How to prove the supernatural?

[Freddy]

How come I missed this thread? Lots of interesting topics like how God wants to indicate His existence by using…umm…bees. He truly does work in mysterious ways.

And who said it was a monk doing this? From what I can see it’s some Greek guy getting a lot of free publicity for his honey.

And in passing, if God rearranged the stars to spell out the winning ticket in next weeks lottery then we’d have to wait quite a few million years to see anything happen. They’re a long way away.

And I just tried the flame burning thing (I’m astonished no-one else has) with a candle. Which burns with a reasonably high temp but very low energy. Think of sparks when you are grinding metal - they are very high temp but low energy. That is, not very hot. There’s a huge difference. Think a solid 2" bar heated to low temperature - much lower than the sparks, but it has a lot more energy.

Anyway, I’m wearing a close weave wool jumper. No problem. And I’ve also got a jar of very high proof alcohol on the table in front of me (don’t ask where it came from). I can dip my finger in that and light it and it will burn for 2 - 3 seconds without burning me.

In fact, you can run your hand through a.stream of molten metal and you won’t get burned. That shows you how we can be confused about heat and temperature and their effects: Video: That's what you call a slow burn! Man puts hand through molten metal | Daily Mail Online

Warning: do not try that at home…

 

[Bruce_Killian]

That is not my problem. And these days pretty much everyone has access to any modern device to translate the text to speech

God communicates stories with pictures because not everyone can read or has the electronics to do translation. God told stories relevant to Jesus at Jesus’ time. The stories He told did not take millions of years only seconds, but they did have to be interpreted. See http://www.scripturescholar.com/LambofGod.pdf
Grace and peace, Bruce

 

[Abrosz]

God communicates stories with pictures because not everyone can read or has the electronics to do translation. God told stories relevant to Jesus at Jesus’ time. The stories He told did not take millions of years only seconds, but they did have to be interpreted.

It is very sad that God does not communicate to every single individual in the form and language that this particular person understands and finds convincing.

As far as I am concerned, the “silencium Dei” is deafening. All I can see is some apologist telling ME what God actually says. Strangely enough that always matches the views of the teller. According to a different apologist, God says something else. God never speaks to me in any language I can understand. Of course the usual “rebuttal” is: “How dare you (a despicable sinner) demand the Almighty jump through hoops for your convenience”. Of course this is not a response. I do not ask for better salaries, be healed from some malady, I only ask for information. Supplicants on the prayer intentions forum keep on asking for miraculous events. They are the ones who ask God to jump through hoops, not I.

There is also a frequent response that there are sufficient clues for those who already believe. But to give undeniable, crystal clear evidence would deprive us from our “free will” to choose what to believe. These apologists are ignorant and do not understand that having clear information would only allow us to choose to “worship” in a meaningful fashion. Because we could choose to worship (or not), but beliefs are beyond volitional control.

Some apologists assert that Jesus’s divinity is beyond dispute, his “miracles” prove beyond any doubt that he is God himself. These people have even less credibility. The stories about Jesus are just legends, without any proof for their authenticity.

Summing up: the hypothetical scenario of rearranging the stars to some recognizable pattern would fulfill all the criteria of proving the supernatural. The laws of conservation, the speed of light are all really beyond dispute. No special equipment would be needed. No “expert” would be necessary. If the stars would start to move around, and display interesting patterns, that would totally undermine our knowledge of physics and astronomy, thus prove a supernatural causative agent. To make the new patterns exhibit some textual information would be just icing on the cake.

That is all I am saying.

 

[Servant31]

It is very sad that God does not communicate to every single individual in the form and language that this particular person understands and finds convincing.

But the thing is that people need to listen. And many are unwilling. God does try to reach out to people but they continuously ignore or reject His reality. This is what many of us are trying to communicate to some of the people in this thread. They have put God into a box with their own personal constraints and are so focused on those that they are unwilling to consider other possibilities. We’ve tried to bring about more tangible “proofs” but those are always insufficient.

The skeptic says that if the existence of God can be proven to the same degree that the speed of light in a vacuum can be only then will we consider… so basically that person wants a level of proof only 3-10 things in all of science can provide. And then even if there is something that rises to the natural consistency required for that proof to established, they then just pivot to “oh that’s just scientifically proven natural processes”, nothing to a see here, silly theists.

