The Power Of Circular Reasoning

[Left Coast]

Why do you think I am confused about the difference between natural and supernatural, when I referred to both definitions from a dictionary?

You quoted from a dictionary? Sorry, I missed it.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

Your confusion seems to be that you seem to believe that we can correctly identify something as being supernatural simply because we don't understand it. And I've repeatedly explained to you why that's logically fallacious. Don't know how many more times and ways I can do it.

So therefore, it seems, you are of the opinion that the dictionaries have failed to give a proper definition, and needs to scrap the current definition, or update it.

The dictionary definition I cited above works just fine. You seem to want to define something as "supernatural" simply because we don't understand them. It's a little troubling why you can't see how obviously silly that simplistic of a definition is.

Right now, my cat is doing something really weird. He cries and walks toward the front door like he wants to be let outside. When I walk over to let him out, he walks past the front door to the opposite corner of the door and stares at the bottom corner of the door frame. At first I thought, well maybe he sees ants. But no, on closer inspection, no ants. No weird odor, no discoloration besides a little dust. The cat has become so obsessed with the corner of the door that he literally sleeps on the floor next to it instead of on his scratching post or the couch like usual.

Why the hell is this happening? It makes no sense to me. I have no rational or empirical explanation at hand. By your reasoning, it seems that I should label this a supernatural experience. No?

Why was electricity and magnetism once considered supernatural?

Irrationality.

Was it due to they existing "beyond the boundaries of the physical universe"?

No, it was due to people believing they did, ie believing they were magical or miraculous. Erroneously believing so.

So then, the same people were incorrect in how they applied the use of the word, nature?

One doesn't follow the other, no, sorry.

So if it was the Christians, as it is claimed, who attributed the term supernatural to what is beyond or above nature - namely, what is divine, who was it that changed it... and were they right in doing so?
Or do you think they should just have left it to the Christians to define their God however they like, and stick to their own terms of describing their observed phenomenon - i.e. nature?

I hav no dog in that particular fight.

So you think man uses words inconsistently, and most men who think they have reached a level of absolute wisdom, because he has a higher learning or degrees in XYZ, become as describe at Romans 1:21 - empty-headed in their reasonings.
Okay cool.

Ah, no such agreement then. Rats. No one thinks they've reached "absolute wisdom" because of their higher education that I've ever met or heard. They simply have more relevant knowledge in that field.

What is a natural law, and who determines what a natural law is?
If a national law is what man currently understands, what if he discovers a law he knew nothing about?
What will he then call it? Well duh, nPeace - a natural law.
So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Well um, duh, nPeace - a natural force.

He didn't understand it before, but now he does. How? New and advance instruments?
How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?

You're close to getting it, let me take you the rest of the way.

That force you're describing, that people once didn't understand and called supernatural which they then learned more about and called natural...were people correct before to call the force supernatural? Was the force actually caused, say, by magic from a divine source? Or were they incorrect, was it actually a natural force that operated according to the physical laws of the known universe?

Who's doing that?

Unfortunately you, if you're claiming something can't occur naturally because we don't currently understand how.

Huh? It seems this advice is fitting for you, since you admitted "Full disclosure, I have only done minimal research on this topic. So I really don't know that much"

You never did ask me to explain any of it to you, so I don't see any reason for you to assume, I don't understand the hypotheses.

You seem to believe it's tantamount to a supernatural explanation, which tells me you know sufficiently little about it that you likely don't understand it. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - do you have extensive knowledge of cosmology or physics? Do you have an advanced degree in one of those fields? If so I would love for you to educate me about these things.

Can you see "dark energy" and "dark matter"? Can you measure them? Is there any way to detect them empirically at all?
Why do you conclude that such things exists?

You're flirting with a tu quoque fallacy.

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

Even if dark energy and dark matter are complete rubbish it doesn't change my argument.

 

[Riders]

There are many stories of death and resurrection, but few relating to actual human beings (rather than poetic figures like, say, Adonis).

So examples, please, of Saviours who are both human and divine, who died to save us, then rose from the dead.

The existence of such stories shows how high the death-and-resurrection story looms in the human mind and soul.

Jesus also was a Godman as the scripture says if you believe that,I don't but Christians do, yall believe he is God.......

 

[Riders]

You quoted from a dictionary? Sorry, I missed it.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

Your confusion seems to be that you seem to believe that we can correctly identify something as being supernatural simply because we don't understand it. And I've repeatedly explained to you why that's logically fallacious. Don't know how many more times and ways I can do it.



The dictionary definition I cited above works just fine. You seem to want to define something as "supernatural" simply because we don't understand them. It's a little troubling why you can't see how obviously silly that simplistic of a definition is.

Right now, my cat is doing something really weird. He cries and walks toward the front door like he wants to be let outside. When I walk over to let him out, he walks past the front door to the opposite corner of the door and stares at the bottom corner of the door frame. At first I thought, well maybe he sees ants. But no, on closer inspection, no ants. No weird odor, no discoloration besides a little dust. The cat has become so obsessed with the corner of the door that he literally sleeps on the floor next to it instead of on his scratching post or the couch like usual.

Why the hell is this happening? It makes no sense to me. I have no rational or empirical explanation at hand. By your reasoning, it seems that I should label this a supernatural experience. No?



Irrationality.



No, it was due to people believing they did, ie believing they were magical or miraculous. Erroneously believing so.



One doesn't follow the other, no, sorry.



I hav no dog in that particular fight.



Ah, no such agreement then. Rats. No one thinks they've reached "absolute wisdom" because of their higher education that I've ever met or heard. They simply have more relevant knowledge in that field.



