Can the Laws of Nature be temporarily altered or suspended

[ytrewq]

Modern science is based on the assumption that the so-called Laws of Nature are fixed, and that temporary and/or localized variations or suspensions do not occur.

A supernatural event may be defined as one that could only occur if the Laws of Nature were temporarily altered or suspended, so the question being asked is essentially the same as whether supernatural events can occur.

Here are some examples of supernatural events under this definition.

(a) You are holding a heavy (10kg) stone. Suddenly you feel the stone become lighter, then weightless, then it starts pulling upwards. In surprise, you let go, and the stone falls upwards, away from the earth rather than towards it, and accelerates upwards into the sky and out of sight. In scientific terms, the Law of Gravitational Attraction has been temporarily altered (reversed) for this stone. Is this possible?

(b) A massive (3000kg, or 3 ton) tree branch has fallen on your child. Although the main weight has been taken on the ground, your child is nonetheless pinned between the branch and the ground, and screaming out that they cannot breath. You attempt to lift the branch, but it weighs 3000kg, so you cannot lift it, but of course you try anyway. Only a supernatural event can help you and save the life of your child. The Law of Gravity could be temporarily altered, so just for a few seconds, the branch weighed only 50kg. Is this possible? Alternatively, you could temporarily acquire superhuman strength, and for a few seconds be able to lift the 3000kg, which would normally snap your tendons or bones. Is this possible?

(c) Your mobile phone stops working, but there is nothing whatsoever physically wrong with it. Instead, one of the Laws of Physics that make computers work become temporarily altered or suspended such that your computer stops working. Is this possible?

All of the $100 notes in your wallet sponaneously change into $10 notes, or your gold ingot spontaneously changes into a steel ingot, etc. Is this possible?

In my opinion, the answer to all these questions must surely be NO. As far as science is concerend the answer most certainly is NO, for all of the scientific knowledge gained over the past 200 years depends on fundamental Laws of nature being stable and reproducible, at different times and in different locations. It would be either a brave or foolish person that would dismiss the past 200 years of scientific knowledge with a wave of the hand.

However, regardless of what science says, through human experience, the very society in which we live has de-facto already answered answered NO to questions of this type. For example, our legal system will not (and could not possibly) allow or dispute evidence on the basis of a supernatural event having occured. Society would simply disintegrate into chaos if we had to seriously entertain the possibility of all potential supernatural events. Futhermore, almost every modern machine from cars to phones to computers simply could not work unless the underlying physical Laws were totally rock solid and reliable. Imagine taking your brand new malfunctioning computer back to the store, only to be told 'I'm terribly sorry sir, but there is nothing physically wrong with your computer. Unfortunately for you, the Laws of Nature upon which it relies for it's operation are unstable. Although unusual, this can happen.' Of course, nobody believes this. Do you?

There is, of course, a temptation to make 'exceptions' for the suspension or alteration of the Laws of Nature, when doing so makes possible an event that you wish to believe is possible. This is really just hypocrisy and wishful thinking. If your pet beliefs are entitled to such an exception, then of course so are mine, and so are everone else's, including the pet beliefs of every crackpot under the sun. Logical debate ceases altogether. Unless we can find evidence to the contrary, and none has ever been found, then (perhaps unfortunately) we need to accept that the Laws of Nature cannot be suspended or altered just because we would like it to be so, and get on with life.

[GADARENE]

so i asked this god a question and by way of firm reply he said, "i'm not the kind you have to wind up on sundays." i Anderson

you guys are brilliant. incredibly well versed in the sciences and logic.

if you don't mind (i hate to bother you over something so mundane and trite) when you get a chance, please explain how we got here, then make your arguments that god can't do jack
thanks

[GADARENE]

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Even the languages of angels.

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

how many of you guys attend worship services where these guidelines ensuring a translator is available, are followed? have you had the languages of the angels deciphered to the body? often glossolalia is abused

[GADARENE]

so i asked this god a question and by way of firm reply he said, "i'm not the kind you have to wind up on sundays." i Anderson

you guys are brilliant. incredibly well versed in the sciences and logic.

if you don't mind (i hate to bother you over something so mundane and trite) when you get a chance, please explain how we got here, then make your arguments that god can't do jack
thanks

i confess (good for the soul!) i didn't ask anticipating any kind of serious attempt at an answer. at the most fundamental level, the atheists' gods cannot approach this topic. it skews everything they think they have established.

i raised the issue merely to reinforce for the spiritual among you that our dear anti-christian debaters refuse even to broach this simple test.

