"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

my suggestion is:
if the phenomenon contradicts a well known and stablished law.

Like how relativity and quantum physics contradict Newtonian laws?

 

[rational experiences]

Two was stated by human cosmic theist.

The sun. In space womb still self consuming.

God held mass highest law coldest deeper space pressure holding mass.

Sun is thought of as the navel that pulls the planets into deeper space yet planets wider and colder own deeper space pressure.

Science law Satan owns deep pit as it falls consuming piling up its destroyed body on the floor space. How it was taught in theory.

Gods mass is held to ownership holding in colder extreme outer pressure not own consuming of its mass.

Pretend suns laws forbidden as it was how pyramid sciences attacked earth giving it space holes sink holes as they converted mass of God inside machines by a formed radiating hole in conversion.

Satanists infer to the deep pit in their theories. Earth would blow apart from the inferred pressure.

 

[Meow Mix]

my suggestion is:
if the phenomenon contradicts a well known and stablished law.

But this happens all the time when we discover new science. This was the point of the OP.

For instance Mercury's orbit contradicted very well known and established law until Einstein came along with GR. This clearly doesn't work to establish what "supernatural" means because it happens all the time with stuff nobody calls supernatural.

 

[Meow Mix]

If we encounter a new phenomenon, these are the things that do not work to tell whether it's supernatural, and why:

• We can't say it's because the new phenomenon was just previously unknown. We discover unknown things every day and nobody calls that supernatural.
• We can't say it's because it flies in the face of currently understood "laws," because, as in the OP's chess example, we don't perfectly know the universe's laws, so we occasionally find instances of castling or en passant that seem like they break laws, but actually don't.
• We can't specify a list of traits like "passing through walls" because of the last point: maybe it's possible to do so with the right technology. We wouldn't call technology "supernatural." If a being is able to

So what room is there for anything to be "supernatural?" There would have to be some property or list of properties that would distinguish it, but what would that possibly be that doesn't fall into the above three pitfalls?

Note that this is not saying "things labelled as supernatural do not exist." This argument says nothing about whether ghosts exist, or leprechauns, or demons. It only argues that if they do, it only means we had an incomplete understanding of the universe's laws. Trying to separate things into the categories "natural" and "supernatural" is meaningless unless that separation can be characterized by some qualifying properties. If that could be done, surely someone would simply post it?

EDIT: And again, this isn't because words are hard to define. The same problem doesn't exist for qualifiers like "physical," "empirical," or "material." We can easily identify the properties that qualify those.

For instance with "physical" or "material," we can say that if a thing has the properties of spatiotemporal extension or mass-energy, then it is physical or material. Easy peasy.

What properties can we identify "supernatural" with? What properties can we identify "natural" with?

 

[rational experiences]

Natural to a human in science means self presence held form.

Earth a non consuming held form.

So he said natural law God held form.

No science. Natural life is real supported existing as a human.

Men as a group wanted status. Science as a practice.

To take from God.

Today humans in the past quantified that status as stealing and a criminal human chosen act.

As rational idealism. By causes life sacrificed harmed by nuclear occult science.

A super state was a human Introduced state to reapply consuming to earths held God mass.

So he said in science by human inference only I conjured an artificial super state in natural.

A sun is self consuming as evil Satan hell.

Scientist did you know what spirits emerge inside of hell?

No said the liar satanist human theist.

So you conjured new presence in science conditions evil vision?

Yes. As gases burning as spirit produced them unnaturally.

As first womb space pressure cold law owns gas and not gases removed.

Science argues. In space he says gases are naturally burning producing light. God in space had evil spirits first.

Oh does light produce vision?

No says the liar.

Can you see God?

No.

Did you look at burning gases in science take them for science and attacked by them and went blind?

For looking at natural light with no visions whatsoever.

Yes he said I already told you science is a liar.

They caused radiation gas burning fallout and attacked life. And conjured artificially cooled evil images.

Humans died from gases burning the answer not an evil spirit studied as satanism. Hoping to own a new supernatural theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, its more like, "we know and understand the relevant natural laws" based on this knowledge we know that we cant walk though walls.

That's the a priori assumption, yes.
But when that which was deemed impossible occurs anyway, then the only thing that can be said is that we don't understand how it occured.

