Does The Supernatural Exist?

[Bikeemikey]

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 . . .

I think perhaps that you have misunderstood what I have said. I have no objection to science being able to see the effects (secondary evidence) of God. That was part of my point (though obvious not clearly stated).

In fact I think we can see such evidence. It is an issue based on an inability to attribute such evidence to any one thing (God). Science then can see such evidence of God, it simply does not have a robust enough or comprehensive data set to attribute such evidence to a single source.

Perhaps I have not understood you clearly. If not let me know.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

Lets use supernatural in proper context of how science defines it. Supernatural according to science is coupled with their belief that it is completely outside of science or the scientifically testable.

[CV75]

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..

So you are saying that any scientist who benefits the human race is doing this, whether he acknowledges the glory of God or not.

[Rob Osborn]

In this country we can't impose religious beliefs by the state. Separation of Church and State and all that. There are a few countries that do it, and I'm not at all sure you would  like living there. \

 

Science doesn't care what your(my) religion is.

Were back to this eh? ID is not religion its a scientific theory just as Darwinian evolution is a theory.

[Rob Osborn]

Absolutely untrue. Science is not concerned with the existence of God or not. God's existence makes no difference to science, which is why scientists who believe in God can and do work with unbelievers all the time and discover the same things.

That is a false dichotomy that explains a lot.

Mainstream science must be godless. Why? Because they have already stated and stand by their belief that God is supernatural and anything supernatural cannot be science. Its not that they have tested or observed to see if God exists or not, its that they have automatically posited that God must not be included in any part of science because he doesn't exist inside of knowable and testable nature/universe. By every definition, mainstream science is atheist.

[CV75]

Mainstream science must be godless. Why? Because they have already stated and stand by their belief that God is supernatural and anything supernatural cannot be science. Its not that they have tested or observed to see if God exists or not, its that they have automatically posited that God must not be included in any part of science because he doesn't exist inside of knowable and testable nature/universe. By every definition, mainstream science is atheist.

So what scientists call “supernatural” is simply that which they have not entertained as observable or testable, based on their belief or interest, or even based on their interpretation of the kind of science they have availed themselves to.

[CV75]

So we have mortal science and godly science -- reminds me of "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."

[Bikeemikey]

Mainstream science must be godless. Why? Because they have already stated and stand by their belief that God is supernatural and anything supernatural cannot be science. Its not that they have tested or observed to see if God exists or not, its that they have automatically posited that God must not be included in any part of science because he doesn't exist inside of knowable and testable nature/universe. By every definition, mainstream science is atheist.

I think you have the logic to this backwards. God is not outside if science because science has decreed god is supernatural and therefore outside the bounds of science. God is considered outside the bounds of science due to the lack of scientific data directly demonstrating the existence of god. Due to the lack of data god is thereby included in the category of "supernatural".

This will change with time, either because science will be able to see existing data as evidence for god, or because of new data (that we can not perceive now) providing evidence for god. If god is a being operating in the natural world according to natural law then science will one day recognize god through science.

However, as others have noted, such a recognition will still be fundamentally different to the religious experience of understanding not just the existence of God, but rather the meaning of the existence of god. Even when science identifies god it still will not be able to tell us the meaning of gods existence.

I like to joke that Christ better come soon or we will find him first.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

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

Would you be so kind as to tell me what scientists have discovered about God through science while using the scientific method of discovery?

I know many people have discovered a lot about him through that method but SOME people on this thread seem to be saying that can't even be done, or that it isn't called science when people do that.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think perhaps that you have misunderstood what I have said. I have no objection to science being able to see the effects (secondary evidence) of God. That was part of my point (though obvious not clearly stated).

In fact I think we can see such evidence. It is an issue based on an inability to attribute such evidence to any one thing (God). Science then can see such evidence of God, it simply does not have a robust enough or comprehensive data set to attribute such evidence to a single source.

Perhaps I have not understood you clearly. If not let me know.

We are on the same page, and I gave you a rep point in penance for not understanding you well enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

So what scientists call “supernatural” is simply that which they have not entertained as observable or testable, based on their belief or interest, or even based on their interpretation of the kind of science they have availed themselves to.

I don't find scientists spending much time (if at all) on the supernatural, just as they spend little time thinking about theology.  It isn't a matter of bias or prejudice (after all, many scientists believe in God), but it simply is outside their bailiwick.  Their expertise lies elsewhere -- in the natural world and universe, not in supernature (above and beyond nature), about which science can say nothing anyhow.