[SailingCyclops]

at the most fundamental level, the atheists' gods cannot approach this topic. it skews everything they think they have established.

i raised the issue merely to reinforce for the spiritual among you that our dear anti-christian debaters refuse even to broach this simple test.

By definition atheists have no 'gods". That's a contradiction of terms. An oxymoron if you will.

What "simple test" would you be referring to?

[GADARENE]

at the most fundamental level, the atheists' gods cannot approach this topic. it skews everything they think they have established.

i raised the issue merely to reinforce for the spiritual among you that our dear anti-christian debaters refuse even to broach this simple test.

By definition atheists have no 'gods". That's a contradiction of terms. An oxymoron if you will.

What "simple test" would you be referring to?

i apologize for correcting you, but indeed atheists worship their god that there is "no god" with as much or more devotion than rattle snake handlers in Kentucky's bible basket.

how did we get here? and prove there is no god. start with these two simple samples.

[SailingCyclops]

i apologize for correcting you, but indeed atheists worship their god that there is "no god" ....

This makes no literal sense in the English language that I am literate in. It is not possible to "worship that there is 'no god'". I simply do not believe there is a god in the same way, and for the same reason I don't believe there there are ghosts, or UFOs. I see no evidence for a god, or for ghosts, or for UFOs, therefor I don't believe they exist. That's pretty simple, there is no "worship" involved, the concept of worship is as alien to me as the concept of a god. Please provide some evidence that atheists "worship" anything. Worship is a religious ritual, which no atheist I know of practices.

how did we get here?

Well, that's an involved scientific answer which has been discussed at length in many forums on this site. The short of it is simply the fact of evolution, which has been well demonstrated to be the way we became the species we currently are. There is no question about the fact of evolution. We still do not understand some of the particulars, and there is some disagreement about some of the specific mechanisms, but the overall fact of evolution is very well scientifically established. How did the first cell appear? I don't know. No one knows for sure, but we know it happened. There are a couple of interesting theories, but none of them have been proved yet.

and prove there is no god.

I frankly don't know what you mean by "god", there are as many concepts of god on these forums as there are folks posting here. Perhaps if you were to define this god of yours, I could at least tell you why I don't believe it exists. One can never prove a negative, especially when the thing being asked about is not defined.

So, define what you call god, and I will do my best to relate my point of view on it. Depending on how you define this god of yours will determine whether or not I can prove it exists or not. For instance, I can prove that the god Zeus does not exist, because we can go atop Mount Olympus and not find him there.

[Justin108]

at the most fundamental level, the atheists' gods cannot approach this topic. it skews everything they think they have established.

i raised the issue merely to reinforce for the spiritual among you that our dear anti-christian debaters refuse even to broach this simple test.

By definition atheists have no 'gods". That's a contradiction of terms. An oxymoron if you will.

What "simple test" would you be referring to?

i apologize for correcting you, but indeed atheists worship their god that there is "no god" with as much or more devotion than rattle snake handlers in Kentucky's bible basket.

how did we get here? and prove there is no god. start with these two simple samples.

Look up "burden of proof" then get back to us, ok? Ada boy

[TheTruth101]

This makes no literal sense in the English language that I am literate in. It is not possible to "worship that there is 'no god'". I simply do not believe there is a god in the same way, and for the same reason I don't believe there there are ghosts, or UFOs. I see no evidence for a god, or for ghosts, or for UFOs, therefor I don't believe they exist. That's pretty simple, there is no "worship" involved, the concept of worship is as alien to me as the concept of a god. Please provide some evidence that atheists "worship" anything. Worship is a religious ritual, which no atheist I know of practices.

Whats up with you and pointig out english grammar mistakes all the time? Were you a english professor or something? Dianiad (a member on this forum) was an English teacher all her life and she dosen't even correct member's grammatical errors on this forum. Is this some sort of rebuttel we shuold expect from you? If you can "get" what your oppoistion is trying to say, move on.

