What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

jamesbond007 said:

My hypothesis today is that the EMS is evidence of the supernatural because it can't be explained by nature (by its own definition) in our physical world.

Click to expand...

Electromagnetism is *part* of the natural world, by definition it is not supernatural. The supernatural is that *outside* the normal physical laws.

jamesbond007 said:

So, can I put you down as a believer in the EMS being created on the first day now?

Click to expand...

No, you may not.

jamesbond007 said:

I presented a logical argument for how the universe started and where all the energy it needed was created before it started itself.

Click to expand...

I obviously missed that. Why did you edit it out of the OP? All I see there is an illogical bunch of assertions.

The creator also created the heavens and Earth.

Click to expand...

No, the creator also created light. The order is important. If all energy came first, the earth and water could not have existed before light.

Dance, jamesbond007, dance.

One of things I've discovered is the Big Bang Theory from the evolutionist side does not readily explain what happened before the big bang. It wasn't an explosion, but an expansion so where did all the energy come from? I think we both agree there was a beginning from discovering the CMB. With creation science, we have the start of the spacetime caused by God -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

Click to expand...

Pretty sure big bang theory, like any scientific theory, does not posit to have an absolute explanation in its model for every factor, particularly those that go beyond its capacity or our ability to investigate at all (we also don't know what's beyond a black hole, though we've supposed verified they are in fact not just a hypothetical entity in astrophysics)

This can be readily demonstrated by the fourth dimension and how the x, y, and z-axes follow. We usually call the fourth dimension time, but it also includes space with the other three dimensions that time can access. It becomes spacetime. Us humans, being in three dimensions cannot control time. We cannot stop it, but we can make it appear faster or slower. We can time travel into the future, but can't travel backward in time. It's strange how time can be started from evolution when it affects only the three dimensions.

Click to expand...

Well, that'd be weird if that was what anyone claimed, evolutionary theory applies solely to biology, so you're strawmanning greatly and trying the same tactics that conflate cosmology with biology when they are separate subjects

I think what makes the argument stronger for God is that he also tells us that he created the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) on the first day. "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3

What we find is that the EMS contains all of the energy in the universe. Later, we find both Newton and Einstein stated the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only transferred.

Click to expand...

Thus, my point is does the EMS show something that is supernatural? We cannot have anything like this just pop up in our three dimensional universe as it would have to be created before the universe started to expand. It is a tremendous amount of energy that isn't present in quantum mechanics. I do agree that what Newton and Einstein discovered is part of our natural world, but not the creation of the EMS.

So, I thought where did this energy come from? The creationists have an explanation.

Click to expand...

We can observe the EMS, it isn't supernatural in itself, only at best in the origin, which you claim, but haven't substantiated beyond a book that amounts to circular logic

The energy may have always been there in some form, the "beginning" you cite is only insofar as we observe, it isn't an absolute beginning, because science cannot investigate much further

jamesbond007 said:

Click to expand...

Albert received a severe spanking from David Hilbert and Emmy Noether and would not have made this statement after 1915.
Einstein's shocking revelations are found towards the end of this video.

jamesbond007 said:

With the beginning came the Kalam's Cosmological Argument which requires timelessness and spacelessness. I can give you how he did it, but you have nothing to counter it. So no need to go further.

Click to expand...

Please explain how something or someone can exist when there is no space or time. I'm dying to know how that would work without magic.

Skreeper said:

Please explain how something or someone can exist when there is no space or time. I'm dying to know how that would work without magic.

Click to expand...

I frequently call out Creationists for the logical fallacy of Argument from Incredulity. I do the same when anyone falls into the same trap, though it is less common. Your inability to envisage the existence of someone/something outside of space and time is not an argument against that existence. It is merely an example of your ignorance. (And mine, and that of most/all entities existing within space-time.)

You mention magic and so I remind you, as a simplistic analogy, of Clark's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

jamesbond007 said:

Notice we had to have the energy first before the objects could be made.

Click to expand...

Hm... that's interesting.

Did you notice that in "God's autobiography" you do have the objects before the energy?

The problem with your approach is that you start with the conclusion, look for evidence to support it, ignore everything that contradicts it... and then declare victory.

This might work in "religion"... but science works in a different way.

jamesbond007 said:

With the beginning came the Kalam's Cosmological Argument

Click to expand...

Which is a highly flawed argument to begin with and not an actual explanation of anything. I'm pretty sure we already went over this in the other thread you started.

Quite frankly, if this is the best you can do then you're right. There is no need to go further.

jamesbond007 said:

You have faith, too, if you're an atheist/agnostic or other religion. While God the Father of Christianity tells us that one needs faith to believe, I think for our earthly purposes we can say trust is a better word. I mean I get sick and tired of being asked for absolute evidence and when I present it, they won't accept it. My hypothesis today is that the EMS is evidence of the supernatural because it can't be explained by nature (by its own definition) in our physical world. Its falsification would be to have nature create it. I think I am arguing facts here (guided by what God stated).

Click to expand...

In general, you seem to argue the position in various ways that if a phenomenon has a natural cause then supernatural causality is ruled out, thus you are arguing from a false dichotomy. Logically, the absence of a natural explanation is merely the absence of a natural explanation, not evidence of a supernatural explanation. Natural explanations are human products and as such may not be complete as natural explanations. And in any case, natural explanations do not deny or rule out supernatural explanations, which are unfalsifiable.

Years ago when I was an undergraduate science major I took a philosophy of science course (as all science majors were, and I hope still are, required to do.) In that course I learned that nothing which science has discovered, or in principle could ever discover, can rule out the supernatural. Science has not yet, nor ever will be able to deny the existence of God and His authorship of our being. Not the theory of evolution, nor a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis (if we ever produce one) nor even a complete natural explanation of the Big Bang and whatever, if anything, came before it. None of that can deny the existence of God.

Speedwell said:

n that course I learned that nothing which science has discovered, or in principle could ever discover, can rule out the supernatural. Science has not yet, nor ever will be able to deny the existence of God and His authorship of our being. Not the theory of evolution, nor a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis (if we ever produce one) nor even a complete natural explanation of the Big Bang and whatever, if anything, came before it. None of that can deny the existence of God.

Click to expand...

This is something I've always found strange about the God-of-the-gaps approach many creationists seem to employ. It's like they can only believe in God if they have a gap in which to insert their deity.

pitabread said:

This is something I've always found strange about the God-of-the-gaps approach many creationists seem to employ. It's like they can only believe in God if they have a gap in which to insert their deity.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's that real theology is one of the babies that got thrown out with the Reformation bathwater and was then replaced with "Bible Study." It is instructive to notice that Traditional Christians don't have nearly as much trouble with science encroaching on their faith as Protestants. That philosophy of science class I spoke of was taught by a Brother in orders at a Roman Catholic college.

jamesbond007 said:

So, I thought where did this energy come from?

Click to expand...

One possibility: Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia