Does The Supernatural Exist?

[Rob Osborn]

Brought up and debated recently on several other posts is how to define the "supernatural" and if science can or cannot detect something or force (such as God) deemed to be seemingly outside of scientific means,

My position is that the supernatural doesn't exist. By saying this I don't disbelieve in God nor do I disbelieve in a God of miracles. To properly understand the supernatural we need look no further than defining terms. Many in scientific fields use the word supernatural as being some type of phenomenon outside of the laws of science. thus they can easily dismiss God and all his workings from science and stick to purely naturalistic explanations for everything.

But this doesn't solve the problem becuase its just a cheap way of saying that science can't detect that which is magic. My philosophy on the matter is that no such magic exists and no powers beyond the scientifically explainable exists. In saying this I agree fully that we do not know all the laws and principles of science. We can thus break down all things that happen in the universe in 2 sets of knowledge- 1. Things that happen of which we know about and can predict, or happen so frequently we accept it naturally and- 2. Things we have yet to find out about or cannot predict or are rare occurrences in the universe.

Many will automatically state the word "supernatural" in any case that deals with God or deals with anything of spiritual in nature. But this is in reality just another way of saying that we have certain things we have yet to know about and can predict. Suppose a man from 2,000 years ago was to invent a time machine and travel to our day and watch all of our actions. He would thus conclude us to be supernatural beings performing many supernatural acts. This because he has no way to possibly fathom or know about the workings of all the laws in science.

Then you also have this enigma we call "intelligence" of the which science has yet to even begin to define or understand. Even though we havent found ways to predict with accuracy the mechanism of intelligence it happens so often in all life forms with such high frequency that we call it a natural action and definately not supernatural. But suppose for a moment that all the rocks in the known galaxie could think and wonder and in all their searching they saw nothing but rocks upon more rocks and then suddenly for no apparent reason this rare occurrence of life on this planet. Would we thus be "supernatural" to all the other rocks? It brings up an interesting aspect and proper perspective ina relative sense with how we look at the things we cannot explain but yet also incorrectly chalk some things up as being unexplainable. Its just a view of perspectives.

And this is why I believe that the supernatural does not exist. The glory of God is intelligence. In other words this literally means the glory of God is knowledge of truth and order. Gods glory in part is a perfect knowledge and perfect use of truth and order all done within laws measurable and detectable in science. God himself we are told has a body of order just as yours and mine only his has been perfected. He also has a higher understanding of language and communication ability that allows him to more perfectly control the elements. Agreed this is an area where our technology in science hasn't been able to yet know or detect, so true it also is that the enigma of visions in our minds really do happen but yet is not detectable or knowable to our technology.

Thus I do not picture a God who has some magic power running around the universe outside of the laws and order of which he is part of. I fully understand that mainstream science wants a natural explanation for everything. Their only fault however is that they do not understand the fact that the supernatural can't exist- its literally outside of existence. This must mean then that if God does exist- and He truly may for we haven't as of yet disproven his existence, then he must exist inside of the laws and order of detectable science even if we do not yet possess the technology to ascertain this reality at this point. It also means that the miracles God performs are done inside of natural laws- laws that have order and are scientific in every way. The difference is however that He has a perfect understanding and we do not.

Thus it somewhat bothers me when someone within science says science isn't about the supernatural and as such anything relating to God is not science but instead religion. They are right about one thing for sure- science, nor anything for that matter, can detect the undetectable supernatural because it doesn't exist. I find it thus intriguing that they can say something like God can truly exist, just not inside of the laws of science. My appeal to them is this- If God does exist but outside of the laws of science, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to perform any action within our laws?

If God is supernatural then wouldnt it hold true that all his word and actions- even all his creations also be supernatural?

[thesometimesaint]

Supernatural means pertaining to God.

 

Science as a discipline can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. It really doesn't care whether you believe in El, Brahma, Hare Krishna, or any other Divine being.