If your truly and objectively considering the existence of God I would recommending praying. “Jesus please show me you are there…”. And then be open and objective to the answer.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Let’s say that you and a few friends observed the stars moving and forming a textual message. No one else confirms the observation. Miracle?

That seems how these things usually work.

 

[Abrosz]

But the thing is that people need to listen. And many are unwilling.

I am talking about those, who want to hear and are hell-bent to listen. I am talking about prior believers (like myself) who used to believe, but then started to think for themselves, and “mene, tekel, ufarsin”… the evidence is simply not there. We are interested to hear and learn. And then we receive a response of:

They have put God into a box with their own personal constraints and are so focused on those that they are unwilling to consider other possibilities.

Maybe you don’t realize just how insulting this is.

As for praying, “been there, done it, have the t-shirt to prove it”. Nothing ever happened. And yes, what I will say now with be taken as “you want God to jump through hoops” kind of nonsense. Only I can decide if an evidence is sufficient or deficient. You have your criteria, and I have mine. There is nothing wrong with that… except that God is unwilling to provide the evidence that I need.

Of course there is the assertion that faith is superior to knowledge, that God values faith without knowledge. (Blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe.) I would not reply to such ideas, because vulgarity is seriously “frowned upon” - and rightfully so. You know it is always incumbent upon the teacher to consider the pupil and taylor-make the arguments to the pupil’s needs. After all, God is supposed to know my needs, and is able to fulfill them, if he so desires.

 

[Abrosz]

Let’s say that you and a few friends observed the stars moving and forming a textual message. No one else confirms the observation. Miracle?

That seems how these things usually work.

How is it possible that no one else would see it? Millions of people look up, use telescopes and yet, see nothing? That is simply impossible. That is why I chose the scenario as I did. There can be no hoax, no mass hypnosis visible by a handful of people.

 

[MtnDwellar]

How is it possible? It is obviously only possible by supernatural means _ One of your own requirements for a miracle…

 

[Abrosz]

How is it possible? It is obviously only possible by supernatural means _ One of your own requirements for a miracle…

Well, certainly it might be a persuasive event for me and for my friends. But to no one else. But looking at it from my (and my friends’) perspective there is the much more likely explanation that we have been “duped” or became insane. The point is that the event we speak about cannot be explained away, that the only possible explanation would be a supernatural causative agency.

 

[Servant31]

Maybe you don’t realize just how insulting this is.

I’m sorry if it’s insulting, that is in no way the intent.

However, further,

Or a mass hypnosis which affected everyone on Earth.

And then claim occams’ razor. Would it not be more likely that a few skeptics (who weren’t even present) be wrong than the intellectual gymnastics they come up with of a mass dillusion. Further the accounts of the people interviewed were articulate and quite rational. They stated effects such as clothes drying instantaneously. And I think people are generally capable of distinguishing cloud effects.

However you’ve made some comments which come off as pretty smug and rude

The fun thing is that believers accept at face value even the most ridiculous claims.

I merely presented a state of affairs, which cannot be explained “away” by even the most “hard-hearted” (what a ridiculous expression)

My point it’s look more broadly. You’ve pointed to science to prove Gods existence. Science is a tool and a valuable one surely… but it isn’t the sole arbiter of truth.

The universe and everything in it existed long before science was able to understand any of it. And new things are understood every year. If a scientist approaches a problem saying, it must conform to my definition, that’s not really science. Science is in observation.

Use the same reasoning with the super natural. God may be trying to speak to you now, maybe He is trying to get you to listen in a different way!

 

[Pattylt]

I’ve noticed that apologists have many reasons and excuses for the skeptics deficiency in believing in the supernatural. The most common is that it would override our free will to be given actual proof. Yet, I’m willing to to bet that if incontrovertible proof finally showed, every Christian would be saying, I told you so. Not, oh gosh, I don’t have free will anymore.

Meanwhile for the skeptic, we sit here waiting for evidence we will accept and christians sit here stating we wouldn’t believe it even if it was given. There is no evidence. Nothing that can be examined. It’s a faith based position and without faith, it’s an unbelievable position.

 

[Abrosz]

I’m sorry if it’s insulting, that is in no way the intent.

I am aware that it was not your intention.

However you’ve made some comments which come off as pretty smug and rude

Hmmm. Like referring back to the flat earthers or the YEC adherents.

My point it’s look more broadly.

Sure… point me the way.

Science is a tool and a valuable one surely… but it isn’t the sole arbiter of truth.

