Does The Supernatural Exist?

[The Nehor]

Mainstream science posits that there must be no God in explaining how life came into existence. So either science is wrong or your God and religion is wrong. Make the choice, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

I reject your false dichotomy. God is unpredictable. Most of the time I am glad of it since it comes out in my favor. Science requires some predictability in natural laws. Science does not posit no God. It posits that there may or may not be a God but unless He agrees to come to the lab and consents to experimentation so we can learn more about how He works He falls out of the system explainable within science.

So I am going to go with science and my religion being mostly right and God always being right so I am going have it both ways and have my cake and eat it.

[teddyaware]

That sounds nice, and hopefully someday God will explain exactly how he did it. However how would such a idea be actually implemented today? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Moreover most religions, including the LDS one, claim God is omnipotent. Science is about controlling and then testing for the "X". If "X" is an omnipotent force there is no controlling for it. Therefore scientists, including the LDS ones, can not put God into their formulas.

Yet God Himself says He is clearly visible in all that is around us if only we are righteous enough to see Him. Scientists calibrate their instruments to render accurate measurements and results; the seeker of the truth of God calibrates his instruments of spiritual observation, discernment and measurement by earnestly and faithfully striving to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By this means one may know with more certainty than science that God is to be observed everywhere and in everything when given the spiritual eyes to see. But those who reject this more powerful and reliable method of truth detection are left in spiritual darkness to doubt and even reject the omnipresence of God, and this even while they are gazing directly at Him.

46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

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 light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

I sympathize with you. I must say, considering all the many, many verses of scripture that speak clearly of God's very proactive involvement in the creation, I can't understand how or why two active LDS folks could somehow end up in such a strange, unproductive conversation. One of the main elements needed in order for there to be productive dialogue is the establishment of common ground. If significant areas of common ground cannot be established, there is little hope for meaningful and edifying dialogue.

 

I think its all agreeable (if one is LDS) that the Creator (Jesus Christ/Heavenly Father) really exists and that he/they are the authors of the creation. Now, going from that to actually placing the Creator in some vital act scientifically in the creation is where people part ways. To me it seems that evolutionists want an explanation of the origin of life from a purely naturalistic source void of any Creator's involvement. As absurd as it is, to do so (admit the vitality of the Creators role in origin of life) would be to admit that the creation in LDS doctrine supports Intelligent Design theory thus making themselves sympathisers to ID.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Ahab]

That sounds nice, and hopefully someday God will explain exactly how he did it. However how would such a idea be actually implemented today? Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Moreover most religions, including the LDS one, claim God is omnipotent. Science is about controlling and then testing for the "X". If "X" is an omnipotent force there is no controlling for it. Therefore scientists, including the LDS ones, can not put God into their formulas.

If you would give some more thought to how scientists could scientifically discover God, instead of thinking it can't be done, I'm sure you could get help in that search. I had a nice post all typed out by texting but I lost it and don't feel like writing it all over again.

[Robert F. Smith]

Let me bring you up to date. This is from the leading proponents of science education in our schools- the NCSE

 

Here is a quote from the ACLU in defending Darwinism and excluding ID or creationism in school-

 

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

Actually, the ACLU does not defend Darwinism or any other ism.  The ACLU is defending the Bill of Rights and trying to prevent an establishment of religion by the state (state or federal), by excluding religion in the guise of science from public schools -- which are part of the government.  Whatever else we may say about science and the popular scientific theories of the day, the ACLU is not interested in defending some particular theory.

 

The ACLU has been quite successful in that endeavor.

[The Nehor]

If you would give some more thought to how scientists could scientifically discover God, instead of thinking it can't be done, I'm sure you could get help in that search.

That's easy. Unite with the true church and serve God under covenant and build Zion, the holy city so that it is purified and God can dwell there and then when He comes you could scientifically discover Him. Admittedly that element of His coming will probably be a moot point by then.

[thesometimesaint]

Yet God Himself says He is clearly visible in all that is around us if only we are righteous enough to see Him. Scientists calibrate their instruments to render accurate measurements and results; the seeker of the truth of God calibrates his instruments of spiritual observation, discernment and measurement by earnestly and faithfully striving to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By this means one may know with more certainty than science that God is to be observed everywhere and in everything when given the spiritual eyes to see. But those who reject this more powerful and reliable method of truth detection are left in spiritual darkness to doubt and even reject the omnipresence of God, and this even while they are gazing directly at Him.

46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

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 light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound. (D&C 88)

 

That is the problem right there. Science for better or worse doesn't care if you are a righteous Saint or a complete scoundrel. It works whatever your level of righteousness of unrighteousness is.

