Supernatural Proof

[fhansen]

Do these syllogisms prove the existence of the supernatural?

Eternity is supernatural
The universe is eternal
The universe is supernatural

OR:

The coming into existence of finite things is supernatural
The universe is finite
The coming into existence of the universe is supernatural

 

[packermann]

No.

 

[fhansen]

No.

Thank you, any other authoritative voices care to chime in?-explanations of your position are acceptable.

 

[Nullasalus]

What is ‘supernatural’? As near as I can tell, this topic is heavily debated even within the Church among the orthodox.

 

[fhansen]

What is ‘supernatural’? As near as I can tell, this topic is heavily debated even within the Church among the orthodox.

For this purpose I’ll define supernatural as anything which is beyond our ability to comprehend or conceptualize or prove the existence of. Eternity, itself, should fit that criteria. If so, and the universe as we know it is eternal, which some say is true even though I would disagree, then the universe, itself, is proof of the existence of the supernatural and so lends credence to the notion of anything else supernatural, i.e. it should be no harder to believe in God than to believe in an eternally existing universe.

If, on the other hand, the universe is finite or non-eternal, then it had to come from nothing that we know exists, or from beyond time/nature, and this would also prove the existence of the supernatural, IMO-which could change.

 

[JonW]

Do these syllogisms prove the existence of the supernatural?

Eternity is supernatural
The universe is eternal
The universe is supernatural

OR:

The coming into existence of finite things is supernatural
The universe is finite
The coming into existence of the universe is supernatural

In the case of the first syllogism, you would have to prove the first two premises separately. Also, if the “universe” is eternal (presumably you mean the physical universe), then by definition, eternity would not be supernatural. So, the first two premises are contradictory anyway. Thus, the first syllogism fails.

For the second syllogism, again, you would need to prove your two premises. Also, since by definition a finite thing would have to come into existence in order to be a finite existing thing, that very fact does not seem to lend credence to the process being “supernatural”. Moreover, your definition of supernatural is nothing like any definition I’ve ever encountered, and eternity is not generally considered a supernatural concept. For example, before the physical evidence of the big bang was discovered, many quite prestigious intellects thought that the universe could very well be eternal (without beginning or end), and by definition that would be “natural”.

Keep working on those ideas. They can be fruitful. My advice would be to be more careful about your terms and to keep studying philosophy.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[fhansen]

In the case of the first syllogism, you would have to prove the first two premises separately. Also, if the “universe” is eternal (presumably you mean the physical universe), then by definition, eternity would not be supernatural. So, the first two premises are contradictory anyway. Thus, the first syllogism fails.

For the second syllogism, again, you would need to prove your two premises. Also, since by definition a finite thing would have to come into existence in order to be a finite existing thing, that very fact does not seem to lend credence to the process being “supernatural”. Moreover, your definition of supernatural is nothing like any definition I’ve ever encountered, and eternity is not generally considered a supernatural concept. For example, before the physical evidence of the big bang was discovered, many quite prestigious intellects thought that the universe could very well be eternal (without beginning or end), and by definition that would be “natural”.

Keep working on those ideas. They can be fruitful. My advice would be to be more careful about your terms and to keep studying philosophy.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

Bear with my crude speculations. I always learn something by sticking my neck out. It would seem to me that anything that can exist eternally is at least beyond anything we experience in this universe-we can’t conceive of or experience eternity here. In this sense it’s unnatural and perhaps a theory at best. But for all of existence to have a beginning in time doesn’t make any sense because that means everything came from nothing-no cause whatsoever-and the clock that didn’t exist started ticking on its own. And if eternity is real, whether for a universe or any other existent, it should be no easier to believe in than to believe in other existents that we can’t observe or wrap our heads around, such as God-so belief in eternity=belief in the supernatural=belief in God or at least a greater possibility of His existence? Unless we choose to define everything that exists as natural, in which case God would be included there, too.

 

[JonW]

Bear with my crude speculations. I always learn something by sticking my neck out. It would seem to me that anything that can exist eternally is at least beyond anything we experience in this universe-we can’t conceive of or experience eternity here. In this sense it’s unnatural and perhaps a theory at best. But for all of existence to have a beginning in time doesn’t make any sense because that means everything came from nothing-no cause whatsoever-and the clock that didn’t exist started ticking on its own. And if eternity is real, whether for a universe or any other existent, it should be no easier to believe in than to believe in other existents that we can’t observe or wrap our heads around, such as God-so belief in eternity=belief in the supernatural=belief in God or at least a greater possibility of His existence? Unless we choose to define everything that exists as natural, in which case God would be included there, too.

