Are there any good arguments for God?

[viole]

1. A theist claims that gods exist.
2. A strong atheist claims that gods don't exist.
3. Some (weak) atheists reject both claims often because they think there's not enough evidence to justify any of them.

May I ask what is the difference between a weak atheist and a weak theist? Do weak theists exist?

My question is: if there is not enough evidence to justify any of those claims, what motivates a (weak) atheist to break the symmetry?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

No, the Primeval atom. aka Big Bang was arguably the greatest validated scientific theory of all time. It came from a priest.

What do you think brought this event about?

That catholicism must be true. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Not really, the math breaks down before the event itself.

So, it's not that it CANNOT apply, but the math breaks down before the event. Got it.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, it's not that it CANNOT apply, but the math breaks down before the event. Got it.

It's like diving by zero.

 

[ArtieE]

May I ask what is the difference between a weak atheist and a weak theist? Do weak theists exist?

Not in this context. You're either a theist or you're not. If you're not a theist you're either a weak or a strong atheist.

My question is: if there is not enough evidence to justify any of those claims, what motivates a (weak) atheist to break the symmetry?

Don't understand the question.

 

[Acim]

So true.

When the theist attempts to prove God, they merely make God an object and less than God to fit the natural sciences. Using natural science to prove God always ends up proving something other than God.

In my first post on this thread, I said: I'm still (eagerly) awaiting for objective evidence that the physical universe exists. Have asked for this in many places, have seen many attempts, and none that I've seen that establish/provide objective evidence. I feel entirely open to considering any such evidence.

Said more than this, so if you feel up to the task of providing such evidence, I am always up for considering it. But don't recall in that post trying to use (cough cough) natural sciences to prove God nor making an God an object.

 

[Ouroboros]

In my first post on this thread, I said: I'm still (eagerly) awaiting for objective evidence that the physical universe exists. Have asked for this in many places, have seen many attempts, and none that I've seen that establish/provide objective evidence. I feel entirely open to considering any such evidence.

Said more than this, so if you feel up to the task of providing such evidence, I am always up for considering it. But don't recall in that post trying to use (cough cough) natural sciences to prove God nor making an God an object.

Proving that reality is real? I'd say it's outside the topic of the thread.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How convenient.

Forgive me, but I'm going to assume unless you state otherwise that you do not possess the requisite mathematical background to understand the relevant literature here (e.g., tensors, differential geometry and topology, n-dimensional manifolds, etc.). That's fine, few do (and many of us who do wish it were significantly easier to understand because the struggle to do so took quite a bit of effort!). Luckily, my inability to simplify things for the layperson has an upside: I read a lot of non-technical sources in subjects I am familiar with so as to better be able to provide explanations for the non-specialist. I recently was asked to review a book that isn't exactly a popular science book, but certainly doesn't count as physics literature. I highly recommend it, but more importantly it provides a bullet point summary of the essence behind the claim I made in addition to addressing some more general points about the big bang "singularity"

“It is important to dispel some false impressions about the cosmological singularity theorems which are widely spread due to misleading accounts in some popularizations.

• The singularity does not occur at a point, from which the universe expands. Cosmological singularities are entire spacelike surfaces. The curvature and energy density become infinite all over space simultaneously, a finite time to the past of typical observers. A universe can even be infinite in spatial volume an arbitrarily short amount of time after the singularity.
  
  
• The singularity is not a moment of frozen time. The singular set is not in fact part of the spacetime geometry modeled by the metric. The singular set is a boundary which is a set of limit points of the spacetime geometry. There is no set in the spacetime geometry where time is not flowing.
  
  
• The singularity does not restrict the solution of the Einstein equations. The whole point is that generic solutions are singular,which is to say that there are an infinite number of solutions to the Einstein equations which look like large expanding universes at late times, have an initial cosmological singularity, but differ by details of the geometry just after the singularity. There may, for example, be lots of gravitational waves, and black holes, present just after the singularity. So the singularity does not eliminate the need to specify an infinite number of initial conditions to determine which solution of the Einstein equations describes our universe.
  
  
• There is no event, force or influence which starts the universe evolving. The cosmological singularities are simply boundaries to the extension of a spacetime history to the past. There is nothing there, before the singularity, which starts the universe going.”

(emphases added)
Unger, R. M., & Smolin, L. (2014). The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. Cambridge University Press.

Causality is fundamentally rooted in local interactions in space and time (or spacetime). Whilst the nonlocality of quantum physics presents some difficulties for both the notion of local causality and counterfactual indefiniteness generally, it does not challenge the notion that for x to cause y there must be some time and space (or spacetime region) wherein it is possible for x to exist in order to cause y. According to the big bang theory, time was when the universe emerged, and to ask what happened before is meaningless, and it is likewise meaningless to think that there is some "point" in space that big bang originated at. Thus there was no time for some x to cause the universe to exist (or to cause anything) nor any space for x to exist or to cause y (or for y to exist).

 

[viole]

Not in this context. You're either a theist or you're not. If you're not a theist you're either a weak or a strong atheist.Don't understand the question.

The question is: if weak atheists think that there is no evidence to justify both claims, then we have full symmetry. Both claims are equally plausible. What makes them atheists, then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Proving that reality is real? I'd say it's outside the topic of the thread.

Proving that objective existence is reality in a thread that is asking for good arguments for God is I would say within topic of this thread. Then again, both are subjective assertions that speak to the nature of "objective existence." How could 'we' possibly establish who is correct? Scientific method? Consensus? Moderator rule?

 

[Acim]

Forgive me, but I'm going to assume unless you state otherwise that you do not possess the requisite mathematical background to understand the relevant literature here (e.g., tensors, differential geometry and topology, n-dimensional manifolds, etc.). That's fine, few do (and many of us who do wish it were significantly easier to understand because the struggle to do so took quite a bit of effort!). Luckily, my inability to simplify things for the layperson has an upside: I read a lot of non-technical sources in subjects I am familiar with so as to better be able to provide explanations for the non-specialist.

So, there is a required background (set of knowledge) to understand the relevant literature. That background is technical/mathematical. Non-technical sources exist to provide explanations to the non-specialist, and these explanations provide what? Background? Accurate understanding? General ideas, which if later expressed in a thread that is debating the topics could be lambasted for not having the degree of technical knowledge to even be considered credible?

And all this for the sake of accurately representing the history/origin of the physical universe? Which in my earlier post, I made a point to say I question the objective evidence that this physical existence is even real. Also stating that I as a (strong) theist, care very little about the 'creation' of the physical universe. Noting that I do find the tales about our (alleged) collective past interesting, at times. And that I hold faith in such existence.

I recently was asked to review a book that isn't exactly a popular science book, but certainly doesn't count as physics literature. I highly recommend it, but more importantly it provides a bullet point summary of the essence behind the claim I made in addition to addressing some more general points about the big bang "singularity"

“It is important to dispel some false impressions about the cosmological singularity theorems which are widely spread due to misleading accounts in some popularizations.

• The singularity does not occur at a point, from which the universe expands. Cosmological singularities are entire spacelike surfaces. The curvature and energy density become infinite all over space simultaneously, a finite time to the past of typical observers. A universe can even be infinite in spatial volume an arbitrarily short amount of time after the singularity.
  
  
• The singularity is not a moment of frozen time. The singular set is not in fact part of the spacetime geometry modeled by the metric. The singular set is a boundary which is a set of limit points of the spacetime geometry. There is no set in the spacetime geometry where time is not flowing.
  
  
• The singularity does not restrict the solution of the Einstein equations. The whole point is that generic solutions are singular,which is to say that there are an infinite number of solutions to the Einstein equations which look like large expanding universes at late times, have an initial cosmological singularity, but differ by details of the geometry just after the singularity. There may, for example, be lots of gravitational waves, and black holes, present just after the singularity. So the singularity does not eliminate the need to specify an infinite number of initial conditions to determine which solution of the Einstein equations describes our universe.
  
  
• There is no event, force or influence which starts the universe evolving. The cosmological singularities are simply boundaries to the extension of a spacetime history to the past. There is nothing there, before the singularity, which starts the universe going.”

(emphases added)
Unger, R. M., & Smolin, L. (2014). The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. Cambridge University Press.