 

We have telescopes that peer back to the very beginnings of our universe. We don't see God waving at us. We have large proton accelerators that peer into the basics of matter itself. We don't see God waving at us. That doesn't mean there is no God. We just have no technological way of seeing him right now. Come up with a technological way to do that. I'll be the first one to listen.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

This is so silly.  What Rob said here is entirely reasonable and true.

Disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement gets us nowhere.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

I think its all agreeable (if one is LDS) that the Creator (Jesus Christ/Heavenly Father) really exists and that he/they are the authors of the creation. Now, going from that to actually placing the Creator in some vital act scientifically in the creation is where people part ways.

 

 

If you'd stop right there you'd be essentially correct for a LDS point of view. It is the rest of your statement that is wrong from science.

[Robert F. Smith]

I dont disagree with you on this statement, in as much as it is theoretical. While God may be observable, it is not the case that this observation is currently able to be conducted in a scientific manner. This is an obvious weakness in science. One day im sure it will be overcome.

That is true, Mikey, if and only if the posited god is supernatural (and thus automatically beyond the reach of scientific inquiry).  If the posited god is merely part of the known, natural universe, then claims about him would presumably be testable (and falsifiable).  Indeed, there should be an entire constellation of secondary evidence which allows us to investigate such claims scientifically, just as we do when confronting the problem of dark energy or dark matter -- unless you also exclude them from the realm of scientific inquiry . . .

Edited February 26, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

This is so silly.  What Rob said here is entirely reasonable and true.

Disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement gets us nowhere.

 

No; He is wrong. Supernatural means pertaining to God. Science by definition can not claim any God or Godlike force and still be science. IE; If we were talking about mushroom cultivation and you started talking about High Rise building construction. What you say may be absolutely correct, but still it has no relevance to mushroom cultivation.

[thesometimesaint]

That is true, Mikey, if and only if the posited god is supernatural (and thus automatically beyond the reach of scientific inquiry).  If the posited god is merely part of the known, natural universe, then claims about him would presumably be testable (and falsifiable).  Indeed, there should be an entire constellation of secondary evidence which allows us to investigate such claims scientifically, just as we do when confronting the problem of dark energy or dark matter -- unless you also exclude them from the realm of scientific inquiry . . .

Lets take this real slow. Say I'm a farmer of corn(maize) for you non Americans. I devise an experiment to see what effect a certain fertilizer has on my corn crop. I want to know if it works as advertized. I plant my corn as usual and on half my crop I put on that fertilizer, as recommended. On the other half I don't put on that fertilizer. All other factors remain constant, light, water, heat, birds, bugs, diseases, I pray over my corn the same, etc.. I harvest the crop. I notice a difference between the two parts of the field. Was the difference due to the fertilizer or was it due to God? If God why would God choose one part of my field over the other? If there is no difference, why buy more of that fertilizer?

 

There is so far only one observable thing about dark energy and dark matter. That something is accelerating the expansion of the universe, and that something is something we know nothing about(It is dark). 

[teddyaware]

That is the problem right there. Science for better or worse doesn't care if you are a righteous Saint or a complete scoundrel. It works whatever your level of righteousness of unrighteousness is.

 

We have telescopes that peer back to the very beginnings of our universe. We don't see God waving at us. We have large proton accelerators that peer into the basics of matter itself. We don't see God waving at us. That doesn't mean there is no God. We just have no technological way of seeing him right now. Come up with a technological way to do that. I'll be the first one to listen.

So you contradict these glorious passages of scripture. Like it says, "the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not." But as these verses also say, in spite of what you say, the day will come when you will realize you have seen Him and that it is only because you doubted by chaining yourself to the strictures of telestial science that you didn't even realize you were looking right at Him

48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended." (D&C 88)

 

and again...

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. (D&C 93)

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

That is the problem right there. Science for better or worse doesn't care if you are a righteous Saint or a complete scoundrel. It works whatever your level of righteousness of unrighteousness is.

We have telescopes that peer back to the very beginnings of our universe. We don't see God waving at us. We have large proton accelerators that peer into the basics of matter itself. We don't see God waving at us. That doesn't mean there is no God. We just have no technological way of seeing him right now. Come up with a technological way to do that. I'll be the first one to listen.

God is more than only one person, so maybe by clearing that up you can figure out what scientists could be looking for, scientifically. Or maybe I should specify that I'm referring to scientists who are ignorant about what God actually is. God is what? Come on, saint. Help your felliw scientists out by helping them understand the kind of being God is and that we are actually it, the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, including right here on this planet.

That is reality, and reality can be seen and understood through science. In fact, the best religion, which is our religion, is scientific.

[Ahab]

That's easy. Unite with the true church and serve God under covenant and build Zion, the holy city so that it is purified and God can dwell there and then when He comes you could scientifically discover Him. Admittedly that element of His coming will probably be a moot point by then.

