Sorry Atheists, But Gods Are Perfectly Possible!!

[JimC]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If you discovered that rabbits did in fact exist as early as in the pre-cambrian, would you regard that as supernatural because it goes against the theory of evolution, or would you begin to wonder just how true that scientific theory actually is?

No, I'd suspect a time warp...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If you discovered that rabbits did in fact exist as early as in the pre-cambrian, would you regard that as supernatural because it goes against the theory of evolution, or would you begin to wonder just how true that scientific theory actually is?

No, I'd suspect a time warp...

Alien bunnies from Arcturus!

[charlou]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If you discovered that rabbits did in fact exist as early as in the pre-cambrian, would you regard that as supernatural because it goes against the theory of evolution, or would you begin to wonder just how true that scientific theory actually is?

No, I'd suspect a time warp...

Naturally ...

[Coito ergo sum]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If the laws of nature can be broken how can we know those are the laws of nature?

The laws of nature are the laws of nature, irrespective of what we know. We may have no idea what the laws of nature are. However, whatever they are, if an entity can break them, then that entity is "supernatural."

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If the universe has always existed then it was not produced by nature or natural processes, this would this mean the entire universe is supernatural and everything inside it a product of this supernatural entity. Therefore everything is supernatural.

If the universe always existed, then it was not "produced by" anything at all. It just is. And, it would simply be nature.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If the laws of nature can be broken how can we know those are the laws of nature?

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If the universe has always existed then it was not produced by nature or natural processes, this would this mean the entire universe is supernatural and everything inside it a product of this supernatural entity. Therefore everything is supernatural.

lolwut? Where'd you get this logic from?

The Universe isn't 'supernatural' unless it defies the laws of the realm in which it inhabits.

Coito made it up, not me. He said:

"if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes."

Going by that rule my logic is correct, as an eternal universe is not a product of nature or natural processes.

Yes, but it is also not the product of anything else. If it always existed, then it's not the product of anything and would just be.

There is a definitional problem, I'll admit, when we get to something that wasn't produced by anything else, but has in fact been around in some form for all eternity. We may have to declare the universe natural by decree.

The universe as it exists today, however, is the product of natural processes for as far back as we can measure. There is no evidence that it always existed.

[Coito ergo sum]

Prove that an eternal universe is not natural.

But it is natural. I was just showing that Coito's rule is rubbish because it would logically imply a supernatural universe.

It's not rubbish. It's the dictionary definition of "natural" and "supernatural." Another way to word it is "existing in or formed by nature." However, I was trying to keep away from using the root word in its own definition. "Nature" also refers to "the material universe or world." Supernatural would be something that is not part of the material universe or world.

[Coito ergo sum]

If the Christian God exists as described in the Bible, would that entity be supernatural? Yes, because as described it is not produced by nature or natural processes, and can alter the laws of nature at will (and not merely correct our misunderstanding of those laws).

Do you have free will? If so, I guess you are supernatural too.

I don't follow that.

One, I don't know if I really have free will. It FEELS like I have free will. That's all I can really say. I seem to choose to do things. But, whether I really am freely choosing is beyond my ken.

Two, let's assume I have free will. How would that necessitate me being supernatural? I'm part of the natural universe, produced by natural processes. Natural.

[Coito ergo sum]

Or, the question is: If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

Or, if an entity was discovered that was not produced by nature or natural processes, would that entity be supernatural? By definition, yes.

If you discovered that rabbits did in fact exist as early as in the pre-cambrian, would you regard that as supernatural because it goes against the theory of evolution, or would you begin to wonder just how true that scientific theory actually is?

If we found one rabbit supposedly in the pre-Cambrian layers, I would first argue whether the observation is somehow flawed. Presumably, if there was one rabbit there, there would be many.

If we found many rabbits, such that the observation is repeated and verified, then obviously we we need to revisit the theory of evolution entirely.

However, none of that relates to what I posted.