 

Science is what we can observe, measure, and make rational predictions about the natural world/universe. Any being that can stop the earth from spinning is a supernatural being. Any being that can make the diversity of life that we see in a few thousand years is a supernatural being. Any being that can make 2+2=5 is by definition a supernatural being.

Edited February 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[teddyaware]

Brought up and debated recently on several other posts is how to define the "supernatural" and if science can or cannot detect something or force (such as God) deemed to be seemingly outside of scientific means,

My position is that the supernatural doesn't exist. By saying this I don't disbelieve in God nor do I disbelieve in a God of miracles. To properly understand the supernatural we need look no further than defining terms. Many in scientific fields use the word supernatural as being some type of phenomenon outside of the laws of science. thus they can easily dismiss God and all his workings from science and stick to purely naturalistic explanations for everything.

But this doesn't solve the problem becuase its just a cheap way of saying that science can't detect that which is magic. My philosophy on the matter is that no such magic exists and no powers beyond the scientifically explainable exists. In saying this I agree fully that we do not know all the laws and principles of science. We can thus break down all things that happen in the universe in 2 sets of knowledge- 1. Things that happen of which we know about and can predict, or happen so frequently we accept it naturally and- 2. Things we have yet to find out about or cannot predict or are rare occurrences in the universe.

Many will automatically state the word "supernatural" in any case that deals with God or deals with anything of spiritual in nature. But this is in reality just another way of saying that we have certain things we have yet to know about and can predict. Suppose a man from 2,000 years ago was to invent a time machine and travel to our day and watch all of our actions. He would thus conclude us to be supernatural beings performing many supernatural acts. This because he has no way to possibly fathom or know about the workings of all the laws in science.

Then you also have this enigma we call "intelligence" of the which science has yet to even begin to define or understand. Even though we havent found ways to predict with accuracy the mechanism of intelligence it happens so often in all life forms with such high frequency that we call it a natural action and definately not supernatural. But suppose for a moment that all the rocks in the known galaxie could think and wonder and in all their searching they saw nothing but rocks upon more rocks and then suddenly for no apparent reason this rare occurrence of life on this planet. Would we thus be "supernatural" to all the other rocks? It brings up an interesting aspect and proper perspective ina relative sense with how we look at the things we cannot explain but yet also incorrectly chalk some things up as being unexplainable. Its just a view of perspectives.

And this is why I believe that the supernatural does not exist. The glory of God is intelligence. In other words this literally means the glory of God is knowledge of truth and order. Gods glory in part is a perfect knowledge and perfect use of truth and order all done within laws measurable and detectable in science. God himself we are told has a body of order just as yours and mine only his has been perfected. He also has a higher understanding of language and communication ability that allows him to more perfectly control the elements. Agreed this is an area where our technology in science hasn't been able to yet know or detect, so true it also is that the enigma of visions in our minds really do happen but yet is not detectable or knowable to our technology.

Thus I do not picture a God who has some magic power running around the universe outside of the laws and order of which he is part of. I fully understand that mainstream science wants a natural explanation for everything. Their only fault however is that they do not understand the fact that the supernatural can't exist- its literally outside of existence. This must mean then that if God does exist- and He truly may for we haven't as of yet disproven his existence, then he must exist inside of the laws and order of detectable science even if we do not yet possess the technology to ascertain this reality at this point. It also means that the miracles God performs are done inside of natural laws- laws that have order and are scientific in every way. The difference is however that He has a perfect understanding and we do not.

Thus it somewhat bothers me when someone within science says science isn't about the supernatural and as such anything relating to God is not science but instead religion. They are right about one thing for sure- science, nor anything for that matter, can detect the undetectable supernatural because it doesn't exist. I find it thus intriguing that they can say something like God can truly exist, just not inside of the laws of science. My appeal to them is this- If God does exist but outside of the laws of science, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to perform any action within our laws?

If God is supernatural then wouldnt it hold true that all his word and actions- even all his creations also be supernatural?

