Does The Supernatural Exist?

[CV75]

Jumping in late, but if the power of God is priesthood--

 

"The word priesthood has two meanings. First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end (see Alma 13:7–8; D&C 84:17–18). Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39; see also D&C 84:35–38)" https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng

 

--then "omnipotent" (dictionary or otherwise) simply describes the extent of the power of God; what greater power can there be than the power through which He created and governs the heavens and the earth, and exalts His obedient children?

[CV75]

Alma describes a scientific method that relies on spiritual senses that can only be verified or validated subjectively (those who are of one mind, one heart -- Moses 7:18). Alma 34 sums up the fruits of the method in Alma 32 with exhortations to be "one" in this manner, such as 34:27-29.

[mfbukowski]

 

You could not be more wrong, saint.

And whether 40% of scientists are theists (or not) is beside the point.

 

Astrophysicists love to search for habitable planets and for god-like creatures in the universe.  Even Richard Dawkins gets excited about the prospect of very advanced, god-like beings existing somewhere in the universe -- hastening to add that they would be simply technically advanced and god-like in their mastery over natural law.  He and the aforementioned astrophysicists are not interested in the supernatural, even if it could be investigated, which it cannot.

 

Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 8, 2011, online at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence

 

“Many Billions of Rocky Planets in Habitable Zones Around Red Dwarfs in Milky Way,” ScienceDaily, Mar 28, 2012, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120328090937.htm .

 

“Alien Planets Revealed,” NOVA, PBS-TV (DSP/WGBH, 2014), broadcast Jan 28, 2014, online at http://video.pbs.org/video/2365149642/ . 

 

“First Planet Found Around Solar Twin in Star Cluster,” ScienceDaily.com, Jan 15, 2014, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140115075402.htm .

 

“Four unknown galaxy clusters containing thousands of galaxies discovered 10 billion light years from Earth,” ScienceDaily.com, Feb 12, 2014, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140212082406.htm .

 

And yet we must not objectify God, and experience him only in our hearts, though scriptural stories and direct experience.

 

(I have been doing my reading) 

[mfbukowski]

Those who come from a strictly Judeo-Christian theological tradition must leave God out of science because He is defined by those theologies as being entirely outside of the universe and time.  After all, He created the universe and time, they say.  Therefore, He cannot be conditioned by them.  Since he is omnipotent and omniscient, all His creatures are contingent and an extension of Him.  Whatever they do is His fault, by definition.  This logical notion has led to a realization that such a God cannot be investigated by science, and that there can be no moral or ethical demands made upon man, because God, the Great First Cause, is ultimately responsible for all actions of organic and inorganic elements of the universe.  There is no good, and no evil.  There is also no free will.  All is predestined by the absolute sovereignty of God.  This recognition is now widespread and has lead to Death of God theologies, and to a lack of interest in religion in Europe stemming from such an absurd set of apriori assumptions or axioms.  Only sybaritic pleasure-seeking and nihilistic existentialism seem able to fill the void left by this realization.

 

Comes the LDS faith, positing a God who is part of time and the universe, who is finite in some sense, and who is surrounded by coeternal matter and beings.  Nothing is contingent, and that God must obey natural law, or He could not be God.  Free will is real and based on individual intelligences who are eternal and indestructible.  Unless and until you understand this crucial theological difference between the Restoration and its opponents, you will still fail to "get it."

Holy cow!

Just plain nailed it cold!!!

[Rob Osborn]

Jumping in late, but if the power of God is priesthood--

 

"The word priesthood has two meanings. First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end (see Alma 13:7–8; D&C 84:17–18). Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39; see i386 also D&C 84:35–38)" https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng

 

--then "omnipotent" (dictionary or otherwise) simply describes the extent of the power of God; what greater power can there be than the power through which He created and governs the heavens and the earth, and exalts His obedient children?

Jumping in late, but if the power of God is priesthood--

 

"The word priesthood has two meanings. First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end (see Alma 13:7–8; D&C 84:17–18). Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39; see also D&C 84:35–38)" https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng

 

--then "omnipotent" (dictionary or otherwise) simply describes the extent of the power of God; what greater power can there be than the power through which He created and governs the heavens and the earth, and exalts His obedient children?

I agree. This also came to mind-

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

D&C 88:40-41

[Bikeemikey]

Nope, but you could try to explain why you think my understanding of the scientific method is wrong. Scientific claims don't even need to be true to be called science or scientific, as is evident when they correct their false claims.

