Do supernatural forces exist?

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Do supernatural forces exist?

Post #1

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense and I decided to debate the above topic.

Resolved: A preternatural agent exists

I will be arguing the affirmative, Tired of the Nonsense will be arguing the negative.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #2

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

You have taken the affirmative position, so state your case. I expect to be gone most of the day, so I may not respond until tomorrow. TotN

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #3

Post by Defender of Truth »

I'd like to start out by talking a little about the burden proof. I'm making the claim that the preternatural exists. Of course I have to support that belief with evidence. However, Tired of the Nonsense, some might say you don't need to since you were arguing the negative. I'd just like to point out that you didn't only abstain from a belief in the preternatural, but you made an active claim against it. So you also need to provide evidence, why you actively believe there are no supernatural forces. Not that you didn't know that, but once I was debating someone on the existence of God (not here, in real life) and they vehemently believed that he did not exist. They did not, however, have evidence, and they argued that they didn't need to since they were arguing the negative.

Alright, I'll get started with my argument. I'll use the Aristotelian syllogistic logic method first.

Major Premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Minor Premise: Matter|energy began to exist
Conclusion: Matter|energy has a cause


The Major Premise is an intuitive conclusion, because if something begins to exist without having a cause, it would have then come from nothing, which we know is impossible.
The Minor Premise is supported through an argument using the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In the Second Law, the law of entropy is stated, which says that there is no organizing principle within matter|energy. Only a disorganizing principle. Therefore matter, when left to itself, will tend toward randomness and disorder. It will continue to become more and more disorganized until it has reached a point of maximum randomness. Some scientists refer to this by using the term “heat death�. We conclude, therefore, from the law of entropy that matter|energy could not have existed forever. Supposing it did exist in eternity past, it would have by definition taken eternity to get to the present. If it did have eternity to get to the present, we would be experiencing "heat death" by now, because over eternity matter|energy would get more and more random until maximum disorder. However, when we look around us, we do not see this; therefore matter|energy could not have existed in eternity past.
Since matter|energy did not exist in eternity past, we have two options. (1) It doesn't exist, or (2) it had a beginning. I'm sure we agree that (1) is not an option, therefore we must accept the only option left: matter|energy had a beginning, which is the Minor Premise of the argument.
The conclusion is sound as well, flowing logically from the two premises.

The definition of an effect is
dictionary wrote:something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence
. Therefore if something has a cause, it is by definition an effect. So according to the argument I gave, matter|enegy is an effect.

Now, what does that have to do with the preternatural? I'll explain by using another argument through the statement called "Necessary Cause".
Necessary Cause wrote:If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y, necessarily implies the presence of x.
Take a second to examine this statement. It is logically sound. I'm going to substitute words for the variables.

According to the first argument (which I'm sure you'll dispute), matter|energy has a cause. Which makes y equal to matter|energy. x is equal to the cause of matter|energy. Now the statement reads
If the cause of matter|energy is a necessary cause of matter|energy
pause a second. That doesn't seem to make sense but it's basically saying "if matter|energy has a cause". Resume.
then the presence of matter|enery necessarily implies the presense of a cause.
But let's look a little deeper. We see y (we are y), therefore x exists. We also know that x can't equal y, because if it did it would mean matter|energy caused itself. An impossibility, because it would require matter|energy to exist before matter|energy existed. This means that x (the cause of matter|energy) is not equal to y (matter|energy). Once again, this means the cause of matter|energy is not equal to matter|energy. So the cause is something preternatural or supernatural, which is by definition anything other than nature (something composed of matter|energy).

So if these two arguments are sound, then they show that not only does a preternatural agent exist, it caused matter|energy. I have more to say, but I know you'll dispute this post, so we'll just take it one step a time.

How I see it, there are four types of objections to my argument. Objections based on the premises of my argument, objections based on the logic of my argument, objections based on the relevancy of my argument, and the infinite regress problem. I will respond to them as they are raised.

I thank you for accepting this challenge to debate the existence of the supernatural. I posess an interest to debate you because in most of my experiences here online people lack a belief in God, but they don't necessarily actively believe he is nonexistent. I'm curious to see the evidence you present.

DoT

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #4

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Defender of Truth wrote:
Major Premise: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
Minor Premise: Matter|energy began to exist.