You're close to getting it, let me take you the rest of the way.

That force you're describing, that people once didn't understand and called supernatural which they then learned more about and called natural...were people correct before to call the force supernatural? Was the force actually caused, say, by magic from a divine source? Or were they incorrect, was it actually a natural force that operated according to the physical laws of the known universe?



Unfortunately you, if you're claiming something can't occur naturally because we don't currently understand how.



You seem to believe it's tantamount to a supernatural explanation, which tells me you know sufficiently little about it that you likely don't understand it. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - do you have extensive knowledge of cosmology or physics? Do you have an advanced degree in one of those fields? If so I would love for you to educate me about these things.



You're flirting with a tu quoque fallacy.

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

Even if dark energy and dark matter are complete rubbish it doesn't change my argument.

Yes before the Jews and Christians were Pagans, they also did not understand nature and therefore labeled the sun God, moon God God of thunder etc............that does not mean I don't respect Paganism as a religion i do, But I get your point yes in the past when folks did not understand stuff they labeled it as magic or supernatural.

 

[nPeace]

You quoted from a dictionary? Sorry, I missed it.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

Your confusion seems to be that you seem to believe that we can correctly identify something as being supernatural simply because we don't understand it.

No. It seems that way to you? I wonder why.
Perhaps this is why...

And I've repeatedly explained to you why that's logically fallacious. Don't know how many more times and ways I can do it.

Maybe, try not to focus too much on pointing out fallacies.

The dictionary definition I cited above works just fine. You seem to want to define something as "supernatural" simply because we don't understand them. It's a little troubling why you can't see how obviously silly that simplistic of a definition is.

The definition I was using, again, is not my definition, has nothing to do with me. However, I used it in making my argument, and the one you used makes no difference to the point I made.

Right now, my cat is doing something really weird. He cries and walks toward the front door like he wants to be let outside. When I walk over to let him out, he walks past the front door to the opposite corner of the door and stares at the bottom corner of the door frame. At first I thought, well maybe he sees ants. But no, on closer inspection, no ants. No weird odor, no discoloration besides a little dust. The cat has become so obsessed with the corner of the door that he literally sleeps on the floor next to it instead of on his scratching post or the couch like usual.

Why the hell is this happening? It makes no sense to me. I have no rational or empirical explanation at hand. By your reasoning, it seems that I should label this a supernatural experience. No?

Ha ha. Not my reasoning. I explained above why it may be, you are seeming and assuming what I haven't said.
Since apparently you are not following, I will do a review momentarily.
So that we get back to the starting point - which really is the focus.

Irrationality.

Similar to some speculations in science today.

No, it was due to people believing they did, ie believing they were magical or miraculous. Erroneously believing so.

Yes. Like believing today in unverified speculations.

One doesn't follow the other, no, sorry.

nature (n.)
late 13c., "restorative powers of the body, bodily processes; powers of growth;" from Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe," literally "birth," from natus "born," past participle of nasci "to be born," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget."

By mid-14c. as "the forces or processes of the material world; that which produces living things and maintains order." From late 14c. as "creation, the universe;" also "heredity, birth, hereditary circumstance; essential qualities, inherent constitution, innate disposition" (as in human nature); also "nature personified, Mother Nature." Nature and nurture have been paired and contrasted since Shakespeare's "Tempest."

The phrase "nature and nurture" is a convenient jingle of words, for it separates under two distinct heads the innumerable elements of which personality is composed. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence from without that affects him after his birth. [Francis Galton, "English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture," 1875]

Specifically as "the material world beyond human civilization or society; an original, wild, undomesticated condition" from 1660s, especially in state of nature "the condition of man before organized society." Nature-worship "religion which deifies the phenomena of physical nature" is by 1840.

Nature should be avoided in such vague expressions as 'a lover of nature,' 'poems about nature.' Unless more specific statements follow, the reader cannot tell whether the poems have to do with natural scenery, rural life, the sunset, the untouched wilderness, or the habits of squirrels. [Strunk & White, "The Elements of Style," 3rd ed., 1979]

So before the Big Bang theory. Men knew the universe was born. Isn't that something noteworthy?
Oh. Some stupid book they read. Must have been written by some stupid people.... and yet, they knew.

I hav no dog in that particular fight.

Wise choice. You wouldn't want your dog ripped to shreds,now would you.

Ah, no such agreement then. Rats. No one thinks they've reached "absolute wisdom" because of their higher education that I've ever met or heard. They simply have more relevant knowledge in that field.

What!!? You missed them?
It's expected though. One can't see the imagined.

You're close to getting it, let me take you the rest of the way.

That force you're describing, that people once didn't understand and called supernatural which they then learned more about and called natural...were people correct before to call the force supernatural? Was the force actually caused, say, by magic from a divine source? Or were they incorrect, was it actually a natural force that operated according to the physical laws of the known universe?

That's your question. Show me that you do get it.
You are the one who described - remember... your words - magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, as supernatural... beyond nature... unable to be falsified.
So let's hear you.
You're not going to run away from this one now, are you?
So far you have stayed the course. Let's finish it.

Again, my question - How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?

Spoiler: this

What is a natural law, and who determines what a natural law is?
If a national law is what man currently understands, what if he discovers a law he knew nothing about?
What will he then call it? Well duh, nPeace - a natural law.
So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Well um, duh, nPeace - a natural force.

He didn't understand it before, but now he does. How? New and advance instruments?

Bear in mind, you answered none of my questions there. No deflections allowed.

Unfortunately you, if you're claiming something can't occur naturally because we don't currently understand how.

Nope. Not I.

