Natural VS Supernatural

Full disclosure: I'm a fundamental Christian. I attend the Church of Christ.

Whether or not to teach the theory of evolution, or to teach creationism, has been a hot sticking point for several decades, and it seems to be growing more-so as the years go on. The entire argument's premise is flawed. These two teachings are not at odds, nor do they agree. They are completely unrelated issues. Allow me to illustrate:

We know that light travels at a certain speed in a vacuum. We know it as undisputed scientific fact. We can replicate the same experiment, and it will travel at a precise speed every iteration of that experiment. Therefore, we can tell that galaxies are millions of light years away by how long the light has been traveling. We know that to be fact. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that the universe is about 6 thousand years old. Yet, we as Christians don't demand that the speed of light NOT be taught in schools because it contradicts the Bible.

Why not? Because we can accept that there is light in existence that was created 6 thousand years ago, that has been traveling for millions of years. One of those facts is natural, and undisputable, and the other is supernatural, so therefore we can believe it to contradict the natural. We needn't reconcile the supernatural to the natural, nor the other way around.

Further explanation is needed. If superman were real, and were to fly from you to Tokyo, grab a bowl of delicious ramen, and travel back to you, all within a minute, that would be a supernatural act. Would it then be necessary to either explain to superman that he couldn't have done that, or argue how ramen can travel at supernatural speeds all on its own? To do either would be silly. He's superman, and he can do what he wants, and we needn't try to make arguments to force him to fit into the natural world, because he's superman. Likewise, it would cheapen his feat of flying to Tokyo for you if you explained how the bowl of ramen could have naturally done it all on its own.

Now you are in the Garden of Eden. It's been 1 week since God created Adam. There he is, Adam, standing in front of you, in the buff. What does he look like? Is he standing? Can he blink? Can he breath? Does he have hair? That doesn't seem natural, for a human 1 week into the life process to have hair. Would it be necessary to argue how Adam couldn't possibly be a week old, because he is obviously much older according to what we can naturally observe about humans? Of course not. God is supernatural. He can do as He likes, and if He decided to create a human life in such a fashion, then He can, and He needn't comply with the natural laws. Would it be deceitful of God, to have created the hair on Adam's head, however long it would have been, without letting it grow? That would certain give the appearance that Adam was older, so is God lying? Not at all. God needn't make it apparent HOW He does what He does, since He doesn't answer to us. This is made doubly sure by the fact that He told us what He did.

So then we have the universe. God said He made it 6 thousand years ago, and we can believe Him if we like, or not if we don't. We needn't force anyone to believe the supernatural, nor should we insist that they ignore the natural that doesn't allow the supernatural since the supernatural need not be allowed in the first place.

As you can see, the entire argument of natural vs supernatural is flawed. Teach evolution, believe creationism, suffer no cognitive dissonance.

 

That's an example of weird thoughts.

 

If you believe in the big bang, then you believe in the Supernatural. that everything came out of nothingness.
and out of nothingness something was caused. destroying the theory of cause and affect.

But then if you believe that the universe always existed for ever, then how could we have reach this point
not to mention that eternity universe with no beginning or end is silly. just by looking into the far past which
is an eternal past how could we have reached this point in time. (past-eternal,) in other words the future is eternal
and so is the past-eternal.

Yet The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy.

oh well.


....

- - - Updated - - -

If you believe in the big bang, then you believe in the Supernatural. that everything came out of nothingness.
and out of nothingness something was caused. destroying the theory of cause and affect.

But then if you believe that the universe always existed for ever, then how could we have reach this point
not to mention that eternity universe with no beginning or end is silly. just by looking into the far past which
is an eternal past how could we have reached this point in time. (past-eternal,) in other words the future is eternal
and so is the past-eternal.

Yet The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy.

oh well.


....

 

Thanks!

 

What if you believe it to be possible that it wasn't a Bang after all, what if it were more like a Burp? A Big Burp?