[Robert F. Smith]

Mainstream science must be godless. Why? Because they have already stated and stand by their belief that God is supernatural and anything supernatural cannot be science. Its not that they have tested or observed to see if God exists or not, its that they have automatically posited that God must not be included in any part of science because he doesn't exist inside of knowable and testable nature/universe. By every definition, mainstream science is atheist.

Just when I think that we are on the same page, Rob, you go and do this!!

 

Let me approach the problem this way.  Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless.  Why?  Because they posit a god which cannot exist.  They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship.  Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

 

Most scientists (even those believing in God) come from just such a mainstream church or synagogue background and see no reason to include such a "god" in their research programs or theories.  What would be the point?  Only a Mormon scientist would have any motive for doing otherwise.  It isn't so much that science is at fault somehow, but rather that mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is at fault -- just as the Lord told Joseph Smith in his First Vision.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

O.K.  I have been over this before, but lets do it again:  Scientists such as Richard Dawkins (Oxford Univ.) have no trouble addressing the technological "godlike" forces which may be at play in the universe.  Indeed, most scientists who address the question readily admit that such advanced civilizations likely exist.  This has nothing to do with the obsessive-compulsive need to use the word "supernatural" in the same breath with "God."  Indeed, it is oxymoronic to include both words together as long as one is positing a god which is fully part of nature and the natural universe, i.e., subject to all natural law.

 

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

 

Carl Sagan, one of its leading promoters, "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." He affirmed that a new civilization is formed just in our galaxy every 10 years. "There are a million technical civilizations in the [Milky Way] galaxy," he believed.

 

That's religion. The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins shows similar tendencies. He was quoted in the New York Times the other day as saying, "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures." But he was careful to add that "these Gods came into being by an explicable scientific progression of incremental evolution." (He would not have wanted to see "Gods" capitalized, however.)

[Ahab]

I don't find scientists spending much time (if at all) on the supernatural, just as they spend little time thinking about theology. It isn't a matter of bias or prejudice (after all, many scientists believe in God), but it simply is outside their bailiwick. Their expertise lies elsewhere -- in the natural world and universe, not in supernature (above and beyond nature), about which science can say nothing anyhow.

There is NOTHING above and beyond nature.

Sheesh, why is that so hard to realize?

[Robert F. Smith]

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). 

A lot more than acceleration has been found, even though you are unaware of it:

The science journal Nature in Oct 2012, reported that astronomers have detected fluctuations which they account for via dark matter "halos" -- "the huge, invisible cocoons of mass that envelop entire galaxies and account for most of the matter in the universe -- aren't completely dark after all but contain a small number of stars."  The light from those halos can be found, i.e., "the small number of stars that were kicked to the edges of space during violent collisions and mergers of galaxies may be the cause of the infrared light "halos" across the sky and may explain the mystery of the excess emitted infrared light."

 

"As crashing galaxies became gravitationally tangled with one another, "orphaned" stars were tossed into space. It is these stars, the researchers say, that produce the diffuse, blotchy scatterings of light emitted from the galaxy halos that extend well beyond the outer reaches of galaxies."  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024133402.htm .

 

Other types of dark matter may exist: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-physicists-kinds-dark.html#inlRlv .

 

Indeed, one scientist has proposed that Earth has a band of dark matter in space around the Equator: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129503.100-gps-satellites-suggest-earth-is-heavy-with-dark-matter.html#.UsnTVCqF-RE

 

In another issue of Nature in 2012 scientists are reported to have for the first time, been able to measure dark matter “filament” in a galactic supercluster.  It is believed "that normal matter forms where filaments of dark matter intersect throughout the cosmos."   "By examining more than 40,000 galaxies and measuring the distortion caused by dark matter’s lensing effect, they were actually able to measure it for the first time ever."

The Japanese will be launching an X-ray telescope into space this year to investigate this question still further.  That is what is called "science."  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/scientists-finally-measure-cosmic-dark-matter/  . You may not be comfortable with it, but it is real science.  Just as real as any research program designed to tell us which sorts of fertilizer work best.

 

I know of no scientists who are busy carrying on your ultimately silly comparison with prayer.  You will note that I did not bring up prayer.  You did.  Are you arguing that prayer is subject to scientific investigation?  If so, this is probably not the proper thread for it, and it sounds very much like a straw man to me.  I recommend that you stick to science, saint.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is NOTHING above and beyond nature.

Sheesh, why is that so hard to realize?

I don't know, Ahab, and I am having a devil of a time getting that notion across to people.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Ahab]

I don't know, Ahab, and I am having a devil of a time getting that notion across to people.

Heh, nice play on word choice, but there's got to be a good way to do it.