Causality is fundamentally rooted in local interactions in space and time (or spacetime). Whilst the nonlocality of quantum physics presents some difficulties for both the notion of local causality and counterfactual indefiniteness generally, it does not challenge the notion that for x to cause y there must be some time and space (or spacetime region) wherein it is possible for x to exist in order to cause y. According to the big bang theory, time was when the universe emerged, and to ask what happened before is meaningless, and it is likewise meaningless to think that there is some "point" in space that big bang originated at. Thus there was no time for some x to cause the universe to exist (or to cause anything) nor any space for x to exist or to cause y (or for y to exist).

All interesting to me. And all somewhat to completely irrelevant to my argument for God as it seems to pertain a) to existence of physical universe and b) origins of that universe. I fully realize there are other theists, in this thread, who care passionately about origin of the universe and fully believe that it's creation, by a deity (or deities) is paramount to understanding, supporting evidence for existence of God(s). Please realize, there are other theist types who do not take this tract. In my previous post (#371), I presented a wall of text explaining how utterly unimportant it is, for me, to take this tract.

 

[Ouroboros]

Proving that objective existence is reality in a thread that is asking for good arguments for God is I would say within topic of this thread.

Ok. Well then. First off, you can never give anyone "objective evidence" since objective is always external to our minds, and our experience and how we take in information and knowledge is ultimately subjective. It's like asking, "give me a square circle."

Secondly, the way we can assume there's an objective existence is that the same problem applies to both reality, nature, and God. If God exists, then there's existence that's objective to us. If God doesn't exist, nature still can exist, and if nature exists, it will be something that exists objectively to us. Now, if we assume the opposite, that nature and God are all subjective in existence, well, then your world is your world and there's nothing else, then why ask or bother try to learn anything about it? After all, if all that exists is only your subjective construct, then whatever you want to be true is true in your world. Your mind is then your master, and there's no God besides yourself. So, either we assume nothing is objective, and the world is only in your mind, or there is something that exists that is objective, and nature is by default it, and God could also be part of that objective existence.

Thirdly, natural science is all about empirical testing of nature. The assumption is that there is an objective world to be tested, it might not exist and be just subjective mind-constructs, but it's goal isn't to prove that but to test the world that is assumed to be the object of the test.

And lastly, so from that, why do anyone have to prove to you that objective existence exist or not? Or that reality is real? The goal of natural science isn't to prove God, something even beyond objective reality, but to test this world.

Then again, both are subjective assertions that speak to the nature of "objective existence." How could 'we' possibly establish who is correct? Scientific method? Consensus? Moderator rule?

Why do we need to? What is it that you're looking for? Are you suggesting that God is more likely to exist because the objective reality is most likely subjective?

 

[ArtieE]

The question is: if weak atheists think that there is no evidence to justify both claims, then we have full symmetry. Both claims are equally plausible. What makes them atheists, then?

That they're not theists of course and don't believe in the existence of gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question is: if weak atheists think that there is no evidence to justify both claims, then we have full symmetry. Both claims are equally plausible. What makes them atheists, then?

Ciao

- viole

- not all weak atheists think that.
- atheists don't divide into neat "weak" and "strong" categories. Just because someone doesn't claim that they know with perfect certainty that no gods exist doesn't mean they have absolutely no opinions about the existence of gods.
- there are many claims, not just 2, so there can be no "symmetry". Any actual god-claim that we encounter is for a specific god. Often, these specific god-claims are incompatible with other god-claims.
- If you think neither side in a debate has met its burden, then you don't accept either side. For most practical purposes, the fact that they haven't taken the leap from "I'm unconvinced of the existence of gods" to "I'm sure that gods don't exist" has very few implications for a person's day-to-day life. The real differences in behaviour happen when someone makes the leap from "I think a god or gods exist" to "I'm so sure of the existence of my god(s) that I'm going to devote my life to him/her/it/them."

 

[Acim]

Ok. Well then. First off, you can never give anyone "objective evidence" since objective is always external to our minds, and our experience and how we take in information and knowledge is ultimately subjective. It's like asking, "give me a square circle."

Fair enough. Actually, far better than that. I see this as monumental concession. But let's go on.

Secondly, the way we can assume there's an objective existence is that the same problem applies to both reality, nature, and God. If God exists, then there's existence that's objective to us.