A hole between dimensions and Presto Burpo, material flying outward.

OR,

It's all a simulation. Our physical bodies are in a chair somewhere with a CAT5 hooked into our heads and we're all "living" here, until we're not. Then it's off to the break room for some "heavenly" coffee.

Just a thought. There's more out there than just Exhibits A and B ya know.

 

"Light has been travelling for 6000 years" and "light has been travelling for millions of years" are two natural facts which are contradictory. You can't accept them both. When you say "light looks like it has been travelling for millions of years, but really has been travelling for 6000 years" you are rejecting the natural fact that light has been travelling for millions of years. This puts you in a difficult spot, because then you have to either A) be radically skeptical about a lot of present human knowledge or B) be skeptical of an ancient book written by people with little scientific knowledge. B isn't all that difficult.

I'm not sure where you are going with the superman analogy. Superman is super human but he still obeys the laws of physics.

As far as the creation of Adam - sure you can say that God can ignore the laws of physics because he is supernatural, but then it is unclear how God does anything in the physical universe. What is the mechanism of interaction between the supernatural realm and the natural one? Additionally, while God doesn't have to obey physical laws, Adam and Eve do. This means, absent divine intervention in every generation's genetics for the past 6000 years, humanity would be a species of 200th generation inbreds. Genetic evidence points to genetic divergence within humanity that occurred far more than 6000 years ago, inconsistent with the Adam/Eve creation myth.

 

It's all just a simulation, as quantum physics clearly shows. Believe it or not.

 

I can accept them both. God created matter from nothing. Matter is not naturally created from nothing. This doesn't mean we must reject the knowledge that matter doesn't come into existence from nothing, in nature. The argument, simply stated, is that a supernatural God needn't be explained by the laws of nature, and the laws of nature needn't be ignored simply because God needn't follow them.

Superman flew so fast he traveled backward in time. He doesn't follow natural law, he is supernatural. If you think there are beings who can naturally behave like superman, and don't see why I would use that as an analogy, perhaps my Christianity isn't so radical after all, relative to your beliefs.

This only need be true if God were not supernatural. That's what that means. Above the laws of nature. What you have said in essence is "Yeah, God might be able to ignore the laws of nature, but then how does God abide by the laws of nature". Are we even talking about the same thing?

And dinosaur bones of species long extinct, well over 6K years ago. This is USUALLY the way people go, and why I included the hair illustration. Adam would be created with hair, why not a complex genetic makeup? Why create an entire planet, without making it perfect in it's age? Why create a universe ripe for supporting humanity, but leave out the star light? God could create the universe aged, if God could create the universe. Not just aged, but aged perfectly, in essence a masterpiece indistinguishable in any way from the real thing. I'm not saying that He did, but ignoring this as a possibility, and accepting creation, is silly.

Think about that last sentence carefully. This entire argument is crafted for Christians, not atheists. I'm not arguing that God does exist, or that He created the universe in such and such a fashion, so don't bother arguing against that. I'm explaining to Christians that to believe that God supernaturally created the universe, but then try to explain how He did so with natural law, is absurd. It's a lack of faith in God.

 

From the perspective of a believer, since God created all, God is nature ... so that also the supernatural is natural [a rationalist / atheist can call the spiritual level of existence "supernatural", but in my opinion, for a believer .... it's natural].

 

That's very much a matter of opinion even within Christianity. It certainly requires a lot of extrapolation and interpretation of the Bible as it has been complied. There is no specific timing defined within the text itself.

No, but the Young Earthers do argue for it to be taught that the starting point of that light was different to fit in with their beliefs. The general principle is the same - where science is inconsistent with the faith, the science must be changed.

There is no such thing as supernatural. If something exists, it is natural by definition. Concepts are defined as supernatural because they contradict natural reality. That means either our understanding of reality is incomplete or flawed or that concept doesn't really exist. There are examples of both cases throughout history.

