oh lol, that is so great

Creation takes 5 seconds to tell.

God did it. Bible proves it. The end.

If we really do believe in God, then we owe it to Him to have a real curiosity that isn't settled by assumptions.

The point being, that shouldnt be the only explanation, since that is not an explanation at all.

What's not an explanation of what?

"God did it" is not an explanation of anything and everything, including why balls fall to the ground and why there is diversity in the world.

Well yes, I know.

Science doesn't have anything to say about ethics and metaphysics, because those belong the realm of philosophy. Okay.
But supernatural belonged to philosophy? Is it because we cannot observe the interaction of the natural and supernatural?
We don't observe the interaction of ethics and the physical world in a scientific manner, because ethics is a concept. So you are saying that supernatural entities are merely concepts, instead of something that exists tangibly?

This post has been edited by Sinnerman: Nov 6 2009, 04:35 AM

The supernatural exists tangibly, but our concept of them is removed from material reality. They aren't causes we can measure and observe like gravity or electromagnetism, because we can't set them as conditions on experiments. Even if we were to have some sort of unknowable cause to an effect in an experiment, it would be meaningless to attribute it to the supernatural; it isn't the methodology of science or anything it can comment on meaningfully (because it can only inquire into material reality).

Agree with you on all points, but a lot of things still remain unanswered.
- How can the supernatural interact with the natural without breaking the laws of physics?
- Even if science couldn't set the supernatural as conditions on experiments, why can't science study them from merely observing them?
- Is it because they cannot be reliably observed (eg. only crazy people see ghosts)?

There is no physical law that necessarily exists that states "No supernatural causes may intervene in material reality."



Epistemology. It would be possible to attribute anything but supernatural causes to what might apparently be miracles. A contradiction to our everyday experience is already scientific fact in quantum physics, I should doubt that a contradiction to our everyday experience is necessarily a miracle.



That's most of it; because the experiment couldn't be repeated, its essentially moot. The scientific method is dependent upon the same event happening every time the same conditions are met.

EVEN IF there's not, you act as if such law existed.

Proof:


Why such cognitive dissonance?


This is not about whether an experiment can be repeated. A meteor falling into our atmosphere cannot be repeated. We can't cause some space rocks to fall here. It's simply about being OBSERVED. You seemed to imply that most people who witnessed the interaction between supernatural and natural to be unreliable observer/witness (crazy people, drugged people, etc). I am curious as to why you would say "most", instead of "all".

By the way, I guess there's still one more question:
How do you know that God is a supernatural entity, not a natural entity?

This post has been edited by Sinnerman: Nov 7 2009, 03:10 AM

It isn't dissonance at all. That I admit that contradictions to our everyday experiences aren't necessarily miracles doesn't mean I believe the supernatural can't intervene in the natural world.

I even offered a clear example in quantum physics. That something could be in two places at once is contradictory to our notion of being, yet its proven in quantum physics. Is this a miracle? Is God constantly messing with us? It's not impossible, but I think it's highly unlikely.



I'm not implying a person even probably is deluded if/when they think they witness a miracle. After all, I must admit my beliefs are quite positive towards miracles, because, after all, I do believe in transubstantiation, which is most definitely miraculous.

But in other situations with tangible effects, it isn't so much that a person is an unreliable observer but that they may not have considered all possible causes, or that the cause is natural but something we could never figure out. We are humans who are prone to error. We learn this in chemistry; there are at times unavoidable limits to our ability to analyze an event; imprecise measurements, not the right tools, ruined conditions, contaminated materials, etc.



A "God" who is wholly natural is not possibly really God the maximally perfect being. A natural entity is by nature contingent upon God's creative act, making it by default less than maximally perfect.

I think ovrcmpmication of vey simple ideas is a corruption of knowledge.

And refusal to contend with the fact that your simple fantasies is just ignorance that you like to pretend is enlightenment is its own.

What simple ideas are you talking about?

I think you are trying to oversimplify a complicated subject.

Hence which is why most yecs simply aren't smart enough to grasp reality bc of their lack if willingness to understand.

Evolution isn't complicated too me bc I undertand how it works; it's really simple once one shuts their mouth and opens their ears.

As crazy as this might seem to you, the fact that you think you understand something doesn't mean its simple.

That, and I'm quite sure everything is a lot more complicated than it would seem at first. The only things that makes things seem obvious in the first place are assumptions, but once you've removed your assumptions, you see that nothing is so obvious as it was before.

Ok; it may not be hard to understand but it certainly makes sense. More sense than yec.

Perhaps evolution does make more sense than YEC when you consider the facts of the material world.

But you can't act as if that's simple. Evolution rests on many individual facts that require synthesizing to see the whole picture. Its not always that even if A and B implicate C that people see the implication.

Since the world isn't six thousand years old yec simply makes no sense whatsoever. At all. Aka it's a lie. And who does he bible say is the father of all lies? Isn't it Satan? Oh yes I do believe it is...

i guess Satan skewed the word... or man had his own agendas.

I suppose. All I know is yec isn't real. And to believe in things that aren't real is unhealthy behavior.

i believe in destiny, yet i also believe in free will.... which all tie into my belief that there are infinite universes in existence and that life is just a dream. i also believe that death only propagates more choices and more realities, so we never actually die. oh, and i believe we are all collectively experiencing ourself subjectively, meaning we are the imagination of ourself.

is this unhealthy?

Is it real?