Starboy

Stephen T-B,

I couldn't agree with you more. I have only been posting here for a short time. Have you come across any IDers that understood this? Also what Athanasius appeared to be doing was trying to introduce ID as science by changing the definitions of natural, universe and by introducing exo-universe for no very good reason at all. Is this a common tactic of IDers? If it is then my earlier comments of dishonesty stands.

Starboy

Albion

I assume the first thing is that the church would try to stop research into the God phenomenon in order to preserve the mysteries and there'd be some pretty fierce reactions.

This whole thing about the mysteries of religion seems to be tying in with the division in the CofE at the moment, where a significant number of clergy reject the virgin birth and resurrection but still consider erligion a good thing because it promotes social stability. It'll be interesting to see if religion under those circumstances has enough attraction for people.

Bubba

I will say that this has been one of the best threads that I have read in the evo/cre forum.

Thanks, Athanasius, and don't be a stranger!

Bubba

Xyzzy

Xyzzy,
What is your definition of natural?

That which consistently follows from an understanding of the rules and laws of the natural world. Basically the whole gamut from relativity, chemistry, quantum physics, to biology, astronomy, and cosmology. All of these disciplines are united in that they derive from the same set of testable and quantifiable inferences and models of the material world.

This is in contrast to truly mysterious, though theoretically repeatable phenomena that is entirely unconnected and unlimited by known physical law. There is no reason why "super"-natural phenomena that is repeatable and empirically provable, but is entirely outside of the ken of known natural phenomena could not exist. We simply haven't seen any, even after repeatedly searching for it.

Xyzzy

Starboy,

Answer me this question:

If repeatably, under strict laboratory conditions, you were to say the code words "Hello God, it's us Scientists down here.. could you talk to us please?" And subsequently a beam of ethereal light were to shine from nowhere with a powerful voice answering "YES, HOW MAY I HELP YOU?" Would you consider that a "natural" occurence simply because it is repeatable and testable, or would it be a supernatural occurence?

I understand the definition of natural and supernatural is subjective, but I believe almost every person on the planet would classify this as a supernatural phenomena.

Yet you may then insist that merely because the phenomena is repeatable, it therefore has some definable mechanistic explanation. That it can be reduced to some set of natural universal laws. But what if it couldn't be reduced to a set of natural laws. What if there was no correspondence between such a repeatable phenomena, and any known natural law whatsoever. Simply because a phenomena is repeatable and empirically evidenced doesn't mean that it can be explained, or even understood.

Xyzzy

I say bring it on Athanasius. If this exo-universe exists, what empirical test can we use to prove it's existence. Is there anything beyond the known fallacious arguments of the ID'ers, and your personal subjective faith that would indicate such a supernatural "exo" universe exists.

If you have any firm evidence, science would certainly like to see it.

Stephen T-B

Hello Starboy: I’ve put the argument several times that believers are always trying to prove the reality of what it is they believe in, not realising that should they succeed, their need to believe in it would be extinguished. Hasn’t had much effect as far as I can see.

Hello XYZZY: If a god were to manifest itself in an unambiguous manner, its properties would become testable. Imagine the excitement. Scientists would flock to the task and all over the world teams of them would be devising experiments to explore them, much as they would if Humans were to be contacted by Extra Terrestrials.
The objection: “Sorry, God is a supernatural entity and beyond our comprehension,” would simply add to the challenge. Theories would be devised, text books written and the whole edifice of Faith and Belief be changed.

Xyzzy

I agree, if God were provably to exist, scientists would indeed flock to incorporate him in the natural framework. Of course since such an event is highly unlikely it's pure conjecture as to whether they could accomplish this or not.

That being said, we should not automatically assume that any "observable" event must necessarily have a "natural" explanation i.e. be retroactively incorporated into the known body of natural phenomnena. Since natural explanations have been forthcoming for all observable phenomena up to this point, it is attractive to assume that this will continue to be the case.. and it likely "will" continue to be the case.

However, science will not automatically dismiss any repeatable empirical evidence for phenomena that does not fit within the natural framework simply because it does not fit. Admitting that would be placing a restriction on scientific investigation that it doesn't posess.

Any phenomena, regardless of it's supposed "natural" or "supernatural" nature is fit for scientific exploration if the EVIDENCE is there. When proponents of the various types of supernatural nonsense see fit to provide reasonable repeatable empirical evidence of the quality that science requires, science will investigate these phenomena.

Starboy

To add to Stephen T-B's point. God would then become natural. Scientists would say that it was in the natural universe. The universe would get bigger and the supernatural would get smaller. The reason being is simple {supernatural} == {unknown}, {natural} == {known}. I do suspect however that most of the supernatural as described by Christians will remain unknown forever.

Starboy

Oolon Colluphid

But the whole point of science is to find out how the world works. It does not define it at the outset (as religions do), it seeks to describe it and explain it.

This means that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Because whatever happens in the world, no matter how unexpected or contrary to the usual running of things (ie apparently supernatural), these things if demonstrated, would indeed be part of the world. If it happens, if it’s a real phenomenon, then science tries to explain it. End of story.

Even if the world were an utterly irregular, law-less hotch-potch of random stuff, that would be what science would find, describe and, if possible, explain.

The problem is not whether such apparently supernatural things could be, it is that they are often claimed, and never demonstrated. It looks like there’s nothing there that needs explaining.

Bear in mind too that a supernatural explanation is one that is in principle not understandable or investigable. It is therefore no explanation at all.

Cheers, Oolon