That's true but not for the reason you've given. Creationism talks about how things came to exist. Evolution talks about how things develop. That said, some specific creationist hypotheses do explicitly contradict evolutionary theory. The devil is in the detail.

 

You seem honest. You really do, so it's a good name for you. I just don't think you got the jist of the OP.

First you say that there is dispute that the Earth is 6K years old among Biblical experts. It's completely irrelevant to the entire idea behind this thread. We don't even need to suppose a supernatural God. I used Superman flying ramen noodles around as an example. You might as well tell me that Superman doesn't like ramen noodles. It's beside the point. Take any supernatural contradiction of natural order you want. It doesn't matter.

Next you tell me that young earth creationists want to teach the starting point of light to be somewhere other than where it was, not that they don't want it taught. Again, this doesn't matter. It's beside the point whether people want to teach that X is wrong, or that Y is wrong, based on their belief in the supernatural. Like I said in the preceding paragraph, you can take any divergence from science you want. It doesn't matter. It's only illustrative.

Next you tell me you don't believe in the supernatural at all. Fine. Believe what you want, but the next is the part that makes no logical sense. You tell me that there is no supernatural because it wouldn't be natural. I just "facepalmed" when I read it. This entire illustrative point is designed around the axiom that one DOES believe in the supernatural, which by definition, is free to operate outside the realm of natural law, if it exists. That's why it's called "supernatural". It's like saying one believes referees exist, and are involved in football games, but do not have to abide by the rules of play. For instance, a referee can cross the line of scrimmage before the ball is hiked. You can't then say that there is no way referees can exist, because they wouldn't be following the rules. But, that's exactly what they do, because they are referees. You are free to believe that the supernatural doesn't exist, and you are free to say that you believe that because you don't believe that anything can transcend the laws of nature (redundant). You can even say that there is no proof for the supernatural, and I'd have to agree with you. What you cannot do is say that something cannot exist because it is that something. That's not a logical argument.

Last, you quote my summary, then tell me that creationism and evolution are about two different things, but contradict each other, and that's why I'm wrong. At this point, there are no words to explain... I'm just so.... come on man. I have to put this into a story for you.

Randy drives to the store, buys some carrots, and returns home to his son, Gary, and they make a stew. Gary asks where the carrots came from. The man tells his son that he went to the store and bought them.

The son, Gary, has a friend named Molly. Molly sees Gary eating the stew, and asks where the carrots came from. Gary explains to Molly that his dad went to the store and bought them that very day. Molly becomes indignant and explains to Gary that that is impossible, as it takes several weeks for carrots to grow. Gary then explains that his dad doesn't need to abide by the rules of growing carrots, as Randy has the power to drive to the store and buy carrots. Yes, carrots naturally take weeks to grow, but Randy can bypass this process to produce the stew the same day, without having to plant seeds.

Now, the point of my post is that it would be silly for Gary to explain that carrots really grow within 15 minutes, so that Molly will believe that Randy could produce the carrots in that short of a time. That's what creationists do when they try to explain away the natural world when it doesn't compliment God's supernatural powers. At the same time, it would be silly for Molly to tell Gary that Randy couldn't have driven to the store and bought carrots, because carrots naturally take a long time to grow. That's what atheists do when they explain that God couldn't do something supernatural, and appeal using natural laws.

God's "power" to skip natural law is like Randy's "power" to just drive to the store. It needn't change our understanding of carrots, and we needn't reject His ability to do so. We can still teach that carrots take weeks to grow, and still believe in Randy's ability to go to the store, just as we can teach that light has been traveling for millions of years, and still believe that God could skip that process.

You telling me that evolution and creation are different topics, yet contradict eachother, is like telling me the growth of carrots and Randy driving to the store are different, but contradict eachother. No, they don't. That's the entire point of the original post, of this thread, of this topic. Evolution doesn't contradict creationism, and creationism doesn't contradict evolution. One is natural and the other is supernatural. They don't follow the same rules.