From that, you can't draw any conclusion of how it did occur.

therefore walkign though a wall is a supernatrual event.

Therefor saying that, is an argument from ignorance.

Our knowledge tells us X is impossible.
If X occurs anyway, then our knowledge can't explain that. So WE DON'T KNOW.

If from that you then draw the conclusion "therefor it was supernatural" - that's textbook argument from ignorance.

Why for example, couldn't we conclude "therefor, advanced technology was used that allows someone to walk through a wall anyway".

How is that less likely then "something supernatural / magical happened"?

But again this is just semantics, this is just my personal suggestion on how can the supernatural be identified.

And apparently, you're fine using an argument from ignorance to do so.

In any case the relevant question should be weather if I walked through a wall or not, label it as “supernatural” or not seems irrelevant to me.

Then why are you yapping about it?

With the explanation above, I hope you can see why this is not analogous to what I am proposing.

You didn't explain anything. You just restated your assertion by using the exact same argument from ignorance while denying you are using an argument from ignorance.

And no, its the exact same thing.
If people knew what lightning was, they wouldn't have said/believed it was Thor smashing his hammer or Jupiter throwing lightning bolts from the sky.

But since they, just like you it seems, were uncomfortable with "i don't know", they just made something up and / or blamed it on "magic", which is the ultimate cop-out of actually trying to answer the question properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

my suggestion is:
if the phenomenon contradicts a well known and stablished law.

So, through an argument from ignorance.

 

[leroy]

Like how relativity and quantum physics contradict Newtonian laws?

also responding to @Meow Mix who made a similar point.

that us why I was very clear and said well understood and stablished laws (not all laws are well stablished and well understood).

Newton himself admited that he didn't really know what gravity is.

The second law if thermodynamics is an example of a well known and understood law, so any event that contradicts this law would be labeled as supernatural (my personal suggestion )

but at the end of the day this is just semantics, if someone walks through a wall, turns water in to wine, or has a conversation with a ghost, we could in theory agree that those events happened, the only difference is that I would label it as "supernatural and you would label is as "unknown natural law that trumped known natural, laws in that particular moment"

i personally don't think the label is relevant. but if I where to bet, I bet that most people would prefer my label.

 

[Meow Mix]

also responding to @Meow Mix who made a similar point.

that us why I was very clear and said well understood and stablished laws (not all laws are well stablished and well understood).

Newton himself admited that he didn't really know what gravity is.

The second law if thermodynamics is an example of a well known and understood law, so any event that contradicts this law would be labeled as supernatural (my personal suggestion )

but at the end of the day this is just semantics, if someone walks through a wall, turns water in to wine, or has a conversation with a ghost, we could in theory agree that those events happened, the only difference is that I would label it as "supernatural and you would label is as "unknown natural law that trumped known natural, laws in that particular moment"

i personally don't think the label is relevant. but if I where to bet, I bet that most people would prefer my label.

I am fine with supernatural as a colloquialism. I noted earlier (in a different response, somewhere else) that I'm an avid fan of supernatural horror. I know what I mean when I use that term, too.

However, things get hairier when the question someone might ask us is, "do you believe supernatural things exist?"

At that point, if we are being careful not to mis-speak or to claim to have more knowledge than we really do, we have to be precise about what exactly it is we're being asked exists or not.

 

[leroy]

That's the a priori assumption, yes.
But when that which was deemed impossible occurs anyway, then the only thing that can be said is that we don't understand how it occured.

From that, you can't draw any conclusion of how it did occur.



Therefor saying that, is an argument from ignorance.

Our knowledge tells us X is impossible.
If X occurs anyway, then our knowledge can't explain that. So WE DON'T KNOW.

If from that you then draw the conclusion "therefor it was supernatural" - that's textbook argument from ignorance.

Why for example, couldn't we conclude "therefor, advanced technology was used that allows someone to walk through a wall anyway".

How is that less likely then "something supernatural / magical happened"?



And apparently, you're fine using an argument from ignorance to do so.



Then why are you yapping about it?



You didn't explain anything. You just restated your assertion by using the exact same argument from ignorance while denying you are using an argument from ignorance.