Your premise is flawed from the start. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is derived from the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore energy did not "begin to exist." It's always existed, eternal. Infinite in duration but finite in amount. The entire rest of your argument is without merit

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #5

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Your premise is flawed from the start
Okay, so this is an objection based on premise.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, according to the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is derived from the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore energy did not "begin to exist." It's always existed, eternal. Infinite in duration but finite in amount. The entire rest of your argument is without merit
Valid objection, to which I have two responses. First, suppose that a city was built, and the inhabitants established a government to rule over it. One of the laws that the government made was that the building of cities was prohibited. Later on, someone refers back to the beginning of the city, but another claims that the city had always existed. He says “one of the laws is that a city cannot be built, that means this city was never built and it existed forever� Do you see the faulty logic used there? The law stating that no cities can be built is a property of the city. Once the city existed, the law was enacted, but one could not apply the law before the city existed, because the law came when the city came. It's the same thing with Laws of Nature (one of which is the First Law). Laws of nature come with matter|energy, therefore one cannot appeal to them before matter|energy was in effect. Now that matter|energy exists, one can apply Laws of Nature, but he can't apply them while discussing the creation of matter|energy, because the Laws of Nature then did not exist. So the Laws of Nature were not enacted until nature existed, so it's illogical to appeal to them to claim that nature didn't have a beginning.

My second point is that I don't believe that something preternatural can break or contradict Laws of Nature. I'll explain by elaborating on the meaning of Laws of Nature. Some of what I'm saying below is from a post I made in this thread.


Laws of Nature tell us how nature operates, how the physical world works. They can accurately tell us what can happen by nature working on its own. What they don't do, however, is tell us what can happen when something outside of nature acts on nature. Laws of Nature don't necessarily apply to the preternatural. They tell what effects happen with certain causes (natural ones), but when you bring in new causes (the preternatural), different effects follow. Therefore, it would not be violating a Law of Nature for something outside of nature to create or destroy matter|energy, just as it would not be unlawful for someone outside of the law to break the law.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #6

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Defender of Truth wrote: Valid objection, to which I have two responses. First, suppose that a city was built, and the inhabitants established a government to rule over it. One of the laws that the government made was that the building of cities was prohibited. Later on, someone refers back to the beginning of the city, but another claims that the city had always existed. He says “one of the laws is that a city cannot be built, that means this city was never built and it existed forever� Do you see the faulty logic used there? The law stating that no cities can be built is a property of the city. Once the city existed, the law was enacted, but one could not apply the law before the city existed, because the law came when the city came.

What I see is a pointless exercise in pretzel logic. It doesn't apply.
Defender of Truth wrote: It's the same thing with Laws of Nature (one of which is the First Law). Laws of nature come with matter|energy, therefore one cannot appeal to them before matter|energy was in effect.
Upon what do you base your declaration that there was a "before matter|energy was in effect?" If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it has always "been in effect." Never a before, and never an after. Do you challenge the possibility of eternity?

Anything COULD be true, granted. Being human and therefore fallible, it is not given to us to know anything to a condition of absolute certainty. So the possibilities for what COULD be true are infinite. On the other hand, simply because anything could be true does not mean that everything IS true. Contradictions negate each other. Therefore the set of things which are true is finite, and potentially discoverable. Then there is the set of those things which we observe to be true, which is vastly smaller then those things which are true, but the list is growing rapidly. This is what we call "knowledge," and it is based to the best of our ability on what we have discovered to be true through observation and experimentation. In other words, the empirical method of attaining knowledge. As opposed to simply making stuff up which conform to human sensibilities and emotional wants and needs the way our ancient ancestors did.

Our inherent fallibility is a serious limitation, and yet simply because we do not know for certain that we are holding absolute truth in our hands on any given question does not necessarily mean that we aren't, only that we can never be 100% certain. We can attain a high degree of confidence in any particular truth when a potential fact appears to be totally consistent after much experimentation and observation. The First Law of Thermodynamics is based largely, though not exclusively, on work done by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860's. His work has held up remarkably well for the last 150 years, and is in fact one of the cornerstones of modern physics. All of our modern technology is based on understanding the limits imposed by the Law of Conservation of Energy. We observe that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, and we have discovered nothing to challenge that observation. Working within this limitation has allowed us to invent radios and TV's, lasers and that computer you are sitting in front of. This must stand as evidence, at least, that we are operating within the set of things which are true. As opposed to stuff which has been purely speculated on and imagined into existence.


Defender of Truth wrote: Now that matter|energy exists, one can apply Laws of Nature, but he can't apply them while discussing the creation of matter|energy, because the Laws of Nature then did not exist. So the Laws of Nature were not enacted until nature existed, so it's illogical to appeal to them to claim that nature didn't have a beginning.

It's certainly possible to speculate and imagine a creation for Matter/energy, but that does not change the fact that we observe that energy cannot BE created. If it is your opinion that nothing can possibly be eternal, then I am willing to explore that possibility with you. If on the other hand it is your position that it IS possible for something to have existed eternally, then claiming that energy could not have existed eternally is self refuting.
Defender of Truth wrote: My second point is that I don't believe that something preternatural can break or contradict Laws of Nature. I'll explain by elaborating on the meaning of Laws of Nature. Some of what I'm saying below is from a post I made in this thread.


