What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

[driewerf]

nm

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

We see entire universes collide with each other.

Since universe is all there is without going to hypothetical multiverse how can we see universes collide ?

 

[jamesbond007]

Since it's been said but has been skipped over, I'll say it again: by it's own nature, the supernatural cannot leave evidence of itself because it is not a part of nature. Supernatural even means, from the Latin root supernaturalis, 'beyond nature'.

What evidence do you have for that? You guys believe in fake stuff like multiverse and intelligent aliens.

Yet, the creationists have accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.

"I made the earth and created man on it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host." Isaiah 40:22

 

[pitabread]

Yet, the creationists have accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.

Huh? How do creationists "have" these things?

(Especially since I've seen creationists here arguing against these very things.)

 

[jamesbond007]

Huh? How do creationists "have" these things?

(Especially since I've seen creationists here arguing against these very things.)

I'm going by the Bible as science backs up the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

I'm going by the Bible as science backs up the Bible.

That doesn't really answer my question.

(Although I suspect this is just a case of post-hoc rationalization.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What evidence do you have for that? You guys believe in fake stuff like multiverse and intelligent aliens.

I don't even know why you actually bother trying to play smart or nice. You clearly never interact in any sort of good faith argument since all you do is denigrate and deride anything and anyone that doesn't mesh with your faith.

But it's a fact that the supernatural, that which is beyond nature, does not leave evidence of itself since by its own nature it cannot leave evidence. Hence why it's called the supernatural.

Yet, the creationists have accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.

Just because a person believes in Christ or God does not make them a creationist from the get-go. That's a very bad argument to make. It is bad post-hoc logic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet, the creationists have accelerated expansion of the universe, colliding galaxies, dark matter, and dark energy.

No, they haven't and creationism is not compatible with these verified aspects of modern cosmology. Each of them requires length scales and motions beyond the scope of the creationist ideas and are in absolute conflict with creationist "ideas".

 

[jamesbond007]

I don't even know why you actually bother trying to play smart or nice. You clearly never interact in any sort of good faith argument since all you do is denigrate and deride anything and anyone that doesn't mesh with your faith.

But it's a fact that the supernatural, that which is beyond nature, does not leave evidence of itself since by its own nature it cannot leave evidence. Hence why it's called the supernatural.



Just because a person believes in Christ or God does not make them a creationist from the get-go. That's a very bad argument to make. It is bad post-hoc logic.

>>But it's a fact that the supernatural, that which is beyond nature, does not leave evidence of itself since by its own nature it cannot leave evidence. Hence why it's called the supernatural.<<

That's just atheist bullpuckey. I can provide the Bible and its history, how science backs up the big bang, expansion of the universe, how Earth and our solar system is just right for life on Earth, but nowhere else, fine tuning parameters (which Stephen Hawking and the atheist scientists discovered), how life only begets other life (no abiogenesis), dark matter, dark energy, and God's masterpiece -- the electromagnetic spectrum. What you think is natural was caused by the supernatural.

Just because a person believes in Christ or God does not make them a creationist from the get-go. That's a very bad argument to make. It is bad post-hoc logic.

No, it doesn't make them a creationist just like atheism doesn't make then understand scientific atheism, but eventually both sides are led to the science based on their religious beliefs. Too many times we have these discussions of religion and science as the truth is intertwined.

 

[jamesbond007]

No, they haven't and creationism is not compatible with these verified aspects of modern cosmology. Each of them requires length scales and motions beyond the scope of the creationist ideas and are in absolute conflict with creationist "ideas".

Of course, our side has them because our side can explain them. Your side cannot explain what was there before the big bang nor explain how the universe got all its energy. Your science also violates the laws of physics. Thus, the newer scientific atheism has gone to multiverse as something natural when nothing of the sort exists. Basically, Schrodinger's cat and the light/double-slit experiment isn't two states at once, but what the future holds. Once we observe what the future is, then we know whether the cat is alive or dead or where the light particle landed. Before that, all of the possibilities exist. To the atheist scientists, they think this is evidence for multiverse haha. It's ridiculous ideas like that and other mythologies dominate your science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It started with reading about a lesser known Danish astronomer named Tycho Brahe whose works influenced Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler. Apparently, he dedicated his life to watching the heavens and he saw a new bright object in the constellation in 1572. He thought it was an unusual new star, now referred to as Tycho star, but it was really a supernova.

However, it wasn't the typical supernova or death of a star due to it running out of fuel or something natural. I think it was in 2011 that China's astronomers discovered it may have been caused by another star coming close and their attraction caused a supernova explosion.

2019
Historic Star Explosion's Trigger Discovered | Space

Prior to it, they thought it was a regular supernova (this is still 2019)
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-tycho-supernova-death-of-a-star

Our white dwarf won't likely run out of fuel anytime soon. It could be more likely that another star enters our solar system and gravity does it's thang.