I concur. After reading your post. the following verses of scripture immediately popped into my mind:

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true blight that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

 

These verses clearly indicate the world we live in is utterly awash in the presence God and His power and that when we observe our world we are literally observing God in all His power, might and majesty. The problem is, as indicated in the above verses, the natural man is unaware that just by living on earth he's actually seeing God "moving in his majesty and power." But in verse 50 the Lord promises us that when we are finally able to see reality as it really is we will look back and know we were seeing God all the while. This world is no less supernatural (if that's the word the scientists want to use) than the highest heaven.

Edited February 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[Flyonthewall]

As I see it, "supernatural" simply means science cannot explain it.

If science could explain it, then it would be "natural".

The pool of what is considered supernatural has shrunk with the advances in science.

The thing we have to keep in mind, is the science that man has learned now, still has a long way to go before we catch up with God.

Reminds me of an episode of Star Trek TNG when Q became mortal:

Q: [analyzing the cause for the Bre'el IV moon's trajectory] This is obviously the result of a large celestial object passing through at near right angles to the plane of the star system. Probably a black hole.

Lt. Cmdr. Data: Can you recommend a way to counter the effect?

Q: Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe.

We would look at that and say that would be a supernatural event as it surpasses man's knowledge to do, but Q thought it a natural thing to do(even though as a mortal he could not do it at that time).

In like manner God has all knowledge at His disposal, while man has simply scratched the surface.

Supernatural depends on where you are coming from.

[ERayR]

Brought up and debated recently on several other posts is how to define the "supernatural" and if science can or cannot detect something or force (such as God) deemed to be seemingly outside of scientific means,

My position is that the supernatural doesn't exist. By saying this I don't disbelieve in God nor do I disbelieve in a God of miracles. To properly understand the supernatural we need look no further than defining terms. Many in scientific fields use the word supernatural as being some type of phenomenon outside of the laws of science. thus they can easily dismiss God and all his workings from science and stick to purely naturalistic explanations for everything.

But this doesn't solve the problem becuase its just a cheap way of saying that science can't detect that which is magic. My philosophy on the matter is that no such magic exists and no powers beyond the scientifically explainable exists. In saying this I agree fully that we do not know all the laws and principles of science. We can thus break down all things that happen in the universe in 2 sets of knowledge- 1. Things that happen of which we know about and can predict, or happen so frequently we accept it naturally and- 2. Things we have yet to find out about or cannot predict or are rare occurrences in the universe.

Many will automatically state the word "supernatural" in any case that deals with God or deals with anything of spiritual in nature. But this is in reality just another way of saying that we have certain things we have yet to know about and can predict. Suppose a man from 2,000 years ago was to invent a time machine and travel to our day and watch all of our actions. He would thus conclude us to be supernatural beings performing many supernatural acts. This because he has no way to possibly fathom or know about the workings of all the laws in science.

Then you also have this enigma we call "intelligence" of the which science has yet to even begin to define or understand. Even though we havent found ways to predict with accuracy the mechanism of intelligence it happens so often in all life forms with such high frequency that we call it a natural action and definately not supernatural. But suppose for a moment that all the rocks in the known galaxie could think and wonder and in all their searching they saw nothing but rocks upon more rocks and then suddenly for no apparent reason this rare occurrence of life on this planet. Would we thus be "supernatural" to all the other rocks? It brings up an interesting aspect and proper perspective ina relative sense with how we look at the things we cannot explain but yet also incorrectly chalk some things up as being unexplainable. Its just a view of perspectives.

And this is why I believe that the supernatural does not exist. The glory of God is intelligence. In other words this literally means the glory of God is knowledge of truth and order. Gods glory in part is a perfect knowledge and perfect use of truth and order all done within laws measurable and detectable in science. God himself we are told has a body of order just as yours and mine only his has been perfected. He also has a higher understanding of language and communication ability that allows him to more perfectly control the elements. Agreed this is an area where our technology in science hasn't been able to yet know or detect, so true it also is that the enigma of visions in our minds really do happen but yet is not detectable or knowable to our technology.