You seem to believe it's tantamount to a supernatural explanation, which tells me you know sufficiently little about it that you likely don't understand it. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - do you have extensive knowledge of cosmology or physics? Do you have an advanced degree in one of those fields? If so I would love for you to educate me about these things.

I did try to correct you, but you didn't get it apparently. Let hope you did this time. See the first couple of comments at the beginning of this post.

You're flirting with a tu quoque fallacy.

Ad Hominem (Tu quoque)

Even if dark energy and dark matter are complete rubbish it doesn't change my argument.

There you go again, with you focus on fallacies.
Maybe, try not to focus too much on pointing out fallacies. Instead, try focusing on the logical argument you seem to be having trouble with.

I said I would review, and get back to the focal point.
Here we go.

Additionally, any God who would expect us to believe in him without sufficient evidence, and would eternally punish us for not believing in him when he didn't provide sufficient evidence, is deeply immoral.

My question - May I ask, what do you consider sufficient evidence?

I think some versions of God are unfalsifiable so by definition no evidence can sufficiently confirm them since any state of affairs can be rationalized as confirmatory evidence.
Is this God directly observable, measurable, empirically detectable in some way?

My response... basically - The so-called “Dark matter” cannot be directly observed ... "How do we know dark matter exists if we can't see it?" Scientists believe that there is something holding the universe together that explains why all the celestial bodies are in their motion.
Belief?
How do you measure and empirically detect an hypothetical?
Simply put 'dark energy' and dark matter', and not in a different (relative to this discussion ) position to the version of God you described...

At this point I should have mentioned that one cannot measure something they are not sure exists, nor have any instrument for measuring - a non-existent.
It's non-existent because it's only a guess, and an uncertain one. They really do not know if 'dark energy' is responsible for the expansion, or another force,
You can research that, as you admitted, you do not know much about it.
So 'dark energy' cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

I mentioned the definition given by man - please note - not my definition... not my belief.
From that definition, I said it seems to indicate that even if it were a phenomenon that were observed, (that is, one sees an effect, but cannot observe the cause), it is not possibly to measure with current instrument, and baffles the observer - it surpasses his understanding.
From there, I made the argument that, if there were no instruments to measure some forces, these phenomenon would still exist, and their effects observed, even if not understood scientifically.
So basically however one defines supernatural, makes no difference, because the same principle applies either way - cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

So whatever name they give the mystery - 'dark energy', 'dark matter'... doesn't matter. There is no difference between them and a divine entity... in principle.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain. ...and I do hope you understand. This is as simple as it gets.

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe, try not to focus too much on pointing out fallacies.

Yikes. The fact that you don't appreciate the importance of rational thinking is sort of indicative of the way this conversation is going. So thank you for saying that, it actually helps me understand you. For the record, if you want to have a conversation with me, I'm going to continue to focus on trying to be rational and avoiding logical fallacies.

Ha ha. Not my reasoning. I explained above why it may be, you are seeming and assuming what I haven't said.

So the supernatural is not merely defined as what we do not understand? What additional criteria are there? Or are you happy now with the definition I posted?

Similar to some speculations in science today.

Yes. Like believing today in unverified speculations.

So in your mind, does the fact that you perceive people in the scientific community to believe in "unverified speculations" make you feel, justified in your unverified belief in God? Is that what you're getting at? That because some scientists have unverified beliefs, what's the problem with you having unverified beliefs?

Because you do realize that line of thinking isn't rational, right? I hope?

That's your question. Show me that you do get it.

nPeace, I'm literally walking you through the logic step by step. I comprehend my point. Do you? Were the people who described that unknown force as supernatural correct, or incorrect?

You are the one who described - remember... your words - magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, as supernatural... beyond nature... unable to be falsified.
So let's hear you.
You're not going to run away from this one now, are you?
So far you have stayed the course. Let's finish it.

Yes, let's. Why would I "run away" from my own question?

Again, my question - How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?

Because dark energy is an explanation that is already understood to be natural. No one positing it (that I know of) thinks it operates by magic or outside the laws of physics. I've explained this now multiple times.

Bear in mind, you answered none of my questions there. No deflections allowed.

I'm sorry, you basically answered all your own questions in this section, so I didn't think I needed to run through them all. Happy to, though:

What is a natural law

Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For purposes of this conversation it may be more direct to just talk about scientific laws. But I think I understood what you meant by the question:

Scientific law - Wikipedia

and who determines what a natural law is?

Humans

If a national law is what man currently understands, what if he discovers a law he knew nothing about?
What will he then call it? Well duh, nPeace - a natural law.

Agreed.

So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Well um, duh, nPeace - a natural force.

Agreed.

He didn't understand it before, but now he does. How? New and advance instruments?

In many cases, yes. But yet again, you didn't ask the pivotal question - was the man correct to call the phenomenon supernatural when he didn't understand it? Yes, or no? I'm leading you all the way to water here. You've gotta take a drink.

There you go again, with you focus on fallacies.
Maybe, try not to focus too much on pointing out fallacies. Instead, try focusing on the logical argument you seem to be having trouble with.

I'm having zero trouble with my logical argument. It's been the same all along, and I've walked you through every step of it.

My question - May I ask, what do you consider sufficient evidence?

Oh for Pete's sake. I answered this in the very beginning. Repeating myself once again for you - I can't answer that until I know what it is that you think exists. You have to define your God in order to have a conversation about what evidence would be sufficient to conclude it exists.

My response... basically - The so-called “Dark matter” cannot be directly observed ... "How do we know dark matter exists if we can't see it?"