Sorry for the too long explanation, but started with what we see in outer space due to its accelerated expansion at the speed of light. We see entire universes collide with each other.

The 1572 supernova was natural. It was a supernova of Type Ia, these happen in the universe all the time and in our galaxy every few hundred years. Type Ia supernovae come from exploding white dwarfs and are both natural and not associated with the type of "stellar collisions" you spoke of earlier.

Type Ia supernovae have two sources: white dwarfs that slowly accrete material from a close companion for hundreds or thousands of years until they reach a critical mass and explode; or two white dwarfs that orbit each other closely and slowly spiral toward each other until they merge together and explode together. The article you gave about an x-ray feature in Tycho's supernova seems to indicate that that supernova was of the first group and the exploded white dwarf interacted with the companion star that was feeding its growth.

We don't have a white dwarf in our system. Our star is a main sequence star. White dwarfs don't run out of fuel as they are *not* burning and don't use fuel.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's just atheist bullpuckey. I can provide the Bible and its history, how science backs up the big bang, expansion of the universe, how Earth and our solar system is just right for life on Earth, but nowhere else, fine tuning parameters (which Stephen Hawking and the atheist scientists discovered), how life only begets other life (no abiogenesis), dark matter, dark energy, and God's masterpiece -- the electromagnetic spectrum. What you think is natural was caused by the supernatural.

None of that is caused by the supernatural. Just because you, personally, cannot understand the science does not mean that it is supernatural. And claiming that the Bible, a book written in the Bronze Age, has answers for that sort of thing is a classic and horrible case of post hoc logic.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

our side can explain them.

The problem is that so can everyone else and there isn’t a shred of evidence for any of it.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Your science also violates the laws of physics.

This rather neatly sums up the 007 rationale

 

[pitabread]

our side has them because our side can explain them.

But you're not explaining them. Goddidit is not an explanation.

It's just another example of the "God of the gaps" theology that so many creationists seem fond of.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course, our side has them because our side can explain them. Your side cannot explain what was there before the big bang nor explain how the universe got all its energy. Your science also violates the laws of physics. Thus, the newer scientific atheism has gone to multiverse as something natural when nothing of the sort exists. Basically, Schrodinger's cat and the light/double-slit experiment isn't two states at once, but what the future holds. Once we observe what the future is, then we know whether the cat is alive or dead or where the light particle landed. Before that, all of the possibilities exist. To the atheist scientists, they think this is evidence for multiverse haha. It's ridiculous ideas like that and other mythologies dominate your science.

I see you came back to conclusively demonstrate that you know nothing about physics or cosmology. Sigh.

1. The alternate/opposite to christianity is not "atheism". While they are mutually exclusive many (i.e., at least 2 billion people) are neither atheists nor christians.

2. Modern science isn't an atheist enterprise. Some christians (and people of other religions) have no problems with the conclusions of science. You are not all christians.

3. Physics and cosmology don't "violate the laws of physics" they define them and operate within them.

4. No (reasonable and careful) scientist or science communicator will claim that there is "evidence" of the multiverse hypothesis. Instead there are things that could be explained by the multiverse or by the things that lead to a multiverse, but they are not evidence of such.

5. The total energy of the universe is consistent with 0, so there is no need to find the "energy to create" the universe.

6. You've severely mangled quantum mechanics.

7. Science doesn't work on mythologies.

 

[driewerf]

Your science also violates the laws of physics.

It's always refreshing to hear from a nobody on the internet that scientists don't know the very basic of the science they're studying during their whole life.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's always refreshing to hear from a nobody on the internet that scientists don't know the very basic of the science they're studying during their whole life.

It's oxymoronic...

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's oxymoronic...

+/- oxy

 

[jamesbond007]

None of that is caused by the supernatural.

Sure it is. Nothing else explains it. The Christians have evidence on their side and can answer what was there before the big bang with God and Kalam's Cosmological Argument. The atheist scientists have nothing, but fake hypotheses like multiverse.

Just because you, personally, cannot understand the science does not mean that it is supernatural.

Haha. It is you who does not understand science. Even Stephen Hawking did not understand science. He wrote in his book, A Brief History of Tiem, that one could travel back into the past. What a idiotic notion. You would not be able to do that nor explain how to do it.

OTOH, I have already explained how one can travel into the future. One can only do that using Einstein's theory of special relativity. You couldn't even understand that.

And claiming that the Bible, a book written in the Bronze Age, has answers for that sort of thing is a classic and horrible case of post hoc logic.

That is more evidence. It was actually prehistoric times. How can prehistoric people write such things they didn't know. Only God knew.