And no, its the exact same thing.
If people knew what lightning was, they wouldn't have said/believed it was Thor smashing his hammer or Jupiter throwing lightning bolts from the sky.

But since they, just like you it seems, were uncomfortable with "i don't know", they just made something up and / or blamed it on "magic", which is the ultimate cop-out of actually trying to answer the question properly.

.

Why for example, couldn't we conclude "therefor, advanced technology was used that allows someone to walk through a wall anyway".

sure you can evaluate both possibilities and determined the best explanation based on the information you have.

And no, its the exact same thing.
If people knew what lightning was,

again my suggestion is that you can label something as supernatural only if the event contradicts a well known and well understood law.

ancient people didn't have such understanding of the relevant laws. therefore your lighting---Thor example is not analogous to what I am suggesting.

are you going to admit your mistake?

Our knowledge tells us X is impossible.
If X occurs anyway, then our knowledge can't explain that. So WE DON'T KNOW

if you say so, but then in that case we simply have a different understanding what supernatural means/implies.

but this is just semantics.

 

[Vouthon]

So what room is there for anything to be "supernatural?" There would have to be some property or list of properties that would distinguish it, but what would that possibly be that doesn't fall into the above three pitfalls?

Note that this is not saying "things labelled as supernatural do not exist." This argument says nothing about whether ghosts exist, or leprechauns, or demons. It only argues that if they do, it only means we had an incomplete understanding of the universe's laws. Trying to separate things into the categories "natural" and "supernatural" is meaningless unless that separation can be characterized by some qualifying properties. If that could be done, surely someone would simply post it?

Thanks for your informative posts in this thread, I think you've been advancing a very lucid and compelling argument here.

I would say that in terms of the universe's laws, a hypothetical 'omniscient, immaterial creator God' is a claim about something that allegedly lies outside whatever we can test, quantify or reproduce through experiment / observation or even testable consequences. This is why it's often termed 'supernatural', because even if we posit that something like an immaterial disembodied 'consciousness' which is not dependant on the neuronal firing and synapses of a brain could exist, we aren't going to be able to 'test' for it using our present instruments.

It's like accepting that the particle horizon will always act as a 'barrier' to how far our telescopes can peer, such that even if the 'multiverse hypothesis' of causally disconnected 'bubble' universes arising from eternal inflation were correct, sans a bubble collision we aren't going to be able to test for it - so it remains a good empirically based philosophical hypothesis, more than a theory within the ken of 'science', so to speak.

Granted, our understanding of what constitutes "physicality" and "the natural" has evolved quite considerably since the time of the Greek atomists of the classical era and the early pioneers of mechanistic science in the 18th century.

The "physical" order of things is now understood to be - and you can correct me here if I get this wrong - at its most irreducible and fundamental level, quantum fields that interact and are described by a wave-function. That's a bit more than just "atoms in a void" as the classical authors would've understood it. Anything under the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of the Newtonian/general relativity model of physics are de facto "physical".

But what to make of the actual "laws" themselves?

These seem to be irreducible brute facts which somehow pre-exist. In some sense, the laws of physics aren't really part of the Universe, are they? Professor Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at Caltech, explains how: “There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops… at the end of the day the laws are what they are.”

As the South African cosmologist Professor George Ellis once noted: "They [the laws of nature] underlie the Universe because they control how matter behaves, but they are not themselves made of matter. Laws of physics aren't made of lead or uranium."

Physical processes and all material objects depend upon these laws, yet the laws themselves (at least in their high-temperature version) are not affected by any physical processes.

Thus back in the 1980s, the late Stephen Hawking tried to explain the Big Bang singularity (including the origin of time) in terms of the laws of quantum gravity (i.e. the reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity that's still yet to be achieved). For this type of explanation to function, the laws need to be presupposed?

Laura Mersini-Houghton, professor of cosmology and theoretical physics at the University of north Carolina-Chapel Hill, argued as follows in a 2015 paper:


The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton

I use implications of the work of Gödel and Cantor to demonstrate that limitations of mathematics may suggest it is contained within the realm of laws. I reason laws need to be in an independent realm from the universe, which is space and time independent.​

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks for your informative posts in this thread, I think you've been advancing a very lucid and compelling argument here.