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-dark.html

Have you ever asked a physicist or cosmologist your questions about dark matter? I'm sure they'd love to have a conversation with you!

Scientists believe

that there is something holding the universe together that explains why all the celestial bodies are in their motion.
Belief?
How do you measure and empirically detect an hypothetical?

Empirical observation and measurement is exactly how scientists test hypotheses. How else would they do it? In this case, it appears that scientists observe and measure the gravity produced by dark matter, which is how they are confident it is there.

Simply put 'dark energy' and dark matter', and not in a different (relative to this discussion ) position to the version of God you described...

Ah, so it's as I thought. You think scientists believe in something unproven (dark matter/energy) so therefore no one should have any beef with you believing in something unproven (God).

Not only are the two not analogous (as the link above explains), but even if that were true - even if dark matter and energy were completely bunk pseudoscience - it wouldn't justify your theism.

At this point I should have mentioned that one cannot measure something they are not sure exists, nor have any instrument for measuring - a non-existent.
It's non-existent because it's only a guess, and an uncertain one. They really do not know if 'dark energy' is responsible for the expansion, or another force,
You can research that, as you admitted, you do not know much about it.
So 'dark energy' cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

This appears to be not true:

http://www.astronomy.com/news-observing/ask astro/2010/02/how do scientists measure dark matter dark energy and normal matter using the cmb

The Best Way to Measure Dark Energy Just Got Better

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/physio/mackeylab/pdf_pub/2005jan_beck_mcm_dark_energy_measured_lab.pdf

Are you sure you understand this stuff? Again, have you asked an actual physicist or cosmologist about it?

The bottom line here, if we're being honest, is that none of this has anything to do with dark matter or energy. This is all a giant distraction to evade just simply defining your God and giving your evidence for its existence. Instead of doing that, you're hiding behind the difficulties in detecting dark matter and energy, as though that proves something. It doesn't. Just define your God and give your evidence. Why can't you do that? Why are we dancing?

I mentioned the definition given by man - please note - not my definition... not my belief.
From that definition, I said it seems to indicate that even if it were a phenomenon that were observed, (that is, one sees an effect, but cannot observe the cause), it is not possibly to measure with current instrument, and baffles the observer - it surpasses his understanding.
From there, I made the argument that, if there were no instruments to measure some forces, these phenomenon would still exist, and their effects observed, even if not understood scientifically.

Correct, but as I've explained to you five times now, it would be a mistake - a logical error - to conclude that said phenomena were actually supernatural.

So basically however one defines supernatural, makes no difference, because the same principle applies either way - cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

So whatever name they give the mystery - 'dark energy', 'dark matter'... doesn't matter. There is no difference between them and a divine entity... in principle.
Do you disagree? If so, please explain. ...and I do hope you understand. This is as simple as it gets.

I've explained already, above. Dark energy and dark matter are already understood and posited to be natural phenomena that behave in accordance with the laws of nature. So by definition they are not supernatural. Scientists have literally mapped the dark matter in galaxies by precisely measuring its gravitational effects. What equivalent of that do we have for your God?

And even if they hadn't, and the whole dark matter/energy idea was a bunch of hogwash, that would not vindicate your theism one iota. It could simply mean that both you and the scientists were incorrect.

So again, for the final time - define your God, and let's see your evidence.

 

[Neutral Name]

Don't you get tired of criticizing God or the Christian faith?
I don't mind that you do not believe in the bible or God, but why the need to pull down those who wish to follow the Christian faith?

I, too, pull down many "Christians" because they aren't actually Christians. True Christians follow Jesus. Jesus said to love everyone and not to judge others. I see many, many hateful "Christians". "Christians" without an ounce of love for anyone. This is not what Christianity is about. I think very highly of true Christians but they are about one in one thousand.

 

[Neutral Name]

A common claim:


View attachment 30192

I think that is ignorance. Even higher ups in most denominations know that the Bible is not perfect. I saw recently that one Bible believing Baptist minister said that the fact that the Gospels are not perfectly the same means that it is true because if the stories were identical, it would mean that it was collusion. No one in their right mind believes that every word of the Bible is true.



Sound reasoning or not? If not, what does it imply about both the Bible and god?
............................................If so, what does it imply about you?

.
. ​

 

[nPeace]

Yikes. The fact that you don't appreciate the importance of rational thinking is sort of indicative of the way this conversation is going. So thank you for saying that, it actually helps me understand you. For the record, if you want to have a conversation with me, I'm going to continue to focus on trying to be rational and avoiding logical fallacies.

That's not a fact. They are merely words said because they can be said, and sound like a good idea to throw them in. It usually seems to be done to impress, at least that's the impression I get from so many on here, eager to use these kind of expressions, and so often too.
They are not impressive. In fact,they are so easy to say, anyone can say them.
The fact that you don't appreciate the importance of rational thinking is sort of indicative of the way this conversation is going.
There you go. See. Just words.
A fact is something proven. Here let me demonstrate.

#1

So the supernatural is not merely defined as what we do not understand? What additional criteria are there? Or are you happy now with the definition I posted?

Did I say that? No. Are you following what I said? Evidently not.
Repeating... Supernatural is defined as, some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
You can interpret that how you understand it.
If you see it as above or beyond nature, then you need to specify what nature is.
So, as I said, it's vague, and complicated... (See the info on nature, in my previous post). However, I understand how you view it, and it therefore makes no difference to the definition I mentioned.
They make no difference to the point being made.
See. I just proved that you are not following. Fact.

