Origin of existence by natural or divine means.

[fantome profane]

I want everyone to read, consider and compare the following two statements.

Statement one:

The origin of the universe came about through naturalistic mean. We may not fully understand the precise mechanism and perhaps we never will. But regardless of whether or not we understand the physical mechanism, there was a physical mechanism

Statement two:

The origin of the universe came about through supernatural divine means. How a divine being would go about creating the universe is beyond human understanding. But the universe was created by a divine being, even if we cannot understand how.



So, is one of these statements more valid, more logical than the other?

I am not asking you which one you believe, if you believe either. I am just asking if one is more valid than the other, of if both statements are equal in validity (or invalidity).

And in particular I am asking anyone who sees these statements as unequal to please explain in detail why.

 

[Quintessence]

Neither is "more logical" than the other. Logic can support pretty much any argument provided you accept the premises. The only reason a person might find one "more logical" than the other is that they choose to reject one or more of the underlying premises of the statement. But removing your own personal biases from the picture, neither is "more logical."

 

[idav]

Both statements are reasonable considering lack of knowledge but envoking the supernatural is less reasonable. For all intents and purposes, existence rather than non-existence is creation itself.

 

[Quintessence]

Supernatural is less reasonable to me too, but I recognize that's my personal biases talking, not an inherent problem in logic. If you accept the supernatural exists and has certain qualities, the argument follows.

Honestly, I don't even know what people mean by "supernatural" half the time, because in my view, it is utterly impossible for something like that to exist within the sphere of human awareness anyway. The word just confuses me, so I kind of hate it and avoid using it. Ever. >_>

I'd also like to note that I wouldn't consider "reasonable" to be quite the same thing as "logical." That is not quite asking the same question to me, so now the poll is confusing.

 

[sonofdad]

I don't believe in the supernatural. I think there's just the natural we know, and the natural we don't know.

 

[savagewind]

Supernatural is less reasonable imo until I look at the tiniest thing and the expanse and majesty of space. If I did not know the complexity of life I would probably believe all occurred naturally and with no helper.

 

[Ouroboros]

Supernatural suggests that it is something that is not natural, but beyond or above natural. My problem with "supernatural" is that if supernatural exists, then supernatural is natural in the larger context. Is supernatural natural or unnatural? If it exists, then by definition it's real, and anything real would be part of what is natural. IMO. In other words, if God exists, God is part of reality and the natural world.

 

[idav]

Supernatural is less reasonable to me too, but I recognize that's my personal biases talking, not an inherent problem in logic. If you accept the supernatural exists and has certain qualities, the argument follows.

Honestly, I don't even know what people mean by "supernatural" half the time, because in my view, it is utterly impossible for something like that to exist within the sphere of human awareness anyway. The word just confuses me, so I kind of hate it and avoid using it. Ever. >_>

I could see that but envoking a supernatural creator entity to explain origins isnt much of a premise since the creationist is left trying to explain the origin of said entity. I dont really like to use supernatural either.

 

[Quintessence]

Supernatural suggests that it is something that is not natural, but beyond or above natural. My problem with "supernatural" is that if supernatural exists, then supernatural is natural in the larger context. Is supernatural natural or unnatural? If it exists, then by definition it's real, and anything real would be part of what is natural. IMO. In other words, if God exists, God is part of reality and the natural world.

Yeah, that's how I tend to see it.

There's the problem of interaction with how supernatural is often viewed. Things have to have something in common to have a meaningful relation, and it seems a logical contradiction for something that is 100% not natural to be able to have any meaningful influence on nature. But if you buy the premise that it somehow can (which I don't), then supernaturalistic creation has its logic. Or you switch to ways of defining supernatural that aren't so extreme and bypass the problem of interaction.

I could see that but envoking a supernatural creator entity to explain origins isnt much of a premise since the creationist is left trying to explain the origin of said entity. I dont really like to use supernatural either.

It seems like pure naturalists have that problem too: the problem of trying to explain the ultimate origin. Honestly, I feel it's something humans will never know. I also don't personally care. I view things like a circle, not so much like a line.

 

[fantome profane]

I also am "orientated" much more towards the first statement than I am towards the second, but I feel this is more a question of preference than it is of logic. That is not to say I don't have reasons for my preference, I do.

I am inspired by how much we as a species have come to understand about the material origins of the universe, by the fact that we understand more about it now than we did just a few years ago, and by what I think is a strong likelihood that we will understand it more this time next year. Does this mean that the material cause is the ultimate cause? Not necessarily. But nor can we rule out the possibility that the ultimate cause is material and naturalistic.

But I see no similarly productive path into investigating a supernatural origin. If there was a supernatural cause to the origin of the universe then we understand that supernatural cause no better than the earliest humans did, and I see no reason to think that we as a species will understand it any better a thousand, ten thousand, or even a hundred years from now. I could be wrong of course, but that is how I see it. Does our inability to understand the supernatural negate its existence? Of course not. Nor does any lack of understanding of naturalistic origins prove the supernatural.

And this is what bothers me the most, something we see time and again. We see people pointing out the flaw in one of these two statements (these two philosophies) and claiming that is proof of the other. Someone will say that since there is no proof of the supernatural that is proof that the ultimate origin is naturalistic. Or someone will say we don't fully understand how a naturalistic cause could create the universe we see therefore that is proof of "God". Each seeing the flaw in the other but blind to the fact that they suffer from the exact same flaw.