I did not write "If an entity was discovered that could break our limited understanding of the actual laws of nature...." I wrote, "If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature..." Of course I agree that something that contradicts our current theories is not necessarily supernatural, and it in fact probably is not supernatural - when we make new observations, like rabbits in the pre-cambrian, we should normally assume it's our understanding that is wrong, not that a miracle has happened.

[Hermit]

I did not write "If an entity was discovered that could break our limited understanding of the actual laws of nature...." I wrote, "If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature..." Of course I agree that something that contradicts our current theories is not necessarily supernatural, and it in fact probably is not supernatural - when we make new observations, like rabbits in the pre-cambrian, we should normally assume it's our understanding that is wrong, not that a miracle has happened.

Rightio. Now, how can we tell if an actual law of nature (as opposed to our limited understanding of the actual laws of nature) was broken?

[Coito ergo sum]

I did not write "If an entity was discovered that could break our limited understanding of the actual laws of nature...." I wrote, "If an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature..." Of course I agree that something that contradicts our current theories is not necessarily supernatural, and it in fact probably is not supernatural - when we make new observations, like rabbits in the pre-cambrian, we should normally assume it's our understanding that is wrong, not that a miracle has happened.

Rightio. Now, how can we tell if an actual law of nature (as opposed to our limited understanding of the actual laws of nature) was broken?

We may or may not be able to. We can tell by learning more about the laws of nature. If we ever figure it all out, then we'll know.

But, irrespective of our knowledge or lack thereof, if a an entity was discovered that could break the actual laws of nature, then that entity would be supernatural.

Think of it this way - even if no humans existed at all - so we had zero knowledge of anything - if there existed an entity that could break the actual laws of nature (whatever those laws may be), then that entity would be supernatural.

[Hermit]

if there existed an entity that could break the actual laws of nature (whatever those laws may be), then that entity would be supernatural.

Now, that is begging the question. Mistermack, come here and look at this.

[JimC]

if there existed an entity that could break the actual laws of nature (whatever those laws may be), then that entity would be supernatural.

Now, that is begging the question. Mistermack, come here and look at this.

This whole area is reminiscent of those weird theological arguments as to whether god is powerful enough to break his own laws...

[hiyymer]

If the Christian God exists as described in the Bible, would that entity be supernatural? Yes, because as described it is not produced by nature or natural processes, and can alter the laws of nature at will (and not merely correct our misunderstanding of those laws).

Do you have free will? If so, I guess you are supernatural too.

I don't follow that.

One, I don't know if I really have free will. It FEELS like I have free will. That's all I can really say. I seem to choose to do things. But, whether I really am freely choosing is beyond my ken.

Two, let's assume I have free will. How would that necessitate me being supernatural? I'm part of the natural universe, produced by natural processes. Natural.

You would be an uncaused cause.

[hiyymer]

The universe as it exists today, however, is the product of natural processes for as far back as we can measure. There is no evidence that it always existed.

There was an interesting article in Scientific American recently about time. We really don't understand it. Time that is. One possibility is that time is just an emergent property of relative motion. The earth goes around the sun and we have time. No giant clock ticking anywhere. Einstein is only half way there. Time doesn't actually exist. So if time doesn't exist, how could anything begin? There was no beginning of time. Only the emergence of time due to the discreet clumping of matter in the universe. It the universe was once an almost infinitely dense and hot point of matter it was not a beginning but an eternity.

[mistermack]

I'm pretty much with that guy farsight on time. I've always thought that time was just one property of the way energy moves. It's an effect we experience, of the movement of energy through fields.
All the energy in the universe combined, gives a universal time.
People go on about the possibility of time travel, but I think it's completely impossible. The only time that actually exists is this instant.
To be able to travel back in time, it would mean that every instant would have to leave an exact copy of the Universe, like a frame in a film. As an instant is infinitely small, those copies would be pretty numerous by now.

As far as breaking the laws of nature goes, how circular can you get?
As soon as it's broken, it turns out it wasn't a law at all. So all a god could ever do is DISPROVE the laws of nature. That's the definition of the word LAW. It can never be broken. If it's ever broken, it was never really a proper law.
It's not like a legal law, where you can just go over forty in a forty limit.
.