I have no problem at all with a person pointing out fallacies. However, when one is so focused on looking for opportunities to use that phrase just because in my honest opinion, they just want to sound as though they know what they are talking about, or they have the mistaken idea that anyone who believes in a god is definitely worthy of having these phrases applied to them - even if misapplied, then that to me is an unnecessary distraction - uncalled for... useless... has nothing to do with what was said.
So I think, rather than focus on wanting to use them, it would be better to follow and understand what was said, so as to avoid assuming.

#2

So in your mind, does the fact that you perceive people in the scientific community to believe in "unverified speculations" make you feel, justified in your unverified belief in God? Is that what you're getting at? That because some scientists have unverified beliefs, what's the problem with you having unverified beliefs?

Because you do realize that line of thinking isn't rational, right? I hope?

Wrong assumptions. Is that what you do best? Are you a scientist by any chance? Oops.
Is it wrong for me to state a fact? Do you have to assume that this is how people - all people - who believe in God think?
Let me try to break it down for you to understand. What I believe has absolutely nothing to do with what the scientific community believes. Even if they did not exist, my beliefs would still be based on what I personally examined, and discovered for myself.
I hope that was simple enough.
Fact. You assume too much, without really trying to know and understand what the person thinks/believes, or why they said what they did.

#3

nPeace, I'm literally walking you through the logic step by step. I comprehend my point. Do you? Were the people who described that unknown force as supernatural correct, or incorrect?

You walking me? Ha.
The fact that you make this statement, and ask that question, makes it not only apparent, but obvious, you are not following me, even though I just simplified it - even more - for you.
I'll leave you to keep fighting with that word. Let's see who wins. LOL.
Proven - You are unfortunately missing the point, because you got hung up on a term.

#4

Yes, let's. Why would I "run away" from my own question?

Not your question... My question.
Looks like you're playing catchup. Am I moving too fast for you?
I'm really sorry. I'm trying really hard to slow down. In fact, I'm moving at the slowest pace possible.
This is really fact #1. Proof you are not following.

#5

Because dark energy is an explanation that is already understood to be natural. No one positing it (that I know of) thinks it operates by magic or outside the laws of physics. I've explained this now multiple times.

Of course an idea is natural. Um.. duh.
Wait. Does that mean the idea of God is understood to be natural, and operates according to the laws of nature... even if it operates by what is called magic?
Please, I refer you once again to post #220, the fifth comment.
So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Are you getting there Left Coast, or do I need to make a complete pause here?

Pause...

 

[nPeace]

I'm sorry, you basically answered all your own questions in this section, so I didn't think I needed to run through them all. Happy to, though:

Yes I practically did. No. You didn't need to answer all... Just the one at the end... which you apparently missed... again.
If answering makes you happy, I won't stop you.

Laws of Nature (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For purposes of this conversation it may be more direct to just talk about scientific laws. But I think I understood what you meant by the question:

Scientific law - Wikipedia

Humans

Agreed.

Agreed.

In many cases, yes. But yet again, you didn't ask the pivotal question - was the man correct to call the phenomenon supernatural when he didn't understand it? Yes, or no? I'm leading you all the way to water here. You've gotta take a drink.

Sorry you went through that, when you didn't need to,,, but I do like your willingness to be fair.
You didn't answer the last question - How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?
If we take away the word supernatural, what would you call magic, and life forms higher in nature than man?
For example, do you consider everything of the same nature, or do you think there are higher and lower forms of nature?

I'm having zero trouble with my logical argument. It's been the same all along, and I've walked you through every step of it.

Ha ha. You're making me laugh.

#6
This one I thought was a winner.

Oh for Pete's sake. I answered this in the very beginning. Repeating myself once again for you - I can't answer that until I know what it is that you think exists. You have to define your God in order to have a conversation about what evidence would be sufficient to conclude it exists.

What is a review? No. It is not something you need to need to respond to, and answer a second time... unless you needed to correct something.
What does this prove?
Who's Pete by the way?

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-dark.html

Have you ever asked a physicist or cosmologist your questions about dark matter? I'm sure they'd love to have a conversation with you!


Empirical observation and measurement is exactly how scientists test hypotheses. How else would they do it? In this case, it appears that scientists observe and measure the gravity produced by dark matter, which is how they are confident it is there.


Ah, so it's as I thought. You think scientists believe in something unproven (dark matter/energy) so therefore no one should have any beef with you believing in something unproven (God).

Not only are the two not analogous (as the link above explains), but even if that were true - even if dark matter and energy were completely bunk pseudoscience - it wouldn't justify your theism.

See #2

This appears to be not true:

http://www.astronomy.com/news-observing/ask astro/2010/02/how do scientists measure dark matter dark energy and normal matter using the cmb

The Best Way to Measure Dark Energy Just Got Better

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/physio/mackeylab/pdf_pub/2005jan_beck_mcm_dark_energy_measured_lab.pdf

Are you sure you understand this stuff? Again, have you asked an actual physicist or cosmologist about it?

The bottom line here, if we're being honest, is that none of this has anything to do with dark matter or energy. This is all a giant distraction to evade just simply defining your God and giving your evidence for its existence. Instead of doing that, you're hiding behind the difficulties in detecting dark matter and energy, as though that proves something. It doesn't. Just define your God and give your evidence. Why can't you do that? Why are we dancing?

I was not going to read your links, because I am quite sure of the information I have, but I decided, 'Let me see what they have to say.' - Just out of curiosity.
Here is one of the statements made...
Dark energy is a mysterious force that pervades all space, acting as a "push" to accelerate the Universe's expansion.

You accept this obviously, even though you know very little about the subject, but although it is commendable that you searched to see if what I said was true, or not, I think it is always better to thoroughly research a topic, in order to more accurately discuss it.
Is the above statement about Dark energy true?
It would be, if they knew, wouldn't it? However they don't.