Thus I do not picture a God who has some magic power running around the universe outside of the laws and order of which he is part of. I fully understand that mainstream science wants a natural explanation for everything. Their only fault however is that they do not understand the fact that the supernatural can't exist- its literally outside of existence. This must mean then that if God does exist- and He truly may for we haven't as of yet disproven his existence, then he must exist inside of the laws and order of detectable science even if we do not yet possess the technology to ascertain this reality at this point. It also means that the miracles God performs are done inside of natural laws- laws that have order and are scientific in every way. The difference is however that He has a perfect understanding and we do not.

Thus it somewhat bothers me when someone within science says science isn't about the supernatural and as such anything relating to God is not science but instead religion. They are right about one thing for sure- science, nor anything for that matter, can detect the undetectable supernatural because it doesn't exist. I find it thus intriguing that they can say something like God can truly exist, just not inside of the laws of science. My appeal to them is this- If God does exist but outside of the laws of science, wouldn't it be impossible for Him to perform any action within our laws?

If God is supernatural then wouldnt it hold true that all his word and actions- even all his creations also be supernatural?

 

Of course it does but can be experienced only by those who do not require empirical evidence for everything.

[Freedom]

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

Unless you are an atheist, you must believe in the supernatural. Revelation is supernatural, angels are supernatural, miracle healings are supernatural, the first vision was supernatural. 

[Rob Osborn]

I concur. After reading your post. the following verses of scripture immediately popped into my mind:

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true blight that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

 

These verses clearly indicate the world we live in is utterly awash in the presence God and His power and that when we observe our world we are literally observing God in all His power, might and majesty. The problem is, as indicated in the above verses, the natural man is unaware that just by living on earth he's actually seeing God "moving in his majesty and power." But in verse 50 the Lord promises us that when we are finally able to see reality as it really is we will look back and know we were seeing God all the while. This world is no less supernatural (if that's the word the scientists want to use) than the highest heaven.

Thanks for bringing up those verses. Its interesting as these verses point out that we are so blinded by our mortal physical knowledge at times that we cannot see or fathom God and his works. We instead asign all which we see to some purely godless naturalistic power thinking God is part of some unseen spiritual realm and thus undetectable. But in truth, everything we see- all the laws that govern the universe and nature are the very means of Gods many works- it is his power.

[Rob Osborn]

Supernatural means pertaining to God.

 

Science as a discipline can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. It really doesn't care whether you believe in El, Brahma, Hare Krishna, or any other Divine being.

 

Science is what we can observe, measure, and make rational predictions about the natural world/universe. Any being that can stop the earth from spinning is a supernatural being. Any being that can make the diversity of life that we see in a few thousand years is a supernatural being. Any being that can make 2+2=5 is by definition a supernatural being.

Its how you define the term that make sit not work. You say that the supernatural means "pertaining to God". Then you also say that science cannot posit any God or godlike force. Basically you are saying that God is outside of science. But where is your proof? Has science proven that God doesn't exist inside of science? Has science proven that his location is outside of the universe? Has science proven that his powers are unscientific? You wrongly or falsely accuse God of using means and existing outside of anything we define as "natural". Let me ask this- we define Jesus as being a part of the Godhead and thus in this sense Jesus is a god. Does this then mean that he is a supernatural being and not detectable by science? So, when he walked on the earth with man was he outside of means detectable by man? Does this mean that his miracles didn't really happen because as a supernatural being he was never within what science could detect?

Science likes to use the word or term "supernatural" as a type of black magic in that it defys and always will defy every law in the universe. But in so doing they leave themselves open for attack because it is well known that we do not know all the laws of the universe. We cannot even know at this point with certainty if life exists anywhere else in the visible universe through science. But yet we are told over and over again by God that endless worlds in the universe are indeed inhabited by sons of God. Even though our current science cannot see this fact doesnt mean it doesnt exist. God also dwells on a planet somehwere in the universe we are told. Given our current situation and placement in the universe may keep us from thus seeing him on his planet but it thus in nowise makes his existence of supernatural explanation.