Ahab also claimed:

Yes, anything and everything we experience with our senses is scientific evidence, and your claims to the contrary are false.

Here is my perspective on why this is false:

Your claim above confuses physical data-experience with scientific data-experience. While it is true all scientific data is physical, it is not true that all physical data is scientific.

It is necessary for scientific data to be physical (discernible), but it is not sufficient.

This is because scientific data is produced not only by the physicality of the data, but by the method-process through which it is collected.

As such, only data that we have experienced in conjunction with a specific methodology can be appropriately called science.

Not everyone who looks at the sky at night is an astronomer, even though they all see stars. Not everyone who experiences the sublimation of water directly from a gas to a solid on your windscreen is a chemist.

Likewise not everyone who experiences physical phenomenon is a scientist.

Scientists are just as concerned with the method of observation as they are with what is observed.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[subgenius]

The problem with the supernatural is that there could never be a rational explanation for it or how it works. God isnt like that.

This seems to qualify as you proposing an incorrect definition and understanding of what supernatural means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

1 :  of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2

a :  departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

 

b :  attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

There is nothing irrational in this definition nor to be concluded from this definition.

[Rob Osborn]

This seems to qualify as you proposing an incorrect definition and understanding of what supernatural means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

1 :  of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2

a :  departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

 

b :  attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

There is nothing irrational in this definition nor to be concluded from this definition.

The problem stems from the "general understanding" of the word. If we are just speaking of ghosts and paranormal activity, then in that sense, yes its a good way to describe to others about something. But in the scientific setting, especially when discussing God, the word is used ith the strict definition of "being beyond or outside of what is science or scientifically explanable". In this definition, God thus becomes an unreal being outside of the universe or even chalked up as mythical and having unreal powers.

[thesometimesaint]

Good grief. You're not only corroborating my claim that anything and everything we experience with our senses constitutes scientific evidence, although you call it the lowest form, but you're also failing to realize that we can't experience anything except through our senses.

 

Because a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. My senses might be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a fragment of an underdone potato.

 

We all like optical allusions. A few squiggly lines delight us with what we "see". More properly they should be labeled brain failures. People just aren't all that good at data collection. That is why we use instruments to get the data right.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem stems from the "general understanding" of the word. If we are just speaking of ghosts and paranormal activity, then in that sense, yes its a good way to describe to others about something. But in the scientific setting, especially when discussing God, the word is used ith the strict definition of "being beyond or outside of what is science or scientifically explanable". In this definition, God thus becomes an unreal being outside of the universe or even chalked up as mythical and having unreal powers.

 

You are still not getting it. Science doesn't talk about God at all. Whether he/she/it is real is beside the point of science. What he/she/it does to our world/universe is the subject of science. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

[CV75]

I agree. This also came to mind-

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.

D&C 88:40-41

Yes, and these two verses in their relation to many others in this Section deomonstrate the conenction between knowledge ("omniscience") and power ("omnipotence"); while Alma 32 describes the connection between faith (a principle of action and of power) and knowledge.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, and these two verses in their relation to many others in this Section deomonstrate the conenction between knowledge ("omniscience") and power ("omnipotence"); while Alma 32 describes the connection between faith (a principle of action and of power) and knowledge.

Pretty much meaning that the glory of God is intelligence and we see that glory in action and put to use in all that we see, hear, sense, observe and test, etc, in the universe and nature..

Edited February 26, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Bikeemikey]

The problem stems from the "general understanding" of the word. If we are just speaking of ghosts and paranormal activity, then in that sense, yes its a good way to describe to others about something. But in the scientific setting, especially when discussing God, the word is used ith the strict definition of "being beyond or outside of what is science or scientifically explanable". In this definition, God thus becomes an unreal being outside of the universe or even chalked up as mythical and having unreal powers.

 

Im sorry Rob but this is just rubbish.

 

First your notion that there is a "general understanding" and then a separate understanding in a "scientific setting" strains credulity.

 

Moreover, even if we were to accept these made up definitions that you have proposed your conclusion is still false.

 

When science admits that something is outside of what science can explain the consequence is not that it becomes a notion "outside our universe or a myth". The consequence of science not being able to explain something is that it is unexplained by science. End of story.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[jkwilliams]

Pretty much meaning that the glory of God is intelligence and we see that glory in action and put to use in all that we see, hear, sense, observe and test, etc, in the universe and nature..

I agree with you. I just don't feel the need to shut my eyes to God's wondrous creations simply because it conflicts with my personal reading of scripture.