Apparently they don't know what force is actually acting as a "push" to accelerate the Universe's expansion.
It's an idea yes. A guess sure. A known truth/fact? No.
You probably are doubting me though, which is the right thing to do.

List of unsolved problems in physics
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

There are still some deficiencies in the Standard Model of physics, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino mass, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[18] Is it a particle? Is it the lightest super partner (LSP)? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

Dark energy: What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?

A huge distraction? No. A fitting example, which apparently is proving more difficult to brush aside, than you hoped for.
So, let's bring you back to the question at hand.
What would prove to be sufficient evidence for the version of God I presented - an all powerful supernatural being that is responsible for all forms of energy? When...
1. You accept that a "natural" force not known to exist - except as an idea, not understood - except in the minds of those who believe it, may be known, understood, and show to exist, with greater, or more advanced instruments.
Yet you refuse to accept an equally plausible idea - namely God. Why? It is not natural.
This is what I am driving at, by using these two hypotheses - 'dark energy and matter'.

Correct, but as I've explained to you five times now, it would be a mistake - a logical error - to conclude that said phenomena were actually supernatural.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it is a duck.
However, I have no dog in that fight, according to you. Man can decide to name his ideas as he wishes, and use their terms to suit them. It does not affect my life, and what I believe, in any way.

I've explained already, above. Dark energy and dark matter are already understood and posited to be natural phenomena that behave in accordance with the laws of nature. So by definition they are not supernatural. Scientists have literally mapped the dark matter in galaxies by precisely measuring its gravitational effects. What equivalent of that do we have for your God?

An idea? What's wrong with the idea of God... although to me and millions of seeing persons, imo, God is more real than any idea, like 'dark energy'.

And even if they hadn't, and the whole dark matter/energy idea was a bunch of hogwash, that would not vindicate your theism one iota. It could simply mean that both you and the scientists were incorrect.

So rather than it being the case that Christians create God of the gaps, it really is the case that skeptics so want God not to be, that any idea is better, even if it is hogwash. LOL.
Thanks for that. We knew it all along.

So again, for the final time - define your God, and let's see your evidence.

I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate that any evidence at all will satisfy you.
From above, it is apparent that no evidence at all will be sufficient evidence for a God.
Prove me wrong. You haven't.

 

[Left Coast]

#1

Did I say that? No. Are you following what I said? Evidently not.
Repeating... Supernatural is defined as, some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

If you merely define the supernatural as something beyond current scientific understanding, then my cat's inexplicable door obsession is "supernatural." If that's how you want to employ the term, I can't stop you. It just means your comments on it are a non sequitur to my point.

If you see it as above or beyond nature, then you need to specify what nature is.

The physical universe of matter and energy.

I have no problem at all with a person pointing out fallacies. However, when one is so focused on looking for opportunities to use that phrase just because in my honest opinion, they just want to sound as though they know what they are talking about, or they have the mistaken idea that anyone who believes in a god is definitely worthy of having these phrases applied to them - even if misapplied, then that to me is an unnecessary distraction - uncalled for... useless... has nothing to do with what was said.

Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I call it like I see it. No ulterior motives involved.

So I think, rather than focus on wanting to use them, it would be better to follow and understand what was said, so as to avoid assuming.

I didn't assume you made logical errors. I identified them.

#2
Is it wrong for me to state a fact? Do you have to assume that this is how people - all people - who believe in God think?

No, just you, since that's what you're saying.

Let me try to break it down for you to understand. What I believe has absolutely nothing to do with what the scientific community believes. Even if they did not exist, my beliefs would still be based on what I personally examined, and discovered for myself.
I hope that was simple enough.

Great. Then the whole dark matter/energy rabbit trail can be forgotten. Just state your own beliefs and your reasons for them. Are you going to actually do that at some point? Or just keep dancing?

Fact. You assume too much, without really trying to know and understand what the person thinks/believes, or why they said what they did.

Fact - none of your "facts" have been terribly factual thus far...

You walking me? Ha.
The fact that you make this statement, and ask that question, makes it not only apparent, but obvious, you are not following me, even though I just simplified it - even more - for you.
I'll leave you to keep fighting with that word. Let's see who wins. LOL.
Proven - You are unfortunately missing the point, because you got hung up on a term.

Not missing the point at all. You're just using a definition of a term that is irrelevant to the point I made. But the fact that you insist on pushing a definition that doesn't apply to my point, rather than addressing the substance of my point, while seeming very pleased with yourself - is pretty ironic.

#5

Of course an idea is natural. Um.. duh.
Wait. Does that mean the idea of God is understood to be natural, and operates according to the laws of nature... even if it operates by what is called magic?
Please, I refer you once again to post #220, the fifth comment.
So if by discovering this "natural" law he then realizes that what he once thought did not follow the laws of nature (magic did it, an angel did it, God did it, etc.) because he knew absolutely nothing about this law, what would he now call the supernatural explanation - the force that operates according to this newly discovered law?
Are you getting there Left Coast, or do I need to make a complete pause here?

Pause...

Is your claim that God is actually natural, ie composed of matter and energy and operates according to scientific laws? If so, I hope after you're done condescending to me that you'll actually show some empirical evidence for God. Because for all this dog and pony show of "facts" you've still given nothing.

I'll "pause" for you to get some evidence together....

 

[nPeace]

If you merely define the supernatural as something beyond current scientific understanding, then my cat's inexplicable door obsession is "supernatural." If that's how you want to employ the term, I can't stop you. It just means your comments on it are a non sequitur to my point.



