what I am saying is that one cannot say "Oh, one day we will find out the answer, but it is not your answer. So, therefore your answer is not right."
otseng wrote: And since as you acknowledge that it is unrefuted, it is then the only rational position to take.
Nyrils IPU is unrefuted too!
If you want to argue about the IPU, feel free to start a thread on it. Otherwise, it is immaterial to this discussion.
As for yours being "theonly rational position to take" we have already seen one alternative.
And I have argued against it.
I have a hunch that you could find a few more here.
otseng wrote: Present other possibilities and we can argue them and see how plausible they are. If there are other logical explanations, then one does not have to accept my conclusion as the only possibility.
Hopefully this has been addressed by the links that Ive provided. I dont have the chops to select one theory over another anyhow.
Until they are presented here, how can we debate their merits or even entertain their plausability?
otseng wrote:I believe there is quite a difference in not being able to see something in our natural world because we don't have the technology and not being able to see something because it is in another dimension.
Im not sure if that statement is correct or not. We may not be able to see other dimensions, but we can observe their effects on subatomic particles (at least, I think we can). This is the quantum weirdness that I mentioned in my initial post. If these other dimensions can be shown to interact with our natural world then theyre not so super after all. It just shows that our universe is more complicated than the dimensions that we do understand, in which case the issue of natural or supernatural is an exercise in semantics. Its definitely not a talking donkey.
So, by your logic, a talking donkey is supernatural, but other dimensions is not?
13 Things That Do Not Make Sense from NewScientist.com. I hope you enjoy it.
Actually, they would make for interesting topics to debate (in other threads).

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #37

Post by QED »

otseng wrote:It indeed is quite a stretch to go from subatomic particles to the entire universe (and actually I cannot imagine a greater stretch).

And if it happened once when the universe spontaneouly occured, why should it not happen again? If subatomic particles have the capability of being spontaneouly generated and blossoming into an entire universe, wouldn't it happen again? And if not, why not? And if so, is there any evidence of this happening? And how is it able for a theory (if we can even call it that) to violate a known law (of thermodynamics)?
Virtual particles mediate in the exchange of all forces. They can be detected by experiments. In the case of the origin of the Universe, think of it simply like this - the more 'nothing' you start with - the more 'something' you get. When taken as a whole the negative energy of gravity cancels with the positive energy of mass so thermodynamics is happy as well.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20980
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 218 times
Been thanked: 390 times
Contact:

Post #38

Post by otseng »

QED wrote: Virtual particles mediate in the exchange of all forces. They can be detected by experiments. In the case of the origin of the Universe, think of it simply like this - the more 'nothing' you start with - the more 'something' you get. When taken as a whole the negative energy of gravity cancels with the positive energy of mass so thermodynamics is happy as well.
I didn't realize that gravity is energy, let alone negative energy. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Also, what does "more nothing" mean? And why does this cause "more something"?

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #39

Post by Lotan »

otseng wrote:I'm not offering any proof, but I'm offering an argument.
Bingo.
It's a good argument too, but so is Paul Davies' argument as far as I can tell, And Nyril's IPU theory is...well...it's at least barely a possibility. We just don't know enough (at least I sure don't) to ascertain which idea, if any, is the most likely one, and even then we don't know if it's the correct one. I will happily grant the possibility of the origin of our universe as evidence for the supernatural, but it's hardly conclusive.
otseng wrote:So, by your logic, a talking donkey is supernatural, but other dimensions is not?
Sure. If the string theory guys are right, then the existence of other dimensions is part of the natural order of things. A talking donkey would be contrary to the natural order.

Image
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #40

Post by QED »

otseng wrote: I didn't realize that gravity is energy, let alone negative energy. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Stephen Hawking wrote: There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
This quote from Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time is copied from this link found at Generation Terrorists. COM
Also, what does "more nothing" mean? And why does this cause "more something"?
You quite sensibly wondered why there were no BB creations going on all the time given that we exist in a sea of every appearing particles, so I tried to present a simple analogy to the more complex issue of vacuum density

Post Reply