[mfbukowski]

Just when I think that we are on the same page, Rob, you go and do this!!

 

Let me approach the problem this way.  Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless.  Why?  Because they posit a god which cannot exist.  They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship.  Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

 

Most scientists (even those believing in God) come from just such a mainstream church or synagogue background and see no reason to include such a "god" in their research programs or theories.  What would be the point?  Only a Mormon scientist would have any motive for doing otherwise.  It isn't so much that science is at fault somehow, but rather that mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is at fault -- just as the Lord told Joseph Smith in his First Vision.

Absolutely!

[3DOP]

Robert

Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless.  Why?  Because they posit a god which cannot exist.  They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship.  Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

 

Rory

I observe that you were making a point to a fellow Mormon, and not considering the effect this might have on someone from "mainstream Judeo-Christian theology". Could you give an example of what you consider to be "revelling in exotic and ineffable blather"? I think you don't despise us, but this makes it hard to believe that you don't consider us stupid. And be assured, it DOES make your fellows who agree with you think we are stupid and have no respect for us intellectually. Is there any chance you would like to revise what you have said given those considerations?

Edited February 27, 2014 by 3DOP

[jkwilliams]

Just when I think that we are on the same page, Rob, you go and do this!!

 

Let me approach the problem this way.  Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless.  Why?  Because they posit a god which cannot exist.  They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship.  Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

 

Most scientists (even those believing in God) come from just such a mainstream church or synagogue background and see no reason to include such a "god" in their research programs or theories.  What would be the point?  Only a Mormon scientist would have any motive for doing otherwise.  It isn't so much that science is at fault somehow, but rather that mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is at fault -- just as the Lord told Joseph Smith in his First Vision.

 

Wow. It's a little ironic that Mormons complain about some mainstream Christians' contempt for Mormon beliefs when Mormons call deeply held Christian beliefs "exotic and ineffable blather." But it's good to know how you really feel.

Edited February 27, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Bikeemikey]

Wow. It's a little ironic that Mormons complain about some mainstream Christians' contempt for Mormon beliefs when Mormons call deeply held Christian beliefs "exotic and ineffable blather." But it's good to know how you really feel.

Last I checked ineffable was a totally appropriate word to describe (in part) the mainstream Christian thought on the nature of god... Linking it with blather, well not so much. The fact remains describing god in mainstream Christianity is an impossibility. In Mormonism it's pretty simple. Gods a super smart guy with a body.

[jkwilliams]

Last I checked ineffable was a totally appropriate word to describe (in part) the mainstream Christian thought on the nature of god... Linking it with blather, well not so much. The fact remains describing god in mainstream Christianity is an impossibility. In Mormonism it's pretty simple. Gods a super smart guy with a body.

 

IMO, your inability to understand Christian concepts of God does not mean the Christian God is an impossibility. Just saying. And you and Robert do no credit to the church by bad-mouthing other people's beliefs.

[Bikeemikey]

IMO, your inability to understand Christian concepts of God does not mean the Christian God is an impossibility. Just saying. And you and Robert do no credit to the church by bad-mouthing other people's beliefs.

I never said that the mainstream Christian god is an impossibility... I stated that explaining it is an impossibility.

[jkwilliams]

I never said that the mainstream Christian god is an impossibility... I stated that explaining it is an impossibility.

 

Point taken. Of course, once you get past the simple "god is a supersmart guy" you run into the same problem in LDS theology. Where did these supersmart guys come from? Why does the system of creating Gods work the way it does? It all ends up in the same place as the Christian God: we don't know, it just is that way.

[Ahab]

Robert

Mainstream Judeo-Christian theology is de facto godlless. Why? Because they posit a god which cannot exist. They may revel in exotic and ineffable blather about such a "god," but they are rapidly losing their congregations -- who correctly wonder whether such an odd, inaccessible, and irrational "god" is worthy of their worship. Philosophers know that such a "god" is dead, and has been dead for over a century now.

Rory

I observe that you were making a point to a fellow Mormon, and not considering the effect this might have on someone from "mainstream Judeo-Christian theology". Could you give an example of what you consider to be "revelling in exotic and ineffable blather"? I think you don't despise us, but this makes it hard to believe that you don't consider us stupid. And be assured, it DOES make your fellows who agree with you think we are stupid and have no respect for us intellectually. Is there any chance you would like to revise what you have said given those considerations?

We've told you and those who agree with you that your creeds about God are wrong, and we base that in what the Lord has told us beginning with Joseph Smith.

I don't why you are acting as if we haven't told you before. Or maybe you're just not accustomed to thinking of your false doctrine as blather.