According to what you said above, the objective would be information and knowledge that is ultimately subjective. Feel like that is highly pertinent going forward. Perhaps not, and if there is a dispute on this, I'm sure I'll hear about it.

If God doesn't exist, nature still can exist, and if nature exists, it will be something that exists objectively to us. Now, if we assume the opposite, that nature and God are all subjective in existence, well, then your world is your world and there's nothing else, then why ask or bother try to learn anything about it? After all, if all that exists is only your subjective construct, then whatever you want to be true is true in your world. Your mind is then your master, and there's no God besides yourself. So, either we assume nothing is objective, and the world is only in your mind, or there is something that exists that is objective, and nature is by default it, and God could also be part of that objective existence.

Even in this rhetoric, I see you making assumptions. Pretty sure you don't deny that, but kind of feel like you might dispute certain assumptions. I welcome that. I see the assumptions being based about objectivity as faith-based. Thus, I argue that physical existence 'exists' because of faith in it. Not because we have 'reason to understand it is (in fact) objective and (is actually) independent of the mind' but because it is what we choose to hold faith in.

Some of what you are writing in the paragraph is conceptions I've heard many times before, but seem to be relegating existence down to a solitary perspective, when my experience along with my faith in the physical would strongly suggest it is intersubjective. IOW, I don't believe, nor observe that I am doing this alone, but acknowledge it might be working that way. I just don't make the additional assumptions that you have in this paragraph, "that I am the only God that exists," and that only my (human) perceptual subjectivity exists. I have to stipulate this stuff because there is a key part of my understanding that isn't far off from what you are purporting, but I do understand that in reality, you are me, I am you, and the diversity of our beings is actual, even while it is in no way separate (in reality). So "no God besides myself" implies to me, in way you are using it, that my 'self' is only my human construct about 'me' whereas I see my Self as 'us' without exclusion.

I'm with you on the nature is by default the connection, or what you call objective, and what I'd call intersubjective (though I'm really not too hung up on what we call it).

Thirdly, natural science is all about empirical testing of nature. The assumption is that there is an objective world to be tested, it might not exist and be just subjective mind-constructs, but it's goal isn't to prove that but to test the world that is assumed to be the object of the test.

IMO, the assumption preceding this and pertains to the subjective in a quasi-real way is that I self identify as being in a physical body, or even as if I am that body. This is where I generally ask for the evidence that I seek. How could I provide objective evidence for existence of the physical world without relying on perception, which is by default saying, "I accept that I am a physical being, and have physical senses, therefore let me now provide the evidence that is independent of my body (and mind) that shows the nature of 'physical' reality."

To me, you've already conceded that information/knowledge about me (or anyone) being a physical being is ultimately subjective. That there is no independent way to verify that, and that it is an assumption, or what I would call a matter of faith.

I would concede that once that faith is accepted, then 'natural science' would allow for the 'objective' world to be tested, as if its existence is now reality, when actually it is taken for granted, based on a (monumental) faith proposition.

And lastly, so from that, why do anyone have to prove to you that objective existence exist or not? Or that reality is real? The goal of natural science isn't to prove God, something even beyond objective reality, but to test this world.

Same reason for having to prove objective existence as to why ask for an argument for God if conceded that ultimately everything is subjective? If there is faith in objective/intersubjectivity and doubts about nature, God, physical phenomenon, then perhaps intellectual reasoning could help dispel doubts about certain conclusions that are reached which (arguably) affect everyone. The goals of spirituality, divinity do not seek to disprove scientific understandings. I see them as perfectly allowing for all of that (and more). But like all things debate oriented, I'm sure each of us can find persons who think the existence of one disproves the other and therefore the other is without any credibility and all its adherents ought to be ignored or punished in some way that makes us feel even more righteous.

Why do we need to? What is it that you're looking for? Are you suggesting that God is more likely to exist because the objective reality is most likely subjective?

You've already conceded on the last question. If you feel you haven't, then I still welcome whatever you wish to provide as objective evidence for the reality of a physical universe.

