Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

DogmaHunter said:

What exactly and specifically is problematic about an "infinite natural past"?

Click to expand...

It doesn't exist.

It's just another example of science's decimal-point-on-roller-skates.

AV1611VET said:

It doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

1. how do you know?
2. why would it even have to exist in the first place?

It's just another example of science's decimal-point-on-roller-skates.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't suggest an "infinite past" - natural or otherwise.

DogmaHunter said:

Science doesn't suggest an "infinite past" - natural or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Then why are you asking what's wrong with one?

DogmaHunter said:

What is problematic, exactly, about an "infinite natural past" and why is this problem not present in an "infinite supernatural past"?

Click to expand...

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

joinfree said:

There are God proofs, but in debates we call them "arguments". So, we are inviting unbelievers to argue (the word "argue" is like the "argu-ment"). Let the opposer-s call our proofs the "arguments". Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."?!

Click to expand...

God is outside of physics, and really all natural science. Natural sciences study what their standard models deem natural, and they do no consider any type of infinity - in philosophy or reality - as a quality result or object to be studied. Physicists spend a great deal of work making sure results are normalizable (that, they do not blow up to an infinite number.)

Mathematics is about the closest there is to what one would consider a "proof" of a god, or God of Gods - partly because mathematics was born out of philosophy, which often entertains existentialism and the "world" beyond us.

In the end, math, physics, chemistry, poetry, surfing, boating, hiking, basketball, acting, singing, dancing, engineering, teaching, coaching, artists and musicians, etc. all constitute as ways to generate proofs of God. They are all different sides of the same "BOX" that translate to God, and the search thereof. They are all just different ways of communicating what we all seem to inherently long for.

It is just that in this paradigm, science and mathematics are *the* accepted mechanism for determining "truth."

Freodin said:

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

Click to expand...

You write dictionaries, do you?

Is that why they had to rig a vote? to get the proper definition of "planet" into the dictionary?

Freodin said:

You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

Click to expand...

Not if you have experienced it first hand - and there were witnesses around...

Enough witnesses such that "we" had more degrees than an thermometer (i.e. we weren't uneducated, unlearned gullible people - and some of us had the scientific and mathematical mastery to qualify the phenomenon in an objective way.)

But, I think it is a good thing most people have no idea of real aspects of nature that make Vorhees seem like a masked monk.

Ygrene Imref said:

Not if you have experienced it first hand - and there were witnesses around...

Click to expand...

Even than.

What did you experience? What happened? What did you conclude? What did you observe? What was the explanation?

"It was something supernatural!" is your answer... and there it stops. No explanation, no analysis, no further questions asked.

The - if I may use this term here - "scientific" question is always: "How does this work?" In many cases, there is no answer to this question, because of natural limitations.

The "supernatural" is making up an answer. "It is supernatural... it works!" is not an explanation. It is the capitulation before these natural limitations.

Freodin said:

Even than.

What did you experience? What happened? What did you conclude? What did you observe? What was the explanation?

"It was something supernatural!" is your answer... and there it stops. No explanation, no analysis, no further questions asked.

The - if I may use this term here - "scientific" question is always: "How does this work?" In many cases, there is no answer to this question, because of natural limitations.

The "supernatural" is making up an answer. "It is supernatural... it works!" is not an explanation. It is the capitulation before these natural limitations.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it supernatural; I don't think the supernatural exists. The very word itself is a misnomer. There are just some things that cannot be explained by a standard of academics right now. That hardly means something is unnatural, or supernatural. It also doesn't mean other people do not know exactly what the phenomenon is that is labelled "supernatural."

What happened to me was testable, but was not identifiable by an academic standard. The people in the room did this several times. Academia likely will not try to qualify it, because it is beyond their scope.

But, academia nor formal logic are the arbiters of truth. In fact, for situations like what happened with me, if I waited for science to vindicate me, or help, I would likely be seriously injured, or dead. It isn't really a joke, although I am glad you and others don't consciously experience things one would label "supernatural."

Ygrene Imref said:

I wouldn't call it supernatural; I don't think the supernatural exists. The very word itself is a misnomer. There are just some things that cannot be explained by a standard of academics right now. That hardly means something is unnatural, or supernatural. It also doesn't mean other people do not know exactly what the phenomenon is that is labelled "supernatural."

What happened to me was testable, but was not identifiable by an academic standard. The people in the room did this several times. Academia likely will not try to qualify it, because it is beyond their scope.

But, academia nor formal logic are the arbiters of truth. In fact, for situations like what happened with me, if I waited for science to vindicate me, or help, I would likely be seriously injured, or dead. It isn't really a joke, although I am glad you and others don't consciously experience things one would label "supernatural."

Click to expand...

So, you think to criticise my statement on those who promote the idea of "the supernatural" based on your own experiences. The experiences of one who doesn't promote the idea of "the supernatural".

Somehow I am not impressed with your reasoning.

Freodin said:

So, you think to criticise my statement on those who promote the idea of "the supernatural" based on your own experiences. The experiences of one who doesn't promote the idea of "the supernatural".

Somehow I am not impressed with your reasoning.

Click to expand...

Neither am I, condisering that isn't my reasoning.

You expressed that people use "supernatural" as a way to hand wave an explanation for things that seem inexplicable.

Usually, this type of language has an implication on one's intelligence, so I responded to that by giving an anecdote about a real event of "supernature," and how the witnesses that experienced that were educated, well-to-do, rational and critically thinking persons who were not necessary Christian at the time.