The physical universe of matter and energy.



Your assumptions about me are incorrect. I call it like I see it. No ulterior motives involved.



I didn't assume you made logical errors. I identified them.



No, just you, since that's what you're saying.



Great. Then the whole dark matter/energy rabbit trail can be forgotten. Just state your own beliefs and your reasons for them. Are you going to actually do that at some point? Or just keep dancing?



Fact - none of your "facts" have been terribly factual thus far...



Not missing the point at all. You're just using a definition of a term that is irrelevant to the point I made. But the fact that you insist on pushing a definition that doesn't apply to my point, rather than addressing the substance of my point, while seeming very pleased with yourself - is pretty ironic.



Is your claim that God is actually natural, ie composed of matter and energy and operates according to scientific laws? If so, I hope after you're done condescending to me that you'll actually show some empirical evidence for God. Because for all this dog and pony show of "facts" you've still given nothing.

I'll "pause" for you to get some evidence together....

You have not shown me that my statement is wrong.
Dark energy' cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

If you can't, then we are like, going no where.
You admitted you have no instruments currently to measure the non-existent thing... and that is true.
I could suggest going into the minds that proposed it, but how will you measure it there.
So what instrument do you plan on measuring this God with?

I'm not sure you are seeing the point. What's the point?
I'll pause for you to explain.

 

[Left Coast]

You didn't answer the last question - How is this different to "dark energy can at least some day, once we get the proper technology, be tested and/or falsified"?
If we take away the word supernatural, what would you call magic, and life forms higher in nature than man?

Magic is some power that can violate known rules of physics and/or logic.

I don't know what "higher in nature" means. Do you mean immaterial beings, e.g. angels?

Neither of these things are empirically falsifiable, even hypothetically. There is no empirical way to detect something not made of matter or energy, and there are no set of circumstances that couldn't be caused by magic.

Is that the case for dark matter or energy?

See #2

See my response.

I was not going to read your links, because I am quite sure of the information I have, but I decided, 'Let me see what they have to say.' - Just out of curiosity.
Here is one of the statements made...
Dark energy is a mysterious force that pervades all space, acting as a "push" to accelerate the Universe's expansion.

You accept this obviously, even though you know very little about the subject, but although it is commendable that you searched to see if what I said was true, or not, I think it is always better to thoroughly research a topic, in order to more accurately discuss it.

How thoroughly have your researched it? Have you spoken to a physicist or cosmologist about it?

Is the above statement about Dark energy true?
It would be, if they knew, wouldn't it? However they don't.

Apparently they don't know what force is actually acting as a "push" to accelerate the Universe's expansion.
It's an idea yes. A guess sure. A known truth/fact? No.
You probably are doubting me though, which is the right thing to do.

I thought we were leaving all this behind, since it's irrelevant to what you believe?

If you're going to quote, at least quote thoroughly.

"But with dark matter, you're alive at a time when this is a mystery. And if we're lucky, we'll see it solved within our lifetime. Or maybe there's no dark matter after all, and we're about to learn something totally new about our Universe. Science, it's all up to you."

So yes, I'm perfectly happy, and have been this whole time, to say that the whole thing could be wrong, that it's a hypothesis scientists are working on.

Are you willing to say the same thing about your God? Is your God just an idea? A guess? Or is it a known truth/fact?

List of unsolved problems in physics
Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail.

There are still some deficiencies in the Standard Model of physics, such as the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, neutrino mass, matter–antimatter asymmetry, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter: What is the identity of dark matter?[18] Is it a particle? Is it the lightest super partner (LSP)? Or, do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

Dark energy: What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?

We don't know everything. You don't say...

A huge distraction? No. A fitting example, which apparently is proving more difficult to brush aside, than you hoped for.

Not difficult at all, I've been saying the same thing about it this whole time.

So, let's bring you back to the question at hand.
What would prove to be sufficient evidence for the version of God I presented - an all powerful supernatural being that is responsible for all forms of energy? When...
1. You accept that a "natural" force not known to exist - except as an idea, not understood - except in the minds of those who believe it, may be known, understood, and show to exist, with greater, or more advanced instruments.
Yet you refuse to accept an equally plausible idea - namely God. Why? It is not natural.
This is what I am driving at, by using these two hypotheses - 'dark energy and matter'.

And as you have been this whole time, you're still wrong. Jesus.

First of all, if your God is ultimately natural and obeys scientific laws but we just don't understand them yet, then I'm perfectly open to the idea that we could some day discover it.

However, the fact you define your God as all powerful throws yet another wrench into demonstrating it. If your God is all powerful, how would one ever falsify it? By definition, if he's all powerful, there's no set of circumstances that he would ever not be able to produce. So it's not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific hypothesis.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it is a duck.
However, I have no dog in that fight, according to you. Man can decide to name his ideas as he wishes, and use their terms to suit them. It does not affect my life, and what I believe, in any way.

Already addressed.

An idea? What's wrong with the idea of God... although to me and millions of seeing persons, imo, God is more real than any idea, like 'dark energy'.

One obvious problem already explained, above.

I'm still waiting on you to demonstrate that any evidence at all will satisfy you.
From above, it is apparent that no evidence at all will be sufficient evidence for a God.
Prove me wrong. You haven't.

As I saw was possible from the beginning of the conversation, your God appears unfalsifiable. However, that's not my problem, it's yours.

 

[Left Coast]

You have not shown me that my statement is wrong.
Dark energy' cannot be directly observed, measured, or empirically detected.

Asked and answered. Dark energy's effect can be, and has been, measured.

And for the 20th time, I don't need to defend dark energy. I am perfectly willing to admit it could be bunk.