I would say that in terms of the universe's laws, a hypothetical 'omniscient, immaterial creator God' is a claim about something that allegedly lies outside whatever we can test, quantify or reproduce through experiment / observation or even testable consequences. This is why it's often termed 'supernatural', because even if we posit that something like an immaterial disembodied 'consciousness' which is not dependant on the neuronal firing and synapses of a brain could exist, we aren't going to be able to 'test' for it using our present instruments.

It's like accepting that the particle horizon will always act as a 'barrier' to how far our telescopes can peer, such that even if the 'multiverse hypothesis' of causally disconnected 'bubble' universes arising from eternal inflation were correct, sans a bubble collision we aren't going to be able to test for it - so it remains a good empirically based philosophical hypothesis, more than a theory within the ken of 'science', so to speak.

Granted, our understanding of what constitutes "physicality" and "the natural" has evolved quite considerably since the time of the Greek atomists of the classical era and the early pioneers of mechanistic science in the 18th century.

The "physical" order of things is now understood to be - and you can correct me here if I get this wrong - at its most irreducible and fundamental level, quantum fields that interact and are described by a wave-function. That's a bit more than just "atoms in a void" as the classical authors would've understood it. Anything under the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of the Newtonian/general relativity model of physics are de facto "physical".

But what to make of the actual "laws" themselves?

These seem to be irreducible brute facts which somehow pre-exist. In some sense, the laws of physics aren't really part of the Universe, are they? Professor Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at Caltech, explains how: “There is a chain of explanations concerning things that happen in the universe, which ultimately reaches to the fundamental laws of nature and stops… at the end of the day the laws are what they are.”

As the South African cosmologist Professor George Ellis once noted: "They [the laws of nature] underlie the Universe because they control how matter behaves, but they are not themselves made of matter. Laws of physics aren't made of lead or uranium."

Physical processes and all material objects depend upon these laws, yet the laws themselves (at least in their high-temperature version) are not affected by any physical processes.

Thus back in the 1980s, the late Stephen Hawking tried to explain the Big Bang singularity (including the origin of time) in terms of the laws of quantum gravity (i.e. the reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity that's still yet to be achieved). For this type of explanation to function, the laws need to be presupposed?

Laura Mersini-Houghton, professor of cosmology and theoretical physics at the University of north Carolina-Chapel Hill, argued as follows in a 2015 paper:


The Multiverse, the Initial Conditions, the Laws and, Mathematics by Laura Mersini-Houghton

I use implications of the work of Gödel and Cantor to demonstrate that limitations of mathematics may suggest it is contained within the realm of laws. I reason laws need to be in an independent realm from the universe, which is space and time independent.​

What a thoughtful post! I’ve abandoned my keyboard for the solace of pillows and comforter, so I’d be hard pressed to give a good response tapping on my phone.

So I will owe you there. But I can give the spoiler that a response will probably not contain any disagreement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

also responding to @Meow Mix who made a similar point.

that us why I was very clear and said well understood and stablished laws (not all laws are well stablished and well understood).

Newton himself admited that he didn't really know what gravity is.

The second law if thermodynamics is an example of a well known and understood law, so any event that contradicts this law would be labeled as supernatural (my personal suggestion )

Ah - so quantum thermodynamics, if it pans out, would be "supernatural"?

There is reason to suspect that the laws of thermodynamics, which are based on how large numbers of particles behave, are different in the quantum realm. Over the past five years or so, a quantum-thermodynamics community has grown around that idea. What was once the domain of a handful of theoreticians now includes a few hundred theoretical and experimental physicists around the globe. “The field is moving so fast I can barely keep up,” says Ronnie Kosloff, an early pioneer of the field at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel.

The new thermodynamics: how quantum physics is bending the rules

but at the end of the day this is just semantics, if someone walks through a wall, turns water in to wine, or has a conversation with a ghost, we could in theory agree that those events happened, the only difference is that I would label it as "supernatural and you would label is as "unknown natural law that trumped known natural, laws in that particular moment"

i personally don't think the label is relevant. but if I where to bet, I bet that most people would prefer my label.

Right, but this is because I infer what "natural" is based on what actually happens. It's not at all clear how you're defining it, or how you would decide that something is "supernatural."