As much as I've written in this post, this just barely scratches the surface of where I could've gone, have gone, and am still learning about myself. The argument for God which I presented embraces intersubjectivity or what could plausibly be called objectivity, but does speak directly to concept of 'self' as if there is very pertinent information at all times within the physical universe (and where consciousness is present) to understand 'what is this for' and 'Who is making the observations' that ultimately reinforce beliefs about the nature of reality, self and (if you will) God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Tiberius, I haven't read all the posts to see whether my suggestion has already been made, but I believe there is only one truly persuasive testimony of God's existence - God's Word!
You'll find it as a written word (the scriptures) and as a living spirit (Jesus Christ).

 

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. Actually, far better than that. I see this as monumental concession. But let's go on

Concession to what exactly?

According to what you said above, the objective would be information and knowledge that is ultimately subjective. Feel like that is highly pertinent going forward. Perhaps not, and if there is a dispute on this, I'm sure I'll hear about it.

No dispute. Our understanding of the world is always subjective, even though the world is (we have to assume) something objective to ourselves.

Even in this rhetoric, I see you making assumptions. Pretty sure you don't deny that, but kind of feel like you might dispute certain assumptions. I welcome that. I see the assumptions being based about objectivity as faith-based. Thus, I argue that physical existence 'exists' because of faith in it. Not because we have 'reason to understand it is (in fact) objective and (is actually) independent of the mind' but because it is what we choose to hold faith in.

I'm not agains that at all. I hold the view that we believe in the reality that exists around us, and we can never have an objective view or understanding of it. All we know about the objective world is received through subjective senses.

Some of what you are writing in the paragraph is conceptions I've heard many times before, but seem to be relegating existence down to a solitary perspective, when my experience along with my faith in the physical would strongly suggest it is intersubjective. IOW, I don't believe, nor observe that I am doing this alone, but acknowledge it might be working that way. I just don't make the additional assumptions that you have in this paragraph, "that I am the only God that exists," and that only my (human) perceptual subjectivity exists. I have to stipulate this stuff because there is a key part of my understanding that isn't far off from what you are purporting, but I do understand that in reality, you are me, I am you, and the diversity of our beings is actual, even while it is in no way separate (in reality). So "no God besides myself" implies to me, in way you are using it, that my 'self' is only my human construct about 'me' whereas I see my Self as 'us' without exclusion.

Ok.

I'm with you on the nature is by default the connection, or what you call objective, and what I'd call intersubjective (though I'm really not too hung up on what we call it).

Sure.

IMO, the assumption preceding this and pertains to the subjective in a quasi-real way is that I self identify as being in a physical body, or even as if I am that body. This is where I generally ask for the evidence that I seek. How could I provide objective evidence for existence of the physical world without relying on perception, which is by default saying, "I accept that I am a physical being, and have physical senses, therefore let me now provide the evidence that is independent of my body (and mind) that shows the nature of 'physical' reality."

Agree.

To me, you've already conceded that information/knowledge about me (or anyone) being a physical being is ultimately subjective. That there is no independent way to verify that, and that it is an assumption, or what I would call a matter of faith.

I'm not sure if I ever suggested otherwise. I take the existence of the objective world on faith, and have done so for a long time. It's not very strange to me at all.

I would concede that once that faith is accepted, then 'natural science' would allow for the 'objective' world to be tested, as if its existence is now reality, when actually it is taken for granted, based on a (monumental) faith proposition.

Of course. But I don't consider the supernatural to necessarily fall under the same testing criteria as natural. Natural science is after all the system and methods to verify and experiment on the natural world and not the supernatural world. If there is a supernatural world, then the rules of engagement will have to be different, so the problem arises when someone is trying to use the methods of the natural science to prove something in the supernatural world. It's using the wrong tools. It's like dicing a tomato with a sledgehammer. You won't get slices or dices. You'll get soup rather.

Same reason for having to prove objective existence as to why ask for an argument for God if conceded that ultimately everything is subjective? If there is faith in objective/intersubjectivity and doubts about nature, God, physical phenomenon, then perhaps intellectual reasoning could help dispel doubts about certain conclusions that are reached which (arguably) affect everyone. The goals of spirituality, divinity do not seek to disprove scientific understandings. I see them as perfectly allowing for all of that (and more). But like all things debate oriented, I'm sure each of us can find persons who think the existence of one disproves the other and therefore the other is without any credibility and all its adherents ought to be ignored or punished in some way that makes us feel even more righteous.