Besides all of that, if it is true that all things which are visible are indeed the very works and power of God then it literally means that everything that exists is because it pertains unto God. Under your own definition then, everything that exists is thus supernatural and nothing purely "natural" exists. But I see where you are at in this paradigm science has set up. They falsely claim that everything we see doesn't really pertain to God nor is a part of him and thus they dismiss God from his very creation. Isn't this atheism? please correct me if I am wrongly accusing science but it really seems to me that science cannot include God in nature because they absolutely cannot define exactly what kind of power or means God works within and what and where his existence is. Its much easier for them to just asign God outside of the creation and make him an unreal magical mythical and undetecable being. Thus they intentionally lock him outside of reality and conclude through circular means that God doesnt or cant exist inside of any scientific law. But where is their proof?

[Rob Osborn]

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

 

Unless you are an atheist, you must believe in the supernatural. Revelation is supernatural, angels are supernatural, miracle healings are supernatural, the first vision was supernatural.

But doesnt our every actions point to the supernatural in this sense you define? Walking out to my car and starting it could be defined as supernatural. Shouldn't nature just be a pile of dumb rocks? So then our existence of intelligence moving and acting is thus supernatural? Or is it because we see it as a too frequent event, born and raised around it that it loses its supernatural appeal and we look elsewhere for something more?

[emarkp]

I really don't like the word "supernatural", but I'd propose a test to distinguish actions:

 

If an action can be performed (either now or in a theoretical future) by mortal humans, using whatever technology we can implement, it's not supernatural.

 

For instance, we can use a particle accelerator to create gold from other elements--this is not supernatural.  But when Jesus tells the water to become wine and it does, that is "supernatural."

[teddyaware]

But doesnt our every actions point to the supernatural in this sense you define? Walking out to my car and starting it could be defined as supernatural. Shouldn't nature just be a pile of dumb rocks? So then our existence of intelligence moving and acting is thus supernatural? Or is it because we see it as a too frequent event, born and raised around it that it loses its supernatural appeal and we look elsewhere for something more?

All that exists by law is natural. Just because some laws and their functions are not as yet understood by learned men does not place those laws outside the realm of nature. From God's perspective, raising the dead into glorious immortality is just as natural for him as building a computer is for us.

[thesometimesaint]

Its how you define the term that make sit not work. You say that the supernatural means "pertaining to God". Then you also say that science cannot posit any God or godlike force. Basically you are saying that God is outside of science. But where is your proof? Has science proven that God doesn't exist inside of science? Has science proven that his location is outside of the universe? Has science proven that his powers are unscientific? You wrongly or falsely accuse God of using means and existing outside of anything we define as "natural". Let me ask this- we define Jesus as being a part of the Godhead and thus in this sense Jesus is a god. Does this then mean that he is a supernatural being and not detectable by science? So, when he walked on the earth with man was he outside of means detectable by man? Does this mean that his miracles didn't really happen because as a supernatural being he was never within what science could detect?

Science likes to use the word or term "supernatural" as a type of black magic in that it defys and always will defy every law in the universe. But in so doing they leave themselves open for attack because it is well known that we do not know all the laws of the universe. We cannot even know at this point with certainty if life exists anywhere else in the visible universe through science. But yet we are told over and over again by God that endless worlds in the universe are indeed inhabited by sons of God. Even though our current science cannot see this fact doesnt mean it doesnt exist. God also dwells on a planet somehwere in the universe we are told. Given our current situation and placement in the universe may keep us from thus seeing him on his planet but it thus in nowise makes his existence of supernatural explanation.