I think that both of the statements can be seen as reasonable, but as Quintessence has already pointed out they are each based on a certain premise, an assumption. Both are reasonable, but both can easily become dogmatic fallacies if we fail to realize that they are based on an assumed premise.

And although I confess my preference for one of the statements, I can understand and respect why someone might prefer the other.

 

[1137]

I say statement one is simply more reasonable. What it comes down to is we don't, maybe can't know. However, evidence of some conscious creation by something interactive just seems severely lacking.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's the problem of interaction with how supernatural is often viewed. Things have to have something in common to have a meaningful relation, and it seems a logical contradiction for something that is 100% not natural to be able to have any meaningful influence on nature. But if you buy the premise that it somehow can (which I don't), then supernaturalistic creation has its logic. Or you switch to ways of defining supernatural that aren't so extreme and bypass the problem of interaction.

Very true. How could something that doesn't have a relation to X of any kind be able to connect and relate to X? It has to have some common ground.

Or put it this way, if God exists, wouldn't God be more real than reality? More natural than nature? So perhaps that's how "super" natural should be viewed, it's just more real than real and more natural than natural.

 

[Me Myself]

:flirt:

Neither is "more logical" than the other. Logic can support pretty much any argument provided you accept the premises. The only reason a person might find one "more logical" than the other is that they choose to reject one or more of the underlying premises of the statement. But removing your own personal biases from the picture, neither is "more logical."

Exactly!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Why is it that we skip from the 'supernatural' (whatever that is) to a 'divine being' the two are not even approximately close in their implications.

 

[fantome profane]

Why is it that we skip from the 'supernatural' (whatever that is) to a 'divine being' the two are not even approximately close in their implications.

That is an excellent question. I think people do tend to "skip" from supernatural cause to divine being, and that is why I did it in my example. And in part the reason for this is as you noted that supernatural is not well defined, and neither is "divine" for that matter.

Perhaps I have set up a false dichotomy, but is is a dichotomy that exists in the minds of many people, and it is that dichotomy that I wanted examined.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I want everyone to read, consider and compare the following two statements.

Statement one:

The origin of the universe came about through naturalistic mean. We may not fully understand the precise mechanism and perhaps we never will. But regardless of whether or not we understand the physical mechanism, there was a physical mechanism

Statement two:

The origin of the universe came about through supernatural divine means. How a divine being would go about creating the universe is beyond human understanding. But the universe was created by a divine being, even if we cannot understand how.



So, is one of these statements more valid, more logical than the other?

I think so, yes. The second does not preclude (and indeed entails) "a physical mechanism" (the divine creation of physical laws governing matter, for example), while the first seems to be necessarily false.

We define "natural" as that which is consistent with the laws of nature (hence the term). The one process that no law of nature can possibly ever explain is the process through which nature came to be. Necessarily, the origins of nature itself cannot be explained through natural laws. Nor can one appeal to physical laws to explain how those laws originated. Not that this entails a divine force, mind, entity, etc. But if this is really your question:

I am just asking if one is more valid than the other, of if both statements are equal in validity (or invalidity).

Then I'd say the second is more valid simply because the first cannot be true by definition. Either "naturalistic" and "physical means" have no meaning (as whatever mechanisms explain the origins of nature and the origins of physical reality can only be called "naturalistic" if we allow "naturalistic" to refer to something that is not natural and violates all possible naturalistic laws because these cannot exist without nature, and the same for physical means being used to explain the origin physical reality), or they have meaning and the statement is invalid.

For statement one, then, we have the options of it being meaningless or invalid a priori while for the second validity depends upon whether some conditions apart from the statement are true.

Or maybe I've just read too much Kant and had too little sleep in too long.

And in particular I am asking anyone who sees these statements as unequal to please explain in detail why.[/quote]

 

[Quintessence]

That is an excellent question. I think people do tend to "skip" from supernatural cause to divine being, and that is why I did it in my example. And in part the reason for this is as you noted that supernatural is not well defined, and neither is "divine" for that matter.

The skipping is probably cultural to a large degree. The most common Western god-concept is supernaturalistic as well as a creator of everything. It's fair to assume that's the angle your typical person in America is coming from, although it overlooks other god-concepts and ideas about the supernatural.

 

[Almustafa]

so if Mother-nature makes everything, that would indicate they are both equal.

 

[Falvlun]

*edit*

Nothing has been shown to be irreducibly complex. All of the examples, like the eye and the flagellum, have been thoroughly debunked.

*edit*

Or, rather, the universe fits us so well because we had to evolve in a manner consistent with the laws of the universe.

Your argument is like a puddle claiming that the hole was made to fit him perfectly-- rather than realizing it's the shape it is because of the hole that it is in. (courtesy of Douglas Adams)

*edit*

Haven't heard this one before, but I don't know why it would be surprising that DNA, like much of matter both organic and inorganic, have mathematical correlations. Think of the Fibonacci sequence of nautilus shells, or the molecular arrangement of sodium chloride.

 

[Alceste]

Everything that exists is natural by definition, as far as I can see. We've never encountered any phenomenon I'm aware of that has completely evaded the possibility of a natural explanation, and every time we explain a previously inexplicable phenomenon, there is less room in our ignorance to squeeze magical or superstitious explanations. Since that trend has been continuous and uninterrupted throughout human history, there is no rational reason to assume it won't continue until we have explained the precise mechanism for the origin of existence.