Laws of Nature tell us how nature operates, how the physical world works. They can accurately tell us what can happen by nature working on its own. What they don't do, however, is tell us what can happen when something outside of nature acts on nature. Laws of Nature don't necessarily apply to the preternatural. They tell what effects happen with certain causes (natural ones), but when you bring in new causes (the preternatural), different effects follow. Therefore, it would not be violating a Law of Nature for something outside of nature to create or destroy matter|energy, just as it would not be unlawful for someone outside of the law to break the law.
In other words, you can imagine circumstances by which the observable laws of physics can be precluded. And I concur. The laws of physics only apply to the physical word, and are not constrained in your imagination.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #7

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:What I see is a pointless exercise in pretzel logic. It doesn't apply.
The burden of proof lies on you to show this. And it actually does apply. It's saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a property of matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it about something before matter|energy existed.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Upon what do you base your declaration that there was a "before matter|energy was in effect?
There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".
Tired of the Nonsense wrote: If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then it has always "been in effect."
That's what you said last post. The First Law came with matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it before matter|energy existed.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Never a before, and never an after
Yes, there must be a before, or we would be in a state of maximum entropy right now, and we're not.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Do you challenge the possibility of eternity?
I believe in eternity, I just don't believe matter|energy existed for eternity. It's an impossibility because of the Second Law.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:Anything COULD be true
I disagree. 2+2=3 cannot be true. A and non-A cannot both be true.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The First Law of Thermodynamics is based largely, though not exclusively, on work done by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860's. His work has held up remarkably well for the last 150 years, and is in fact one of the cornerstones of modern physics. All of our modern technology is based on understanding the limits imposed by the Law of Conservation of Energy. We observe that energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed, and we have discovered nothing to challenge that observation
You don't have to convince me! :) I believe in the First Law, it's just that the First Law wasn't in existence until matter|energy was in existence. You're saying "matter|energy could not have been created because of the first law", but the first law wasn't created until after matter|energy was created. Now that matter|energy is in existence, the first law is in existence, but before matter|energy was in existence (we know there was a before because we're not experiencing heat death), the first law wasn't in existence, so a preternatural being was free to create matter|energy.
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:In other words, you can imagine circumstances by which the observable laws of physics can be precluded. And I concur. The laws of physics only apply to the physical word, and are not constrained in your imagination.
True, they're not constrained by my imagination. Nor would they be restrained by a preternatural being. If something is not physical, it is not bound by physical laws. The First Law is a physical law, so you can't say matter|energy wasn't created because of the first law because the first law has no effect on something supernatural. Physical laws (including the first law) apply to physical beings. Physical laws (including the first law) do not apply to supernatural beings.

Why do I believe a supernatural being exists? Give me one other possible way matter|energy could have been created. It couldn't have been created by anything natural, which means (according to the law of the excluded middle) it was created by something preternatural.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #8

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Defender of Truth wrote: The burden of proof lies on you to show this. And it actually does apply. It's saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is a property of matter|energy, so you can't appeal to it about something before matter|energy existed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy, so your pretzel logic example doesn't apply. But more on this is upcoming.

Defender of Truth wrote: There must have been a before matter|energy because matter|energy cannot have existed forever. We know this because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it had existed forever, we'd be experiencing "heat death".

This assumes that energy in the observable universe is all the energy there is, which clearly is not true. When energy disappears into a black hole, it's gone from our observable universe, leaving behind only it's gravity. It has gone "somewhere else," and yet it clearly still exists. Because of course it can't be destroyed. Energy which can go "somewhere else" also presents the possibility of energy which can come FROM "somewhere else." Coincidentally, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. To do this it must be gaining energy from "somewhere else." Think entire cosmos here, not merely the observable universe. Also, don't think of the beginning of the observable universe as a moment of creation, think of it as a birth.
Defender of Truth wrote: I disagree. 2+2=3 cannot be true. A and non-A cannot both be true.
Only an infallible Being with infinite knowledge can make such an absolute statement to the exclusion of all possible error. Are you such a Being?
Defender of Truth wrote: You don't have to convince me! Smile I believe in the First Law, it's just that the First Law wasn't in existence until matter|energy was in existence. You're saying "matter|energy could not have been created because of the first law", but the first law wasn't created until after matter|energy was created. Now that matter|energy is in existence, the first law is in existence, but before matter|energy was in existence (we know there was a before because we're not experiencing heat death), the first law wasn't in existence, so a preternatural being was free to create matter|energy.
You assume creation of energy which cannot be observed to have occurred. Energy CAN be observed, and it tells us that it is immutable. .
Defender of Truth wrote: True, they're not constrained by my imagination. Nor would they be restrained by a preternatural being. If something is not physical, it is not bound by physical laws. The First Law is a physical law, so you can't say matter|energy wasn't created because of the first law because the first law has no effect on something supernatural. Physical laws (including the first law) apply to physical beings. Physical laws (including the first law) do not apply to supernatural beings.