I've already scientifically discovered him and millions of other people who are the same kind of being he is who are already here on this planet.

Can't you see them? They're all around us.

[mfbukowski]

 As mfbukowski would say, trying to introduce discussions of faith and God into science is a category error.

Not really.  A category error usually involves the reification of a universal.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

 

I would call it a confusion of language games.  Religion talks about what makes our lives meaningful, and gives us purpose, science interprets observable physical evidences which can be replicated.

[Ahab]

Not really. A category error usually involves the reification of a universal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

I would call it a confusion of language games. Religion talks about what makes our lives meaningful, and gives us purpose, science interprets observable physical evidences which can be replicated.

The word science and the word religion are man made constructs that separate what does not need to be separated, and there is no good reason for the separation.

[thesometimesaint]

God is more than only one person, so maybe by clearing that up you can figure out what scientists could be looking for, scientifically. Or maybe I should specify that I'm referring to scientists who are ignorant about what God actually is. God is what? Come on, saint. Help your felliw scientists out by helping them understand the kind of being God is and that we are actually it, the most supreme kind of being in all of existence, including right here on this planet.

That is reality, and reality can be seen and understood through science. In fact, the best religion, which is our religion, is scientific.

 

Already done that, and was done before I was born. Henry Eyring, father of Apostle Henry Eyring, was a scientist of note. He was LDS. You are putting up a false dichotomy.

[The Nehor]

I've already scientifically discovered him and millions of other people who are the same kind of being he is who are already here on this planet.

Can't you see them? They're all around us.

 

No, I didn't get the "see dead people" gift.

[The Nehor]

The word science and the word religion are man made constructs that separate what does not need to be separated, and there is no good reason for the separation.

 

Then make up a new word.

[mfbukowski]

The word science and the word religion are man made constructs that separate what does not need to be separated, and there is no good reason for the separation.

Well I suppose I will answer this but I don't want to get drawn into a discussion of it.  It will never end.

 

There are very good reasons for the separation- as good as separating a discussion of pot painting techniques of the Ming Dynasty with Women's speed skating in the 2014 Olympics.

 

The interpretation of observable and replicable physical data has nothing to do with the meaning or purpose of that data.  In other words, how something happens has nothing to do with why it happens.  The fact that water boils at 212 degrees has nothing to do with why God gave us a universe in which this happens, or why we need to drink water to survive.

 

Before the Fahrenheit scale existed, did water boil at 212 degrees Fahrenheit?  The linguistic context is what gives sentences meaning, and the linguistic context of discussions about our relationship with God have nothing to do with the context of discussions about the boiling point of water.

 

I used to think that God was in principle at least discoverable in science, but I have been reading Blake Ostler of late, "Fire On The Horizon" and now I am changing my about that- I think that objective knowledge of God will always be impossible, because such discussions about God will remove the possibility of discussing what is most important about Him.

 

To discuss for example whether or not he has blood, or how big his nose is, or if he "really looks like" a representation in a temple drama, how much he weighs or where his hairline is just totally misses the point.  It makes Him an object- in essence such talk is religious pornography.

Edited February 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The word science and the word religion are man made constructs that separate what does not need to be separated, and there is no good reason for the separation.

All language is a man-made construct and also so is all discussion about anything.  We discuss anything without making it into a "man made construct".  Colors are man-made constructs constructed by your brain.  Your relationship with God is a man-made construct. Size and weight and every measure used by science are man-made constructs.  They are not matter unorganized floating through space.  They are not loose atoms out there cruising between star systems.

 

Even your idea of what is "NOT" a man-made construct is a man made construct.  Maybe that Man was God, but it is still man made.  God gave us language when he CALLED his first creations the "First Day".

 

I'll leave it at that and probably not respond further.

Edited February 27, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

To try to make my point another way:

Instead of labeling something as "supernatural" or thinking what pertains to God is none of their business, scientists should simply seek to observe and disvover things, all things, to gain knowledge and learn as much about the truth as they can without drawing any lines in the sand while thinking they can only go that far and no further.

Thank you. You just described science! That's what it actually is doing.

[Bikeemikey]

Mainstream science posits that there must be no God in explaining how life came into existence. So either science is wrong or your God and religion is wrong. Make the choice, which is it? You cant have it both ways.

Let me join those who have already stated the obvious: this is a false dichotomy. Mainstream science posits nothing about god at all!

[Rob Osborn]

If you'd stop right there you'd be essentially correct for a LDS point of view. It is the rest of your statement that is wrong from science.

The paradigm doesn't work for you though. On the one hand you must exclaim the Creator is essential to life arising on this planet and on the other you must exclaim that we cannot posit any god or godlike force in explaining how life arose on this planet. Your own religious beliefs are in a head on colision with your scientific beliefs and you cannot intersect the two without serious damage to one or the other or both.