No one said otherwise. There are at least 3 branches of reality.

1. One is the axiomatic, deductive world. Empiricism plays no part there.
2. The objective, inductive observable reality. Only empiricism is the tool to investigate that reality.
3. The subjective opinion based propositions (chocolate is better than vanilla). There is no objective method because the proposition are fully subjective.

Now the apologists assert that there is another branch of reality, let’s call it “supernatural” or “spiritual”. The problem is that they are unable to present an objective epistemological method to prove that this realm is more than just a figment of their imagination, and they cannot give an epistemological method to separate the true and false propositions pertaining this alleged realm.

To be blunt about it: “metaphysics without epistemology is useless speculation.”

Use the same reasoning with the super natural. God may be trying to speak to you now, maybe He is trying to get you to listen in a different way!

As I said, then God does not pay attention. I am open to evidence, but that evidence MUST be on my terms. So my skepticism is well founded. I am open to an objective epistemological method to substantiate the propositions about this supernatural (“spiritual”) realm. But simple authoritarian assertion simply do not cut it. God could give me the evidence, and I would contemplate it. That is what I can offer. Not to discard the proffered evidence “out-of-hand”. That would intellectually dishonest.

 

[Abrosz]

Nothing that can be examined. It’s a faith based position and without faith, it’s an unbelievable position.

Let’s add, if one takes the alleged words of Jesus seriously, then “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”, so God (or Jesus) prefers blind faith to actual evidence.

 

[Pattylt]

God (or Jesus) prefers blind faith to actual evidence.

It’s all they have unless something changes…

I’ve said before and will say again, after all my struggles and disappointment, the only thing that would bring me back to belief is if I, myself, had such a strong spiritual experience that I couldn’t deny it. Others claim to have had them but I never had. I’m open to it but, the balls in Gods court. There is only so much devastation you can go through. I left and I’ve been very happy ever since. I’m still curious as to why I lost belief…which I had very strongly when younger. Either my brain is just wired differently or there’s nothing there.:hugs:

 

[Bruce_Killian]

It is very sad that God does not communicate to every single individual in the form and language that this particular person understands and finds convincing.

So since you did not recognize His communication, you reject what what others have discovered, even when it is written in the sky in pictures and matches the Gospel account of what was happening at that time? Maybe time will help.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Let’s add, if one takes the alleged words of Jesus seriously, then “blessed are the ones who have not seen, yet believe”, so God (or Jesus) prefers blind faith to actual evidence.

One might wonder what the purpose of the miracles described in the gospels were? Either to prove some authority so the people he then taught would not be required to simply have blind faith in him, because why would they? Or it was just to show off. If it was to provide proof of who he was to those people, why am I supposed to just take it on blind faith? Personally I think there is something fishy about that “blessed are those who have not seen…” verse. It is a little too convenient. First there is no end to how many miracles he and the disciples performed. One miracle more amazeballz than the other. Then all of a sudden there’s no purpose to the miracles because it is better to just believe. Nope, I don’t buy that. Blessed are those who believe without having seen, is exactly what I would say if I wanted people not bothering me asking for miracles. But since I take knowledge over being blessed any day of the week, I’ll keep on harping about wanting better reasons to believe.

 

[o_mlly]

I’d accept any of the miracles, attested by scientific observation …

The miracles are there. We just don’t allow the scientists to call the things they cannot explain as miracles. We allow them to call them “brute facts” or “emergent properties”. Keeps them on their toes.

 

[Abrosz]

The miracles are there. We just don’t allow the scientists to call the things they cannot explain as miracles. We allow them to call them “brute facts” or “emergent properties”. Keeps them on their toes.

A miracle is not something that currently is not explained. It would be something that cannot be explained by natural means, in principle - not now, not ever. That is why I presented the state of affairs in the OP.

A plane crashed. Everyone, except one person perished in the accident. The relatives of the survivor loudly proclaim a “miracle”. What about the relatives of the rest?

 

[o_mlly]

A plane crashed. Everyone, except one person perished in the accident. The relatives of the survivor loudly proclaim a “miracle”. What about the relatives of the rest?

The survivor is an emergent property. The dead are brute facts.

 

[Viki63]

Have you looked into this book; New Proofs for the Existence of God? I find these discussions irrefutable. Of course a lot of it is over my head as I’m no physicist.

Also, I’m sure you have, but have you asked God to make himself known to you? That’s an important step.