I see both spirituality and scientific understanding to be able to co-exist. But the posts I've done recently here was more about that you can't use the natural means to search out and test the spiritual things. They don't work the same and can't be tested upon the same way.

You've already conceded on the last question. If you feel you haven't, then I still welcome whatever you wish to provide as objective evidence for the reality of a physical universe.

I don't have any issues with what you wrote above. It wasn't part of any of my arguments in this thread, or at least I hope that wasn't the impression. If a post gave you that impression, please point it out for me, and I'll see if I can explain myself better. It's quite possible that I just didn't write it clear enough. So please, if you have a post that you consider me suggesting any of this, then we'll talk about it.

As much as I've written in this post, this just barely scratches the surface of where I could've gone, have gone, and am still learning about myself. The argument for God which I presented embraces intersubjectivity or what could plausibly be called objectivity, but does speak directly to concept of 'self' as if there is very pertinent information at all times within the physical universe (and where consciousness is present) to understand 'what is this for' and 'Who is making the observations' that ultimately reinforce beliefs about the nature of reality, self and (if you will) God.

It's all good with me.

 

[Acim]

Of course. But I don't consider the supernatural to necessarily fall under the same testing criteria as natural.

And if one does? Would be pertinent to determine if that which is observing (or perhaps evaluating) is of the (alleged) supernatural world and holding faith in a 'natural' existence. Seems like lots of assumptions (many of which you appear to agree are faith based) are judging what is natural/supernatural. IMO, it is plausible that the scientific method itself is supernatural as it is not found anywhere in the physical world. Not the only example I could provide, but seems relevant to the discussion.

From 'supernatural' perspective, the 'natural' could be perceived as 'supernatural' or outside of Nature. We draw distinctions, convinced we understand the distinctions. I am suggesting the lines of distinction are blurred or plausibly overlapping.

Natural science is after all the system and methods to verify and experiment on the natural world and not the supernatural world.

And I find that debatable. All of science (practiced by humans) has not impacted this alleged natural world, and is (in theory) nowhere to be found in the 'natural world' which could perhaps mean science itself is supernatural, attempting to understand the natural. Thus, to assume the methods and system (or structure of study) is not concerned with the supernatural, when in fact it is plausibly the supernatural which is attempting to make determinations about existence, and quantify it, describe it, test it via predictions, so on and so forth, would be farcical (to then rule out supernatural existence, moreover to deny supernatural as cause).

If there is a supernatural world, then the rules of engagement will have to be different,

Would they?

so the problem arises when someone is trying to use the methods of the natural science to prove something in the supernatural world. It's using the wrong tools. It's like dicing a tomato with a sledgehammer. You won't get slices or dices. You'll get soup rather.

Or perhaps a world where supernatural beings are self convinced they are only of the physical existence (via faith and intersubjectivity), are exercising denial of their supernatural being, and using supernatural abilities to study what they have replaced with understanding of Nature. None of this would impact reality, but would plausibly (subjectively) affect one's understanding of what is real, what exists.

I see both spirituality and scientific understanding to be able to co-exist. But the posts I've done recently here was more about that you can't use the natural means to search out and test the spiritual things. They don't work the same and can't be tested upon the same way.

I mostly agree with this, but it would be helpful to have clearer understandings of natural and supernatural. If only going with ancient doctrines of supernatural, and even then with a whole set of assumptions of how that must be understood, then perhaps we are in full agreement. But if realizing that the two have always co-existed and suddenly science came about, and didn't really change reality, then perhaps science could apply to both, unless it is presumed by any particular observer to deny that, at all costs.

I don't have any issues with what you wrote above. It wasn't part of any of my arguments in this thread, or at least I hope that wasn't the impression. If a post gave you that impression, please point it out for me, and I'll see if I can explain myself better. It's quite possible that I just didn't write it clear enough. So please, if you have a post that you consider me suggesting any of this, then we'll talk about it.

It was part of the argument I gave earlier in this thread. The nature of self, reality, existence and even Nature are how I would proceed to argue for God. I see this divinity within all of us. I honestly believe it is observable. If using only the physical senses, and proceeding with an absolute denial, then it may not be observable. But that would seem to suggest a very strong bias being exercised during observation.