And you yourself said it is irrelevant to your beliefs. Yet you keep bringing it up.

If you can't, then we are like, going no where.

We're going no where because you have no good evidence for your God. So you're obfuscating.

You admitted you have no instruments currently to measure the non-existent thing... and that is true.

The sources I cited indicate otherwise.

So what instrument do you plan on measuring this God with?

Brilliant question.

I'm not sure you are seeing the point. What's the point?
I'll pause for you to explain.

You believe I'm employing a double standard. I've explained repeatedly how that's not the case.

 

[Catholicus]

The balance of probability suggests that once a person is truly dead they don't come back to life again. As I have asked many times, if Jesus came back from the dead why did he conveniently disappear up to heaven instead of staying here on Earth? I have never had a sensible answer.

Human beings don't come back to life again, once dead. But as Jesus was God as well as a human being....

After His resurrection, Jesus ascended to Heaven because His earthly mission was complete.

 

[JJ50]

Human beings don't come back to life again, once dead. But as Jesus was God as well as a human being....

After His resurrection, Jesus ascended to Heaven because His earthly mission was complete.

There is no evidence to support that statement, which is much less than credible, the Bible is NOT evidence.

 

[night912]

Oh... with respect to children I guess that could be a problem given they weren't allowed to exercise their free will and make their own choices.

I understand that but if we wanted to choose otherwise we would have chosen otherwise but we still made a choice of our own free will to choose the action we chose so I still don't see how that negates our free will.

The problem that many people, especially theists, don't understand that explanation is because they mixing us humans with god, the creator. Let me explain with two examples.

1. Human with foreknowledge of the future
- That person sees events in the future. He/she see the choices that people make. It's arguable to say that people do have freewill because that individual can't control the choices we make, but we'll make it simple here and say that humans with foreknowledge don't have control over others therefore freewill exist.

2. God with foreknowledge of the future
- Being god, the creator of all existence, can see future events and people making choices. The difference is that god created existence. So if god knows the outcome of the world he is about to create will turn out bad and not the way he envisioned it to be and still create that world, he is responsible for that world to turn out bad. And that makes freewill to be just an illusion because everything has already been determined.

Theists mixed parts of both types into one, using god as the being with foreknowledge but using the "foreknowledge" associated with humans. The way that's possible is for god to be not the creator of all existence. This explanation is the simplest one without going deeper having more variables. But all have the same conclusions, god is responsible and people have an illusion of freewill or god did not create existence.

 

[night912]

If God exists, God knows everything we do but God is not responsible for what we do; we are responsible because we have free will to choose.

See my post #236.

 

[nPeace]

@Left Coast so as not to drag this on unnecessarily...

First of all, if your God is ultimately natural and obeys scientific laws but we just don't understand them yet, then I'm perfectly open to the idea that we could some day discover it.

So then you agree that laws - why, may I ask, do you call them scientific laws? - which presently are not known to man, do (or may) exist, and a force or forces, or forms of energy, presently not known to man, can operate not against, but with these laws, so that what is referred to as magic - actually miracles - would be possible by these same laws?
Thank you.
So do you agree that anything that exists produces an effect, which can be observed even though the cause is not known?

 

[Left Coast]

@Left Coast so as not to drag this on unnecessarily...

So then you agree that laws - why, may I ask, do you call them scientific laws? - which presently are not known to man, do (or may) exist, and a force or forces, or forms of energy, presently not known to man, can operate not against, but with these laws, so that what is referred to as magic - actually miracles - would be possible by these same laws?
Thank you.
So do you agree that anything that exists produces an effect, which can be observed even though the cause is not known?

I agree, we shouldn't drag this on unnecessarily. So let's cut to the chase and you respond to the point I made a week ago:

How do you demonstrate that an all-powerful being exists?

 

[nPeace]

I agree, we shouldn't drag this on unnecessarily. So let's cut to the chase and you respond to the point I made a week ago:

How do you demonstrate that an all-powerful being exists?

Braaahahaha.
I'm sorry, but that is hilarious.

I asked you a question nearly a month ago (Jun 23, 2019). After 5 pages, you have not answered, but are making demands? Excuse me?
I didn't go through all this for no reason.

Please. Can you tell me... why do Atheists do that?
Why do they refuse to answer questions posed to them, while demanding Christians answer their questions - which in effect have already been answered, if they care to pay attention?

You are not the first, and I am sure you would not be the last.
When you are ready to answer my question, we can proceed.
Actually, I doubt you will answer it... and why won't you?
I believe it's because it puts you in the embarrassing situation of having to admit that Atheist really have no excuse for their despicable reasoning, and illogical conclusion that there is no evidence for God.
No evidence? Really?

Prove me wrong.
The last set of questions I asked... which once again for the umpteenth time - you probably broke a record by now, as the Atheist who dodged the most questions on the RF forums - you refuse to answer, were designed to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the Atheist's position.

Go ahead... Prove me wrong... Answer the questions. You can, can't you?
Oh wait. Maybe you did answer my questions... indirectly.

The only evidence sufficient to satisfy an Atheist - you in particular - is if 1) it can be directly observe - that is, according to you, you can see it using your eyeballs; 2) it can be measured - meaning, I suppose, 3) it can be empirically detected - that is, man made instruments can determine its presence, and probably its "nature".

So the Atheist's position, - more precisely, this Atheist... you - is that, "as long as I cannot open my eyelids, and see something with my eyeballs, or as long as man cannot use his puny instruments to directly observe / detect / determine something, then it surely must not exist. I have no evidence of it."

What? Is that your response?