[Rob Osborn]

You are still not getting it. Science doesn't talk about God at all. Whether he/she/it is real is beside the point of science. What he/she/it does to our world/universe is the subject of science. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Let me correct that. Your science, or the way you view it may be godless but my science is not- it includes God.

 

If the flood is true, which I believe it is, then your godless theory of evolution takes a nose dive into eternal oblivian.

[jkwilliams]

Let me correct that. Your science, or the way you view it may be godless but my science is not- it includes God.

 

If the flood is true, which I believe it is, then your godless theory of evolution takes a nose dive into eternal oblivian.

That's unfair. His view of science is not godless but rather understands the limits of science.

[Rob Osborn]

Im sorry Rob but this is just rubbish.

 

First you notion that there is a "general understanding" and then a separate understanding in a "scientific setting" strains credulity.

 

Moreover, even if we were to accept these made up definitions that you have proposed your conclusion is still false.

 

When science admits that something is outside of what science can explain the consequence is not that it becomes a notion "outside our universe or a myth". The consequence of science not being able to explain something is that it is unexplained by science. End of story.

Your wrong about how science views the supernatural. When science says "supernatural" they mean it in the strict sense of being outside of scientific laws. They thus then exclude God because he is or must be outside of scientific law.

[Rob Osborn]

That's unfair. His view of science is not godless but rather understands the limits of science.

I wouldn't be so sure. I am not convinced.

[Ahab]

Ahab also claimed:

Here is my perspective on why this is false:

Your claim above confuses physical data-experience with scientific data-experience. While it is true all scientific data is physical, it is not true that all physical data is scientific.

It is necessary for scientific data to be physical (discernible), but it is not sufficient.

This is because scientific data is produced not only by the physicality of the data, but by the method-process through which it is collected.

As such, only data that we have experienced in conjunction with a specific methodology can be appropriately called science.

Not everyone who looks at the sky at night is an astronomer, even though they all see stars. Not everyone who experiences the sublimation of water directly from a gas to a solid on your windscreen is a chemist.

Likewise not everyone who experiences physical phenomenon is a scientist.

Scientists are just as concerned with the method of observation as they are with what is observed.

Rather than quote each claim you made I can sum it all up by stating that where you disagree with me you are wrong because the truth is the opposite of what you are claiming. And I'd like to state specifically that every person who observes anything is a scientist involved in a particular field of study regardless of whether they are right or wrong, and you may continue to publish your false claims without fear of losing your titles.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me correct that. Your science, or the way you view it may be godless but my science is not- it includes God.

 

If the flood is true, which I believe it is, then your godless theory of evolution takes a nose dive into eternal oblivian.

 

Your own "Special Definitions" again. We've now officially entered the Looking Glass.

[Rob Osborn]

Your own "Special Definitions" again. We've now officially entered the Looking Glass.

My science concerning the origins of life include the Creator, do yours?

[Ahab]

Because a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. My senses might be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a fragment of an underdone potato.

We all like optical allusions. A few squiggly lines delight us with what we "see". More properly they should be labeled brain failures. People just aren't all that good at data collection. That is why we use instruments to get the data right.

You're talking about the interpretation of evidence, but however it is interpreted it is first observed and experienced through our senses otherwise we wouldn't even notice it.

[Bikeemikey]

Your wrong about how science views the supernatural. When science says "supernatural" they mean it in the strict sense of being outside of scientific laws. They thus then exclude God because he is or must be outside of scientific law.

 

Im not sure many scientists would agree with you.... to be outside of science is simply to not yet be explainable via science. Scientific laws may well apply, it is just impossible to accurately measure so there is no way of knowing.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Rather than quote each claim you made I can sum it all up by stating that where you disagree with me you are wrong because the truth is the opposite of what you are claiming. And I'd like to state specifically that every person who observes anything is a scientist involved in a particular field of study regardless of whether they are right or wrong, and you may continue to publish your false claims without fear of losing your titles.

 

Again, the only way this view is plausible is if you dramatically redefine the way in which the word scientist is understood.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist

 

There is a big difference between observing empirical data and scientifically observing empirical data. All humans are involved in data observation (at least hopefully) however, not all are involved in observing that data scientifically.

[Ahab]

Your own "Special Definitions" again. We've now officially entered the Looking Glass.

From our point of view you and others who agree with your definition of science are the ones who have a special definition of "science" which excludes God and anything related to God, and we have been saying there is no need and no good reason for that exclusion. God can be observed scientifically just as anything and everything else can, and there is nothing that is outside the realm and influence of God.