 

[leroy]

I am fine with supernatural as a colloquialism. I noted earlier (in a different response, somewhere else) that I'm an avid fan of supernatural horror. I know what I mean when I use that term, too.

However, things get hairier when the question someone might ask us is, "do you believe supernatural things exist?"

At that point, if we are being careful not to mis-speak or to claim to have more knowledge than we really do, we have to be precise about what exactly it is we're being asked exists or not.

Ok so at least colloquially/trivially we have a good idea on what w mean by supernatural, and we usually can tell the difference between “supernatural” and “unknown natural mechanism”

Ghosts, resurrections, turning water in to wine, walking through doors, are typically labled as supernatural

And things like dark matter, dark energy, or the orbit of mercury before Einstein, are labled as “we don’t know”

So the question in the OP seems to be “is there any meaningful and objective difference between the so called “supernatural” and the “we don’t know” or is this difference just cultural convenience?

I would argue that usually the “we don’t knows” are simply things that we can’t explain, while the supernatural tend to be things that contradict current and well established knowledge. or are very unlikelly according to our knowledge, Or atleast this is my best try to distinguish both.

Sure there are always exceptions, but the same applies to almost any other word, If I challenge you to tell the difference between a chair and a table I am pretty sure I will always find flaws in any definition that you might provide.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok so at least colloquially/trivially we have a good idea on what w mean by supernatural, and we usually can tell the difference between “supernatural” and “unknown natural mechanism”

Ghosts, resurrections, turning water in to wine, walking through doors, are typically labled as supernatural

And things like dark matter, dark energy, or the orbit of mercury before Einstein, are labled as “we don’t know”

So the question in the OP seems to be “is there any meaningful and objective difference between the so called “supernatural” and the “we don’t know” or is this difference just cultural convenience?

I would argue that usually the “we don’t knows” are simply things that we can’t explain, while the supernatural tend to be things that contradict current and well established knowledge. or are very unlikelly according to our knowledge, Or atleast this is my best try to distinguish both.

Sure there are always exceptions, but the same applies to almost any other word, If I challenge you to tell the difference between a chair and a table I am pretty sure I will always find flaws in any definition that you might provide.

The difference I see comes down to level of personal investment.

Dark matter and dark energy are suggested by some pretty solid physics, but if they were proven wrong, people would accept it.

OTOH, people are heavily invested in ideas like the existence of their gods and that their loved ones are in Heaven.

From what I can tell, that's the only criteria that determines whether something is a "don't know" and "supernatural": the "supernatural" are things we don't know that people are heavily personally invested in being true.

 

[leroy]

Ah - so quantum thermodynamics, if it pans out, would be "supernatural"?

The new thermodynamics: how quantum physics is bending the rules

Does that article imply that it is possible to turn water in to wine?

Right, but this is because I infer what "natural" is based on what actually happens. It's not at all clear how you're defining it, or how you would decide that something is "supernatural."

Again what people usually label as supernatural are things that contradict well established knowledge.

If you want to define supernatural as “something that by definition can’t exist” then we simply mean something different, but is just semantics.

 

[leroy]

The difference I see comes down to level of personal investment.

Dark matter and dark energy are suggested by some pretty solid physics, but if they were proven wrong, people would accept it.

OTOH, people are heavily invested in ideas like the existence of their gods and that their loved ones are in Heaven.

From what I can tell, that's the only criteria that determines whether something is a "don't know" and "supernatural": the "supernatural" are things we don't know that people are heavily personally invested in being true.

I am not sure if being invested in being true is necessary for the label, but sure the supernatural label usually comes with stuff that affects us at a personal level.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does that article imply that it is possible to turn water in to wine?

It implies that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may have exceptions.

Again what people usually label as supernatural are things that contradict well established knowledge.

But that's not true.

Just about every major advance in science "contradicted well established knowledge." Nobody called, say, plate tectonics "supernatural" when it was first proposed.

If you want to define supernatural as “something that by definition can’t exist” then we simply mean something different, but is just semantics.

I personally define the supernatural as "things that don't have good evidence, but that people are heavily invested in regardless."

It's a mix of things that exist - which will he called "natural" if their existence is clearly established - and things that don't exist.

Edit: if you have a different definition, I can work with that, but I don't know what that definition is. In fact, I'm not even sure that you have a coherent definition.