You responded by asking me the "five questions" of quality, and reiterating your point that if something seems inexplicable, it is not satisfactory to claim "supernatural."

I, then, responded by giving an insight on my position on supernature altogether. I expressed that I do not believe the supernatural exists; I believe that it is all part of nature, and what we label as "super" is only "super" for the time being - until academia catches up and provides an explanation.

Then, I described a bit of detail on what happened to me and the others present, in relation to the conclusion I made above:


I ended proverbially addressing academia and the "supernatural," and explained my position especially concerning issues of the dangers of "supernature," and treating science as *the* truth basis for everything:


If your point is that "the 'supernatural' is a cop-out word to describe something people believe happened that they also feel has no explanation immediately visible," then that has been addressed. That word to me is a misnomer, because all things that can and do happen are part of the natural world - there many not be an accepted explanation yet, but I believe there are plenty of people that know. It is not necessary to depend on academia for one's truth.

If you are critiquing supernatural activity, in that you believe it doesn't exist at all, then that is a different issue of refutation for which I did not make an argument.

Ygrene Imref said:

Neither am I, condisering that isn't my reasoning.

You expressed that people use "supernatural" as a way to hand wave an explanation for things that seem inexplicable.

Click to expand...

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

If you are critiquing supernatural activity, in that you believe it doesn't exist at all, then that is a different issue of refutation for which I did not make an argument.

Click to expand...

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

joinfree said:

The natural is measured by the Standard Instruments of Metrology. Why? Because they are unchangeable. So, the Instrument can correctly measure the Nature. The supernatural is measured by the God. Why? Because the God is unchangeable. The divine measure of things one gets from my Religion.

Click to expand...

Just consider where you get the natural measure of things from... and then compare it to the "divine" one. You will notice a major difference.

Freodin said:

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

Click to expand...

Why do you *only* blame religion for that behavior when science is equally guilty of it? Look how many different "explanations" there are for dark matter, or even gravity. Variation in belief, as well as a preference for the metaphysical is not limited exclusively to the domain of religion. It's a human thing.

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

Click to expand...

But of course God *can* be defined *as* nature.

Freodin said:

And I am I not correct in that? Regardless of whether it "seems" or "is"?

Click to expand...

I would conditionally agree with you. People definitely do use the "supernatural" card for anything from murder to mundanity. Colloquially, it is certainly hackneyed.

But, the misuse of the concept by people who are ignorant, or lack understanding, should not be used as a platform for dismissal of all things "supernatural." That is my distinction in point. Incidently, the incredulity that comes with supernatural is related to the misuse of the word.

joinfree just did that... and you liked his post. Of course you can think that "God" really does gives an explanation. But take a look a religion. Take a look at just this forum, and all the different "explanations" for about everything.

Click to expand...

join free said this:


I "liked" the post, because I agree with the philosophy of standards - accepted and reality. Nature is measured by metrological methods which are unchangable; mistakes happen in the application. Metrology, here, is *the* objective method of qualifying and quantifying nature.

Likewise, what one considers "supernatural" is measured by God, but I would extend it to everything is measured by God since He is unchangeable - precisely because there is no difference between supernature and nature. It is all nature dictated by engineering, at the very least. God, in this case, is *the* objective method of qualifying and quantifying [super]nature.

I also liked the comment because it is a kernel of tangent philosophy that coincides with my own philosophy.

Just like you, I don't believe that there is anything "supernatural". The main difference is that I don't include some concepts in "natural" that you seem to include.

Click to expand...

I get that. My definition of natural includes what most everyone calls "supernatural," precisely because I have either experience it first hand (and scientifically evaluated it,) or I have extrapolated experiences in a path that compliment phenomenon I have yet to experience.

Hypothetical E.g.: I have seen a real leprechaun, therefore I can extrapolate my experience to entertain the existential reality of a troll.

In other words, if one "impossibility" exists, then all possible "impossibilities" must be entertained to exist.

Physics does not touch on anything related to supernature, because it is outside of their scope. But, since people look to physics as *the* truth, it becomes a danger of the mind how one approaches real phenomenon of what one calls "supernatural." As I said before, there are many people who are not physicists who know exactly what the full domain of "nature" is. And, in my personal case if I waited for academia to determine what phenomenon was befalling me (instead of doing "things" I knew to work for that particular situation,) I would be seriously injured, or dead.

Michael said:

Why do you *only* blame religion for that behavior when science is equally guilty of it? Look how many different "explanations" there are for dark matter, or even gravity. Variation in belief, as well as a preference for the metaphysical is not limited exclusively to the domain of religion. It's a human thing.



But of course God *can* be defined *as* nature.

Click to expand...

I wasn't even going to touch on the incredible demerits of academia in relation to "proofs" of the natural, let alone the "supernatural."

AV1611VET said:

Since when are philosophers considered prophets?

Click to expand...

They proclaim stuff, don't they? So, in a manner of speaking, they are prophets. Sometimes they are even right.

Ygrene Imref said:

Physics does not touch on anything related to supernature, because it is outside of their scope.

Click to expand...

Meh. "Physics" includes concepts like multiverse theory, inflation, and dark stuff galore. What *empirically* (in the lab) differentiates God from dark matter or dark energy or a mutliverse?

I think it's a common misconception that physics doesn't dabble in the supernatural, but it actually dabbles in the supernatural all the time. Often it's the "effect" that can observed, but not the cause itself. For instance, QM defines a carrier particle of gravity (graviton) which has never been observed directly, yet it is still considered to be the 'cause' of gravity.