Besides all of that, if it is true that all things which are visible are indeed the very works and power of God then it literally means that everything that exists is because it pertains unto God. Under your own definition then, everything that exists is thus supernatural and nothing purely "natural" exists. But I see where you are at in this paradigm science has set up. They falsely claim that everything we see doesn't really pertain to God nor is a part of him and thus they dismiss God from his very creation. Isn't this atheism? please correct me if I am wrongly accusing science but it really seems to me that science cannot include God in nature because they absolutely cannot define exactly what kind of power or means God works within and what and where his existence is. Its much easier for them to just asign God outside of the creation and make him an unreal magical mythical and undetecable being. Thus they intentionally lock him outside of reality and conclude through circular means that God doesnt or cant exist inside of any scientific law. But where is their proof?

 

Science can not posit any God or Godlike force. Whether God exists or not is outside the realm of science. Whether God lives on another planet inside our universe is not in the realm of science. ANY use of God or Godlike force in science renders it not science.

SEE

 

Galileo famous scientist and Theist said: "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

 

Say I'm a farmer. I want to know the effect of a certain fertilizer has on my corn crop. As a test I put the fertilizer on part of my corn crop and don't put it on the other. I observe for differences. ANY difference I attribute to God means the fertilizer wasn't a factor, but God was. I  would be a piss poor farmer to use God as the factor in determining whether to use that fertilizer or not.

[Rob Osborn]

Science can not posit any God or Godlike force. Whether God exists or not is outside the realm of science. Whether God lives on another planet inside our universe is not in the realm of science. ANY use of God or Godlike force in science renders it not science.

SEE

 

Galileo famous scientist and Theist said: "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

 

Say I'm a farmer. I want to know the effect of a certain fertilizer has on my corn crop. As a test I put the fertilizer on part of my corn crop and don't put it on the other. I observe for differences. ANY difference I attribute to God means the fertilizer wasn't a factor, but God was. I  would be a piss poor farmer to use God as the factor in determining whether to use that fertilizer or not.

Not to be rude but mainstream science is so juvenile in its understanding of reality. You keep saying that science can't posit God or any godlike force. Let me just say this- we are the product of God- we are instruments of God- we are the tabernacle of God and as such possess godlike forces and powers, albeit very small or elementary as of yet. So, by your own definition we cannot be studied or be part of science. Thus as you ascertain, we also should not be within the realm of science. But the facts remain- we are within the realm of science and the power of God is manifest in all of nature which by design makes all of that which we test and observe to be nothing more, nor less, than God moving and acting with his godlike force- it is His very glory we are detecting, his very godlike force we are measuring and his design in nature we observe.

[mfbukowski]

It all depends on what you mean by "supernatural" and "exist".

 

Each of those are kind of big topics, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time discussing.

 

It's not a 25 words or less kind of thing, and it's a little hard to really get into it on an internet forum.

[Rob Osborn]

It all depends on what you mean by "supernatural" and "exist".

 

Each of those are kind of big topics, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time discussing.

 

It's not a 25 words or less kind of thing, and it's a little hard to really get into it on an internet forum.

Supernatural is a word used to describe something beyond our apparent knowledge of nature and is subjective in nature depending on how one views things.

[teddyaware]

It all depends on what you mean by "supernatural" and "exist".

 

Each of those are kind of big topics, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time discussing.

 

It's not a 25 words or less kind of thing, and it's a little hard to really get into it on an internet forum.

Here is the explanation in 31 words (sorry it's more than 25):

37 And there are many kingdoms...either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. (D&C 88)

Edited February 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

Let me just say this- we are the product of God- we are instruments of God- we are the tabernacle of God and as such possess godlike forces and powers, albeit very small or elementary as of yet. So, by your own definition we cannot be studied or be part of science. Thus as you ascertain, we also should not be within the realm of science. But the facts remain- we are within the realm of science and the power of God is manifest in all of nature which by design makes all of that which we test and observe to be nothing more, nor less, than God moving and acting with his godlike force- it is His very glory we are detecting, his very godlike force we are measuring and his design in nature we observe.

 

Those are interesting theories, but just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's true.

 

For example, go back and reframe your theories:

 

We are the product of ____

We are instruments of ____

We are the tabernacle of ____ and as such possess ____-like forces and powers.