The first law is only an observation of a condition, not a cause in and of itself. If something is not physical, than it doesn't exist outside of the realm of the imagination. It's only an idea, a thought. The physical universe is made up of energetic quantum bits which we refer to collectively as radiation. Some of these energetic bits, up and down quarks, have positive(+)charges (up quarks) and some have negative(-)charges (down quarks). Up quarks and down quarks and are powerfully attracted to each other and clump together to form protons (+-+), with a net positive charge, or neutrons (-+-), with a net neutral charge. These two particles, along with the negatively charged electron form atoms, the basis of matter. Oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other, while particles with like charges are repelled by each other. This attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the little engine that drives the universe and is responsible for EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS. Not an imaginary "preternatural being," but a simple binary system based on positive and negative charges. Sorry.

User avatar
Defender of Truth
Scholar
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: United States

Post #9

Post by Defender of Truth »

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy
When I make long posts some things get lost as far as importance is concerned, so I will respond to everything you said in post 8 but I will respond one at a time. The purpose is so I can see exactly where we disagree. Instead of listing 7 statements and fighting all of them in each post, I'll state one at a time so we can discuss it in an orderly fashion.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a Law of Nature.

Laws of Nature apply only to Nature.

Therefore, one cannot apply the Law of Conservation of Energy to a supernatural being.

Therefore one cannot say "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", because the creation of energy could have been done by something supernatural, to whom the Law of Conservation of Energy has no effect.

Furthermore, it would not be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy to initially create energy, because the Law of Conservation of Energy was not in effect until energy was in effect. One would have to appeal to something that was not in existence yet.

That is, supposing Nature had a beginning



I know you disagree that Nature had a beginning, and I'll deal with that as soon as this matter is cleared up. But do you agree with the statements in bold, that if Nature had a beginning, it would not be violating the Laws of Nature for something supernatural to create it.

I know you want to ask "even if it is possible, how do you know it happened", which I will reply to, but right now, do you agree with the statements in bold.

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #10

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

Defender of Truth wrote: The Law of Conservation of Energy is a Law of Nature.
The conservation of energy is a condition observed by humans and described in the Law of Conservation of Energy. It represents, to all observation, a physical limit with exists within our physical universe.
Our experience indicates that it can not be overcome, which is why it is called a law.
Defender of Truth wrote: Laws of Nature apply only to Nature.
The Laws of Physics apply to all things within our physical universe.
Defender of Truth wrote: Therefore, one cannot apply the Law of Conservation of Energy to a supernatural being.
The Laws of Physics do not apply to what you might imagine in your brain. Your brain itself DOES operate within the Laws of Physics however. It works on the principal of positive and negative charges, as does everything else in the physical observable universe.
Defender of Truth wrote: Therefore one cannot say "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", because the creation of energy could have been done by something supernatural, to whom the Law of Conservation of Energy has no effect.
One MUST say that "The Law of Conservation of Energy specifically precludes the creation of energy", or else it wouldn't be a law, it would be a "sometimes." The Law of Conservation of Energy is not subject to the whims of your imagination.
Defender of Truth wrote: Furthermore, it would not be a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy to initially create energy, because the Law of Conservation of Energy was not in effect until energy was in effect. One would have to appeal to something that was not in existence yet.
The Law of Conservation of Energy SPECIFICALLY states that energy may not be created or destroyed. It does not offer any exceptions, nor are any observed.
Defender of Truth wrote: That is, supposing Nature had a beginning.
That is, IMAGINING that nature had a beginning. You also imagine flying reanimated corpses to be real and valid, do you not?

Defender of Truth wrote: I know you disagree that Nature had a beginning, and I'll deal with that as soon as this matter is cleared up. But do you agree with the statements in bold, that if Nature had a beginning, it would not be violating the Laws of Nature for something supernatural to create it.
I have already stipulated that humans are fallible and therefore not giving to know things to an absolute state of certainty, so anything COULD be true. I also pointed out that contradictions seem to negate themselves and therefore it seems probable that not everything IS true. You seemed to agree. Did "nature have a beginning?" Well it's possible, in the sense that anything could be true. Such a beginning is contradicted by observation however.

Post Reply