Defintion of God means one with "supreme power". Thats all it means.
Atheists go around thinking they are the supreme power as to the knowledge and logic and the way the world works. (lol), so yes, that would mean you are indeed "worshipping" yourself.

Well, that's an involved scientific answer which has been discussed at length in many forums on this site. The short of it is simply the fact of evolution, which has been well demonstrated to be the way we became the species we currently are. There is no question about the fact of evolution. We still do not understand some of the particulars, and there is some disagreement about some of the specific mechanisms, but the overall fact of evolution is very well scientifically established. How did the first cell appear? I don't know. No one knows for sure, but we know it happened. There are a couple of interesting theories, but none of them have been proved yet.

This rebuttel is actually funniest yet. So here you DO admit you don't know where a single cell came from, and it should be considered the grounds or the foundation of "evolution", yet you belive it to be your life saver. This is illogical and contradicts your belief system. Which is seen here by everyone that it is shallow indeed.

I frankly don't know what you mean by "god", there are as many concepts of god on these forums as there are folks posting here. Perhaps if you were to define this god of yours, I could at least tell you why I don't believe it exists. One can never prove a negative, especially when the thing being asked about is not defined.

So, define what you call god, and I will do my best to relate my point of view on it. Depending on how you define this god of yours will determine whether or not I can prove it exists or not. For instance, I can prove that the god Zeus does not exist, because we can go atop Mount Olympus and not find him there.

Look up the word in the dictiionary SailingCyclopys. It means one with "supreme power". The most powerful being.

[SailingCyclops]

This makes no literal sense in the English language that I am literate in. It is not possible to "worship that there is 'no god'". I simply do not believe there is a god in the same way, and for the same reason I don't believe there there are ghosts, or UFOs. I see no evidence for a god, or for ghosts, or for UFOs, therefor I don't believe they exist. That's pretty simple, there is no "worship" involved, the concept of worship is as alien to me as the concept of a god. Please provide some evidence that atheists "worship" anything. Worship is a religious ritual, which no atheist I know of practices.

Whats up with you and pointig out english grammar mistakes all the time? Were you a english professor or something? Dianiad (a member on this forum) was an English teacher all her life and she dosen't even correct member's grammatical errors on this forum. Is this some sort of rebuttel we shuold expect from you? If you can "get" what your oppoistion is trying to say, move on.

Well, I don't know why you launched into that nasty rant. When I read "worship that there is 'no god'" I honestly do not get what is being said. It's not a grammatical error, it simply can mean a lot of different things. Does it mean I worship the fact that there is no god? Does it mean I worship a thing called "no god"? It is ambiguous. Also, I do not ALWAYS point out peoples grammatical errors. I rarely if ever do. I asked in this case because the meaning of the words was unclear. BTW, I didn't ask you for clarification did I? I asked the original writer. Where do you come off defending somebody who needs no defense?

Defintion of God means one with "supreme power". Thats all it means.

Well, that's what many people called their gods. Thor, also was a supreme power, so was Quetzacotal of the Mayans, there are dozens of gods who claim "supreme power", which one do you call your god? Thor? Zeus? Minerva?

The term "supreme power" describes an attribute of a god, it does not define it. To define it, you have to tell us it's origins, where it get's it's "supreme power", is it a being? An animal being? Where does it live? Does it have a name? When and where did it come from? How do you know about it? That would be a definition.

Atheists go around thinking they are the supreme power as to the knowledge and logic and the way the world works. (lol), so yes, that would mean you are indeed "worshipping" yourself.

That's a terrible generalization, and as most generalizations go it's completely wrong. I don't think I am a supreme power, far from it, especially as to knowledge. The more I learn about the universe the more I know that I don't know much at all. Ignorance is what drives me to learn. I certainly don't know everything. Unlike christians, who seem to have an answer to everything, we atheists are quite knowledgeable about our ignorance.

AS far as self worship based on knowing everything? You have that completely backwards. We know that we know very little. That's what drives us to discover. What we know, or rather what we have a high confidence in that which we know, is based on evidence. I mean real evidence. Not Youtube videos, or monster horror movies, or magic tricks. Mythology written by ancient peoples and partially recovered from scrolls is not empirical evidence either. I mean real empirical evidence --a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Worship is a ritual performed by the religious, and has no place in an atheist's life. I do not worship anything or anybody ever.