 

[leroy]

It implies that the Second Law of Thermodynamics may have exceptions.



But that's not true.

Just about every major advance in science "contradicted well established knowledge." Nobody called, say, plate tectonics "supernatural" when it was first proposed.


I personally define the supernatural as "things that don't have good evidence, but that people are heavily invested in regardless."

It's a mix of things that exist - which will he called "natural" if their existence is clearly established - and things that don't exist.

Edit: if you have a different definition, I can work with that, but I don't know what that definition is. In fact, I'm not even sure that you have a coherent definition.

According to well established knowledge and well established laws, one can’t turn water in to wine. According to the second law, such an even would be very, very unlikely.

If someone turns water in to wine, (in a context similar to what the bible describes in the gospels) I would label this event as supernatural.

You would label that as “an unknown law that temporally trumped say the second law of thermodynamics, in that specific place at that specific time”………..we mean the same thing, we simply use different labels.

 

[rational experiences]

If you are a theist reading human theories stories as creation we know as humans creation evolved in cosmos because we know it did. So in knowledge you then question the status I believe self advice. Natural human highest wisdom versus Bible.

Why we are confident to challenge a human written document.

Theorising. As science ...Mr egotism did not own ....Mr elitism any natural force or body presence in cosmos. It evolved.... Mr truth.

Told his truth as a human we walk with the spirit of God. Water sealed the earth beneath our feet we walk on water. Basic science preaching. Human.

Hence satanist ist liar you took water the sealed earth away from beneath us. As gods hell earth is volcanic is not cosmic. Beneath our feet water sealed earth.

Why the theist said reason about human life is a preaching false theism as it was sacrificed. All life was. Bible status.

As one body God is no man owner elite liar preacher.

Liar said one man only was sacrificed yet one a man in theism the theist was not God. What was stated.

God sacrificed all life it said on its stone being planet altar. Sacrificed by and because of the satanist occult scientist. Man human.

So theist says space is a hologram star program where the Ai alien In telligence taught us memory of cosmic union attack and war change. UFO war.

Father human our his story said to me space gas mass is like a tv recording transmitter back to earth. Earth images are seen in out of space gas mass transmitted into memory cosmic.

We get cloud stories imagery as lots of characters. Humans via feedback gain psychic stories images from past.

See alien in life body changed human...claim higher advice nicer alien whilst others get badly harmed. Records only.

How vision told us science machines on earth invented the cosmic UFO war.

We had fallen as a galaxy by sun change. Sun sciences theories. Alien now owned destroyed earth planet memories storyteller. Holographic memory a recording. The alien reasoning.

Our galaxy dropped out by sun fall and as we fell from Sirius Orion area most planets are now black holes blown apart planets now stars. Scattered as it wandered.

Reasoning cosmic a sun should be larger owning lots of surrounding planets. Reason of study comparison advices.

So the galactic alignment returned earth advice history by visionary advice to reason why evil chosen science human is just advice via alienation of self.

About how life by human machines designed by humans first destroyed life. Alien cause just memory of the earth machine.

Once those images never existed natural had.

So virtually you see destroyed human origin màchine designer causes. The effects.

No longer human owned designed as from one side of space earth travel communicators using earth by machines was built. Especially when Nasa study aliens speaking via machines proved man with machine on earth caused it.

Machines direct from earths mass.

Father said when first origin crime A crime A the scene machine blew up pyramid memory recorded feedback is now alien only.

Pyramid earth stone just a pyramid only as memory left. Machine mass origin evil machine time shifter cause effect not a technology got put back into the origin of gods earth bowels where you took its mineral and crystal and gold mass from in the beginning.

To build evil machine. Machine as origin is now fixed inside of instant snap frozen stone mass as evidence. Machine only owns end. Total destruction all life on earth.

High pressurized earth spatial holding of earths mass is first the natural earth law.

So when you convert a huge natural ancient earth mass space pressurized as evolution gets released as first law for mass holding. Is gods law stone.

Science is earth science laws in science for earth is first.

The teaching no man is God a human teaching is not any alien teaching.

Release earth space pressure is involved also as a hole is inherited as space at the end.

Theory holes equals inventing holes.