 

Uh, I thought we now knew that the universe is speeding up, not slowing, winding down? It isn't like a conventional explosion, where something goes bang, and then after acceleration mass slows down. This baby is getting faster with space itself expanding.

I remember that impossibility argument(infinite universe) from a philosophy class, but its purely conceptional, right? It's an idea, created by a brain, which cannot be actually proved in any sense, except conceptionally. Is the universe nothing more than a concept? Can the universe, all of it actually be understood by electro chemical actions in the brain?

Look, much of what we believe we know has at its foundation, an assumption. Materialism itself began with an assumption. Most philosophical arguments are filled with assumptions. We really do need to never forget that, I think.

Are numbers infinite? Can one not one always add one more number to the existing list? If not, what is the last number either positive or negative? Of course numbers are concepts, while the universe seems not to be. Yet all understandings of this universe is in concepts, ideas, images, created by a brain. Is the concept, the image, ever the actual thing it represents? Is anything lost in this difference?

 

The Big Bang theory does not deal with what May or may not have been there before it transpired...Just as Evolution Theory does not deal with what was there before Life.

Evolution is not Abiogenesis and the Big Bang is not Genesis.

 

I understand the concept of that belief. My point is that belief would be wrong. I don't accept that it is possible for anything to be "outside natural law" by definition. "Natural law" here describes everything that exists. If something is discovered to exist "outside natural law" as we understand it, that means our understanding of "natural law" is wrong or incomplete.

That's exactly what happens as we discover new and different things. Our picture of how everything works is expanded, corrected and refined. Otherwise we'd still be talking about bodily humours and the geocentric model and calling everything that contradicted those concepts supernatural.

If I thought the rules said nobody can cross the line of scrimmage then the existence of referees doesn't demonstrate that they operate outside the rules of the game, it means my understanding of that rule was flawed (no player may cross the line).

I'm not saying anything cannot exist, I'm saying that anything that does exist cannot be supernatural by definition.

Creationism as a general concept - that some kind of intelligence somehow brought about the existence of the universe - doesn't contradict evolution. Some specific creationist hypotheses - e.g. 6000 years ago, God made the world and all the creatures exactly as they exist today - do contradict evolution. Nobody wants to teach (or preach) the general concept though.

 

I bolded the part I liked.....I get a kick out of all the high minded scientific debate on this issue by people all bound up in "there are ONLY two choices"....

No, there isn't.

 

So here is the thing. I think what is natural and what is supernatural are getting confused. For example: If Superman did exist and had the ability to fly at incredible speed and flew for Noodles from a shop in Tokyo in a few minutes there would be nothing supernatural about that because in the universe of the fiction of Superman he exists in nature. His superhuman speed does nothing to change that. Does Superman seemingly violate the laws of physics? Yes, but so does a Bumblebee and yet we see nothing supernatural about bumblebees' ability to fly. Just like the Big Bang. Evidence continues to mount that the universe was created from an explosively expanding singularity. (there was something there) That said its existence is difficult to explain and we fall into a well of metaphysics, but the singularity is what it is.

When we look at evolution we see the fact that it exists in nature as a process and we have theory, well tested, that explains the mechanism. When we look at creationism, we have single story, of many many that exist, that people want to teach as the definitive explanation. Here is the problem.

Nothing in nature supports the idea of the Jewish Creation stories found in the book of Bere(*)(*)(*)(*) (Genesis) and yes there are more than one. In fact the book itself seems to struggle to keep the story straight so why should it be taught as fact?

Evolution by Natural selection is the best science and creates a framework for understanding how we and all life came to be in its current and constantly changing form. Creationism as science is a fraud.

 

There is no such thing as supernatural, there is just nature we don't understand yet. Religion forces people to twist and turn what we know and even reject it in order to maintain a belief. There is nothing reasonable, logical, or intelligent about that.