This rebuttel is actually funniest yet. So here you DO admit you don't know where a single cell came from, and it should be considered the grounds or the foundation of "evolution", yet you belive it to be your life saver. This is illogical and contradicts your belief system. Which is seen here by everyone that it is shallow indeed.

No one knows where the first cell came from. It could have been abiogenesis, it could have been panspermia, it could have been something else. We know from archaeology and from geology that the earth was a ball of molten rock, there was nothing alive on it, then it cooled, and suddenly there was life. Life appeared from no life, and we don't know how that happened. That is the extent of what I know about the first cell, not much, certainly not as you smear, everything.

The origin of the first cell has nothing to do with evolution. It is basically the study of chemistry in the case of abiogenesis, or archeology and space exploration in the case of panspermia. All we know is there was no cells, then there were many. We are basically ignorant as to the how.

Evolution on the other hand deals with how that first cell evolved into all the life we see today. We have that part down pretty pat, with much irrefutable evidence from archaeology, paleontology, genetics, and biology. Evolution is not based in any way on the first cell. It deals strictly with how that first cell developed and evolved. You are confusing the two branches of science.

[TheTruth101]

@SailingCyclops

Well, that's what many people called their gods. Thor, also was a supreme power, so was Quetzacotal of the Mayans, there are dozens of gods who claim "supreme power", which one do you call your god? Thor? Zeus? Minerva?

The term "supreme power" describes an attribute of a god, it does not define it. To define it, you have to tell us it's origins, where it get's it's "supreme power", is it a being? An animal being? Where does it live? Does it have a name? When and where did it come from? How do you know about it? That would be a definition.

Well if you want to learn about the Abrahamic God. First, know that the core of the religion started off with Abraham and the spiritual teachings that were given to him by God (YWYH) was split in half. One book of his teachings we call it the "bible" and the other half, we call it the "koran". The teachings are from the same one forefather and one God, Yahweh, therefore you need to master BOTH books in order to klnow of the Hebrew God, Yahweh.

That's a terrible generalization, and as most generalizations go it's completely wrong. I don't think I am a supreme power, far from it, especially as to knowledge. The more I learn about the universe the more I know that I don't know much at all. Ignorance is what drives me to learn. I certainly don't know everything. Unlike christians, who seem to have an answer to everything, we atheists are quite knowledgeable about our ignorance.

AS far as self worship based on knowing everything? You have that completely backwards. We know that we know very little. That's what drives us to discover. What we know, or rather what we have a high confidence in that which we know, is based on evidence. I mean real evidence. Not Youtube videos, or monster horror movies, or magic tricks. Mythology written by ancient peoples and partially recovered from scrolls is not empirical evidence either. I mean real empirical evidence --a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Worship is a ritual performed by the religious, and has no place in an atheist's life. I do not worship anything or anybody ever.

Empirical evidence was given to you in previous postings by different members sorting out "different" Youtube Videos or journals concerning the same principal of the supernatural. Meaning, not explained by current science. If an information is given to you with different details, however concerning the same at its CORE, it can be said that its an empirical evidence that you seem to thirst for at all times.

No one knows where the first cell came from. It could have been abiogenesis, it could have been panspermia, it could have been something else. We know from archaeology and from geology that the earth was a ball of molten rock, there was nothing alive on it, then it cooled, and suddenly there was life. Life appeared from no life, and we don't know how that happened. That is the extent of what I know about the first cell, not much, certainly not as you smear, everything.

The origin of the first cell has nothing to do with evolution. It is basically the study of chemistry in the case of abiogenesis, or archeology and space exploration in the case of panspermia. All we know is there was no cells, then there were many. We are basically ignorant as to the how.

Evolution on the other hand deals with how that first cell evolved into all the life we see today. We have that part down pretty pat, with much irrefutable evidence from archaeology, paleontology, genetics, and biology. Evolution is not based in any way on the first cell. It deals strictly with how that first cell developed and evolved. You are confusing the two branches of science.

This still does not address the fact why you rely on empirical evidence as the core of your belief system, however, have the logical sense to live on WITH your empirical evident belief system NOT knowing how the human life was brought on about in the beggining.
This shuould tell you right off the bat that science itself is not a confirmation call as to everything in life. The very thing you bet your eternity on. How foolish you are.