 

[Ouroboros]

And if one does? Would be pertinent to determine if that which is observing (or perhaps evaluating) is of the (alleged) supernatural world and holding faith in a 'natural' existence. Seems like lots of assumptions (many of which you appear to agree are faith based) are judging what is natural/supernatural. IMO, it is plausible that the scientific method itself is supernatural as it is not found anywhere in the physical world. Not the only example I could provide, but seems relevant to the discussion.

It would make supernatural and natural the same, which leads to pantheism... which I am. If supernatural and natural are just the same thing, and natural science is showing the nature of God, then God and nature are the same. But, unfortunately, people say that I'm play word games when I call nature or the universe God, so I try to avoid it.

From 'supernatural' perspective, the 'natural' could be perceived as 'supernatural' or outside of Nature. We draw distinctions, convinced we understand the distinctions. I am suggesting the lines of distinction are blurred or plausibly overlapping.

Of course they are. But do you now that you're showing the existence of God or nature or both or neither if you're using a natural science method to prove it? I pour coffee into my cup. That proves God! Simple. But does it? Or does it rather prove my view of what God is?

And I find that debatable. All of science (practiced by humans) has not impacted this alleged natural world, and is (in theory) nowhere to be found in the 'natural world' which could perhaps mean science itself is supernatural, attempting to understand the natural. Thus, to assume the methods and system (or structure of study) is not concerned with the supernatural, when in fact it is plausibly the supernatural which is attempting to make determinations about existence, and quantify it, describe it, test it via predictions, so on and so forth, would be farcical (to then rule out supernatural existence, moreover to deny supernatural as cause).

Well then, then you agree to pantheism if there's no real difference between supernatural and natural. In this thread however, I don't think the discussion was about God as Nature, but rather God according to the traditional theistic sense of a personal/anthropomorphized entity outside of nature. It's those theistic/philosophical ideas that this thread (I assume) is discussing, and not alternative definitions of God. I'm good with alternatives, but for the sake of this thread, it will probably just confuse.

Would they?

If there's a difference between supernatural and natural. Yes. Because it's in the words that they're not the same and the traditional view of theism is that they're not the same.

But if we're talking pantheism, then no. Supernatural and natural are just different aspects of the same ultimate reality.

Or perhaps a world where supernatural beings are self convinced they are only of the physical existence (via faith and intersubjectivity), are exercising denial of their supernatural being, and using supernatural abilities to study what they have replaced with understanding of Nature. None of this would impact reality, but would plausibly (subjectively) affect one's understanding of what is real, what exists.

I mostly agree with this, but it would be helpful to have clearer understandings of natural and supernatural. If only going with ancient doctrines of supernatural, and even then with a whole set of assumptions of how that must be understood, then perhaps we are in full agreement. But if realizing that the two have always co-existed and suddenly science came about, and didn't really change reality, then perhaps science could apply to both, unless it is presumed by any particular observer to deny that, at all costs.

Perhaps we're in agreement but just using the terms from different aspects. In this thread, the discussion was mostly about God in the traditional sense and natural vs supernatural, natural world vs spiritual world, was assumed. But if we're changing the premise to include more mystical or other views of the spiritual world, then yes, we're probably on the same path.

It was part of the argument I gave earlier in this thread. The nature of self, reality, existence and even Nature are how I would proceed to argue for God. I see this divinity within all of us. I honestly believe it is observable. If using only the physical senses, and proceeding with an absolute denial, then it may not be observable. But that would seem to suggest a very strong bias being exercised during observation.

Oh. I would absolutely agree with you there, but the discussion here, I assumed was more of the traditional views of God.

Personally, I think that ultimately there's no dividing line between the natural world that we experience and other "worlds" or dimensions out there. And what we're experiencing is far from what is really going on "behind the scene" so to speak. Just looking into how quantum mechanics work, you know that what we consider real is just an illusion of something else which is the real "real".

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, by "existence" I mean "existing in reality, as opposed to things that exist only in the imagination."

By "God", I am referring to any supernatural being/creator of the universe, etc, but I'm happy to keep it confined to any of the variations on a theme worshipped by Christians.

Defining the god word is extremely important, as some people even go so far as to define god as the universe.