 

You can't - it is a contradiction. God doesn't need to follow the laws of physics, but the universe does. The universe cannot simultaneously be millions of years old and thousands of years old.

I don't want to get into comic book canon but I thought superman was just an alien with special powers (nothing magical or supernatural).

No I'm just wondering if God for example wanted to flood the earth - what is the mechanism that allows God to interact with the natural world? Why does matter respond to the will of a supernatural being?

Was it a Freudian slip when you compared God's universe to "the real thing" (the naturalist's view of the universe)?

You're right that (in theory) God could create a universe any way he wanted, but what is wrong with the natural law explanation? God could have snapped his fingers for the big bang and used divine foreknowledge to make sure he got everything right so we would be exactly where we are right now.

 

That's not necessarily an accurate statement. Here's what 'supernatural' means; (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. That definition can apply to belief in the Big Bang theory, The concept of a starting event of any kind or a belief that everything was created by a 'supreme omnipotent entity. It does not suggest that 'everything came from nothing'

Belief that the universe(s) had no beginning nor will ever end is the 'steady state theory'. The theory has been somewhat, if not entirely debunked. However, a steady state universe would have no effect on the past present or future. It would merely mean that the past, present and future (or time) exists somewhere probably in a local sub universe (our universe which may be one of many) Like a bubble. The laws of physics (including the 2nd law of thermodynamics) may only apply to our 'universe bubble'. The steady state universe may or may not contain any matter or energy, except in the forms of local universe bubbles that are popping in and out of existence regularly. each with their own unique physical laws and time lines.

 

You start out by stating facts. And have no objection to teaching it.
Then jump into a belief system. The supernatural. 1st, prove there is supernatural. 2nd. If proven, prove it is your precise and only your precise supernatural realm. Otherwise, one shouldn't be pushing a belief system that can't be proven as real and expect everyone should have to learn about it. Unless of course, you want to teach about the 1000s of supernatural beliefs. That would be hard to do in a public school and still get the basic 3 R's taught.

 

Your basic theory seems to be that the supernatural cannot possibly be explained by natural means, therefor trying to prove it with natural laws would be ineffective.

This is true...and not true. Take your example of Superman. While we may not be able to explain how Superman did what he did, we saw him do it and we saw him, therefore we know that there is a Superman to begin with and we know that what he did is possible because we saw him do it. This is a valid pretext under which to question your concept of natural law.

However, the difference between Superman and God is that God has no physical existence whatsoever. There is no trace of him. It's one thing to see God, but be unable to define or reason him out, and it's another thing to not see God, but believe he is there and responsible for all things.

To say that God should not be questioned because he is supernatural is to say that I should not be questioned because I am supernatural. Why, you would ask. Where's your proof?

 

This isn't an argument for believing in the supernatural. I'm saying that if one does, that person doesn't need to prove God with science, nor be discouraged when science doesn't compliment their belief structure. You didn't understand my post if your assessment is that yes, it's silly to think that there is physical evidence to prove that which isn't physical, and then ask me what physical evidence I have. Isn't it obvious? I don't have any. That's why it's called faith. I never pretended to have evidence of God.

 

What about Dark Energy...?

Dark Energy was recognized because every galaxy in the universe is moving faster, not slower.
Energy abounds.

 

I know. God, as an undefined concept or possibility is an unassailable idea.

However, it's when people who are religious attempt to define or place meaning or structure to this general idea that you can certainly argue them down to contradicitions.

For instance, if someone says they believe in God, but have no proof of anything else than that, they cannot say anything else about who that God is, why he is, what he did, why he did it, what he is going to do, yada yada. The minute they say that, you can begin to chase them right back into that general concept, but you can't go any further. If religious people did this, they could not be contradicted. But believing in a God who you hardly know or can identify with in any way and which does nothing for you, definitively (that includes laws and morals) serves no point. They inevitably must place a value on it to believe in it and when they do this, they supply their own evidence which can be examined and questioned.

 

Aren't these a matter of faith?