 

Now, suppose "science" acknowledges they want to cast a wider net when it comes to evidences and theories, so we get 20 people to sit around the table and each come up with their own theory to fill in the blanks.  The suggested answers include "aliens", "government experiments", "Xenu", "vishnu", "communist doctors", "a flying spaghetti monster", "our parents".

 

As leader of this group, you are tasked with forming a single theory that will then be taken to "science" to be included as a fundamental "law" in future scientific theories, but all 20 people at the table must unanimously agree on the proposition.  How would you convince them to all agree on your belief in "God"?

[Tiki]

 

As leader of this group, you are tasked with forming a single theory that will then be taken to "science" to be included as a fundamental "law" in future scientific theories, but all 20 people at the table must unanimously agree on the proposition.  How would you convince them to all agree on your belief in "God"?

 

Another leader had that problem brought before him:

 

Alma 30

44 ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

 

If one can't accept the scriptures, the testimonies of the Prophets, the observable order in the Universe as being attributed to God, then one day they may be struck dumb by the Power of God as was Korihor, or at His Second Coming.

Then they'll know God exists.

 

Maybe you would attribute the scriptures and the testimonies of the Prophets as false imaginations, but they do exist. And any scientist would know that the scriptures were not made up by a "collusion" of individuals over the centuries.

But some people don't observe the prophets and the scriptures any more than they observe the order in the earth and in the heavens.

If science is knowledge and a scientist limits his knowledge due to religious prejudice, etc., that's a poorly-trained scientist, in my opinion.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................  

 

For instance, we can use a particle accelerator to create gold from other elements--this is not supernatural.  But when Jesus tells the water to become wine and it does, that is "supernatural."

Someone could indeed define the changing of water into wine as "supernatural," if, and  only if, Jesus used other than natural means to do it.  Rob Osborn is saying that there is no reason to posit supernatural means to accomplish anything, and  that in fact such means cannot be used by definition.

 

Science rests on a foundation of naturalism and natural explanations for everything, even those things which we haven't figured out yet. For a philosopher approaching this question logically, supernatural statements are illogical and nonsensical, and are not subject to scientific inquiry.

 

The great British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, said that he was not a Christian simply because he could not accept the foundations of the Christianity known to him -- which rested on a supernatural foundation, in which natural law could be abrogated.  Rob Osborn is saying that there is no reason for natural law to be abrogated by God or any other being.  Indeed, that it would be contradiction in terms.

[Rob Osborn]

Those are interesting theories, but just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's true.

 

For example, go back and reframe your theories:

 

We are the product of ____

We are instruments of ____

We are the tabernacle of ____ and as such possess ____-like forces and powers.

 

Now, suppose "science" acknowledges they want to cast a wider net when it comes to evidences and theories, so we get 20 people to sit around the table and each come up with their own theory to fill in the blanks.  The suggested answers include "aliens", "government experiments", "Xenu", "vishnu", "communist doctors", "a flying spaghetti monster", "our parents".

 

As leader of this group, you are tasked with forming a single theory that will then be taken to "science" to be included as a fundamental "law" in future scientific theories, but all 20 people at the table must unanimously agree on the proposition.  How would you convince them to all agree on your belief in "God"?

Not really sure how this relates to the supernatural. I can make statements based off of belief that include God and no one think they are supernatural. for instance- I have been told that "thou shalt not kill" according to God's word. Many view Christ walking with men on earth as fulfillment of prophecy but in no means a supernatural event, My sudden decision to turn right at the stop sign instead of left which then leads me to see an old lady in distress is not viewed as a supernatural event. You could have 20 people all watch a debate on religion and have each one report differently on what they heard and who had the greater impact. Life and its various actions is highly subjective to interpretation. One person may see a miracle unfold before their eyes while a person right next to them see no miracle at all.

At some point we begin to trust and realize the truth in the testimony of others. For me I find that truth in holy scripture coupled with applying all of its wisdom and truth in everyday life. I give a for instance- I personally know that UFO's exist because me and my wife had a very very close up encounter with one. We both related in exact detail later to each other what we saw- it was a physical reality. Now I can go out into the world and tell the story in the most sincere and truthful manner and whereas some will believe me most probably will not. Why? Because they can't see it with their own two eyes so therefore it must not or probably does not exist. They thus remain highly skeptical of it. But if more and more people in good standing come out and make the same claims and they all come from truthful backgrounds and good upbringings then over time that gets accepted as truth and then after a trial of faith they begin to know the truth for themselves.

The truth of scripture will come t be known in time among all peoples according to the many testimonies of truth. Already with what is currently understood in science, there really is no supernatural existence but rather things- phenomenon that we have yet to explain but as shown through many advances in technology what used to be supernatural is now just the natural. Even things such as ghost or paranormal activity shows signatures measurable by "science" that at times previous in the past was not possible.

[Freedom]

But doesnt our every actions point to the supernatural in this sense you define? Walking out to my car and starting it could be defined as supernatural. Shouldn't nature just be a pile of dumb rocks? So then our existence of intelligence moving and acting is thus supernatural? Or is it because we see it as a too frequent event, born and raised around it that it loses its supernatural appeal and we look elsewhere for something more?

You cannot assign an arbitrary definition to a term. This makes language pointless. The word has a definition. According to it's proper definition, any miraculous events are supernatural. Starting my car is not by any means supernatural. It is very easy to explain through natural laws. 

[Rob Osborn]

Someone could indeed define the changing of water into wine as "supernatural," if, and  only if, Jesus used other than natural means to do it.  Rob Osborn is saying that there is no reason to posit supernatural means to accomplish anything, and  that in fact such means cannot be used by definition.

 

Science rests on a foundation of naturalism and natural explanations for everything, even those things which we haven't figured out yet. For a philosopher approaching this question logically, supernatural statements are illogical and nonsensical, and are not subject to scientific inquiry.

 

The great British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, said that he was not a Christian simply because he could not accept the foundations of the Christianity known to him -- which rested on a supernatural foundation, in which natural law could be abrogated.  Rob Osborn is saying that there is no reason for natural law to be abrogated by God or any other being.  Indeed, that it would be contradiction in terms.

And the nail gets hit squarely on the head! Like when Jesus turned water into wine he did it in a means completely within scientific bounds. Its just that we do not have priveledge to this understanding as of yet to see how it happened obeying every law within science.

[Rob Osborn]

You cannot assign an arbitrary definition to a term. This makes language pointless. The word has a definition. According to it's proper definition, any miraculous events are supernatural. Starting my car is not by any means supernatural. It is very easy to explain through natural laws.

In every facet?

[emarkp]

And the nail gets hit squarely on the head! Like when Jesus turned water into wine he did it in a means completely within scientific bounds. Its just that we do not have priveledge to this understanding as of yet to see how it happened obeying every law within science.

 

Nonsense. No man can do what he did without the power of God.  No degree of scientific exploration will accomplish it.  We cannot do what Jesus did without his grace and power.  That cannot come about by scientific investigation, but by revelation and gifts of the spirit.

[Rob Osborn]

Nonsense. No man can do what he did without the power of God.  No degree of scientific exploration will accomplish it.  We cannot do what Jesus did without his grace and power.  That cannot come about by scientific investigation, but by revelation and gifts of the spirit.

So what is the power of delivery? Is it magic? Could there be a possible explanation of miracles done through science? We perhaps wrongly assume that God uses some power that is outside of this world or outside of science. What happens when we find that the very powers of heaven- in all of its motions is indeed the power of the priesthood and the power of God? Does the motions then become nonscientific because I said "God" or "priesthood". I guess my point is that just because we do not understand Gods power and how he uses it in nowise proves that it is thus outside of science. We may find that the powers of science are directly connected to the powers of God. In fact, we will find that all actions in the visible universe are miraculous because divine action was required for all of it to exist in the first place.