Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your take on what happens to the 2/3 who disagree with you, is opinion.So you call for evidence and cite a sociological consensus on religious numbers as an example. Positive atheists cite other such "appeals to evidence" and bequeathe them with the authority of science. What you deny is clear and clearly articulated in scripture and church and less so in creation and history. Yet you assert the use of tools that cannot yield spiritual answers nor even physical ones beyond a certain point and then complain that they do not provide you with the evidence you need. It would be funny except it is probably true that about 2/3rds of the people on this planet seem to be on a highway to hell and intent on bickering about which death metal band, hindu idol or koranic verse should be on the wall of the bus that takes them there.
in general we do have evidence for a designer. to me this is the main point. try for instance this one:I would not base my own belief on a young earth on science. Nor do I think that evolution is not happening and is not observable today. There were not 43 different types of sparrow on the ark.
But there is no proper science to show that macroevolution and an old universe is anything but speculation beyond the scope of science.
That so many people today have assumed that science has the right and clarity to speak outside the scope of its methods is what is interesting here. That so many people assume that the all determining theory of evolution, that has developed as a theory of our origins, does not contradict the equally powerful conviction that our choices are meaningful ones and should be respected is also interesting.
The latest form of positive atheism based on science and choice fails because it overextends the authorities it claims, because it contradicts itself and because its own sick form of narcissistic choice is too subjective and has no basis in any kind of external authority that might legitimate it.
The demons acknowledge that God exists and that does them no good. To suggest that something may move in the shadows outside your own tiny of bubble of godless consciousness is not faith and will not save you. Indeed when the vast majority of the worlds population are shouting at you that there is a God the affirmation of alternate authorities like science and choice (which is the dominant consensus amongst atheists today) is a nonsense on the basis of which we might question that atheists sanity.
in general we do have evidence for a designer. to me this is the main point. try for instance this one:
the self replicating watch argument
Thanks for responding. Why don't you start a new thread documenting this evidence for supernatural entities. And explain why the natural world as we observe it cannot have resulted from natural processes. I will gladly subscribe. It will be great to have an intelligent discussion of both viewpoints.
The reason that the natural realm cannot be the result of natural processes is because such a concept is logically incoherent. The notion of something creating itself is a self contradiction. The universe i.e. the natural realm and all of its constituents would have had to exist before it existed in order for it to bring itself into existence.
There are several responses to the cosmological argument. The late physicist Victor Stenger, in his book God:The Failed Hypothesis summarizes them.
To me, I've never understood why matter and energy couldn't have always existed. If you believe a supernatural creative entity always existed, why not photons and particles? You know there are several cyclic models of the universe, describing how an endless series of expansions and contractions could have occurred, each resulting in a universe with different properties. Invoking supernaturalism doesn't answer the question. It just raises the question of how the supernatural entity came to be. And even if you overlook that problem, there are issues of how it works, and what are the specific characteristics of the supernatural. Is it one entity or many entities? Maybe there is one such entity for every quark or quanta of energy in the universe. Why not?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas.I've never understood why matter and energy couldn't have always existed.
If you believe a supernatural creative entity always existed, why not photons and particles?
You know there are several cyclic models of the universe, describing how an endless series of expansions and contractions could have occurred, each resulting in a universe with different properties.
Invoking supernaturalism doesn't answer the question.
It just raises the question of how the supernatural entity came to be.
Awesome!
Before we delve into looking at evidence for the supernatural, I think an answer to your question can be given.
The reason that the natural realm cannot be the result of natural processes is because such a concept is logically incoherent. The notion of something creating itself is a self contradiction. The universe i.e. the natural realm and all of its constituents would have had to exist before it existed in order for it to bring itself into existence.
Yes, of course we can give "We don´t know." another name, e.g. "the supernatural". Sounds impressive but doesn´t make a difference in epistemological value.Having established that the universe could not have created itself, we are either left with the universe existing eternally or it being the result of some cause which transcends it, i.e. a supernatural cause.
Uh, let´s simply claim that "the supernatural" has existed eternally.So how did the supernatural come into existence? The problems for the natural realm would also apply to the supernatural realm. Did something super-supernatural create that?
So how did the supernatural come into existence? The problems for the natural realm would also apply to the supernatural realm. Did something super-supernatural create that?
Yes, of course we can give "We don´t know." another name, e.g. "the supernatural". Sounds impressive but doesn´t make a difference in epistemological value.
Whatever.
As alluded to earlier, that which exists necessarily never comes into existence or goes out of existence. The question does not apply.
Nor do I see the fact that the natural order would require a cause if it comes into existence to be a "problem".
Well, now that you have ignored the points in my previous post and instead basically repeated what I had responded to - should I just copy and paste my previous post here?Well, if the natural order comes into existence and it could not have caused itself to come into being, then it necessarily follows that something other than the natural order caused it to be.
This "other than nature" something is usually referred to as "supernatural". Some use the phrase "ultramundane" or "transcendent".
The point remains logically inescapable.
If someone's epistemological views require them to maintain that such words and concepts are valueless, I would just suggest they alter their views to cohere with what is logical and well evidenced.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas
I accept the universe as we know it had a beginning, however that doesn't mean a naturally occurring multiverse or some other naturally occurring dimension doesn't exist outside of our current universe.
If the supernatural realm can exist, why not an eternal natural multiverse?
Well, now that you have ignored the points in my previous post and instead basically repeated what I had responded to - should I just copy and paste my previous post here?
If you are using the word "universe" in its traditional sense of the sum total of all space, time, matter, and energy i.e. the natural world, then yes, an absolute beginning of this natural realm would would entail that there is no other "naturally occurring multiverse" or "naturally occurring dimension".
If you are using the term "universe" to refer to some region or part of a larger multiverse, then you're right, the coming into being of the universe would not entail that there did not exist some larger, natural context in which this happens.
When physicists and cosmologists use the term "universe" they are using it in its traditional sense, i.e. that sum total of all spacetime, matter, and energy, i.e. the sum total of the natural order.
Additionally, the notion that there exists some eternally existing multiverse from which our universe is derived is the stuff of interesting science fiction at best. It simply has no shred of evidence, empirical or otherwise to support it.
You seem to be equating the two. The two are not analogous.
In addition, there is good evidence for the supernatural. There is no evidence whatsoever for an eternally existing multiverse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?