Thanks for clearing some things up here. I would agree that eternity as we conceive of it here is hopelessly theoretical. BUT, I don’t think that necessarily makes it non-natural, or supernatural. I think it simply makes it something that we don’t experience and understand comprehensively because we are finite creatures with finite, and flawed, brains. I am speaking purely theoretically of course. Also, how should we relate eternity to infinity? For example, in math we use infinity all the time (nowadays). In math, anyway, it certainly is not something that we cannot conceive of since we have a very well-defined notion of it. This might be different from the concept that you are thinking of, however.

Also, be careful about your argument about all of existence having a “beginning in time.” Modern physics tells us that time, as we know it, only started (bad word of course; perhaps “opened”) with the existence of the universe. So, to ask what “happened” “before”, or how time could have “started” then, as if time started at a certain point in time, is absurd. Naturally, conceiveing this ontologically in an intuitive way can be quite tortuous.

Finally, I just don’t see why “belief in eternity” should be conceptually consummate with belief in a supernatural being. Can you flesh out your argument a bit more?

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

 

[Camron]

Also, how should we relate eternity to infinity? For example, in math we use infinity all the time (nowadays). In math, anyway, it certainly is not something that we cannot conceive of since we have a very well-defined notion of it.

This is an excellent point.

Numbers are hypothetically infinite in their potential and we are able to comprehend small portions of number sets quite easily. Of course envisioning the entire scope of eternity is a whole other issue. But we can partially grasp eternity (an even work with infinity) even if we can’t fully comprehend it. While I have sometimes wondered if time doesn’t have some kind of supernatural component to it (and am sympathetic to the original post), I don’t think I could come anywhere close to formulating any concrete syllogism that would accurately prove it using pure logic-- if that’s even possible.

 

[ithrowcheese]

For this purpose I’ll define supernatural as anything which is beyond our ability to comprehend or conceptualize or prove the existence of.

By your definition, the supernatural is unable to be proven, so how can you attempt to prove it with syllogisms?

 

[fhansen]

By your definition, the supernatural is unable to be proven, so how can you attempt to prove it with syllogisms?

Yes, you got me there-it’s hard to prove something that can’t be proven. . I meant to distinguish between a proof that’s arrived at by scientific method vs one that’s arrived at deductively.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for clearing some things up here. I would agree that eternity as we conceive of it here is hopelessly theoretical. BUT, I don’t think that necessarily makes it non-natural, or supernatural. I think it simply makes it something that we don’t experience and understand comprehensively because we are finite creatures with finite, and flawed, brains. I am speaking purely theoretically of course. Also, how should we relate eternity to infinity? For example, in math we use infinity all the time (nowadays). In math, anyway, it certainly is not something that we cannot conceive of since we have a very well-defined notion of it. This might be different from the concept that you are thinking of, however.

Also, be careful about your argument about all of existence having a “beginning in time.” Modern physics tells us that time, as we know it, only started (bad word of course; perhaps “opened”) with the existence of the universe. So, to ask what “happened” “before”, or how time could have “started” then, as if time started at a certain point in time, is absurd. Naturally, conceiveing this ontologically in an intuitive way can be quite tortuous.

Finally, I just don’t see why “belief in eternity” should be conceptually consummate with belief in a supernatural being. Can you flesh out your argument a bit more?

God Bless

Jon Winterburn

But from what I understand, we know of no infinite quantities of anything actually existing in the universe. Augustine believed time existed in the physical universe only and God existed outside of it in eternity. My point was that whether someone believes the known universe to be eternal or whether they believe it to be finite/non-eternal; they are faced with the “problem” of eternity, a concept that I’m asserting goes beyond scientific theory because it’s difficult to avoid metaphysical implications with it. Either our universe had no beginning, which is inconceivable, or it came from something which had no beginning, which is inconceivable. If eternity is an accepted concept which nonetheless could never be scientifically proven, then it seems that we may already be accepting something which possesses transcendent qualities, such as God has, for example.

 

[JonW]

fhansen:

But from what I understand, we know of no infinite quantities of anything actually existing in the universe. Augustine believed time existed in the physical universe only and God existed outside of it in eternity. My point was that whether someone believes the known universe to be eternal or whether they believe it to be finite/non-eternal; they are faced with the “problem” of eternity, a concept that I’m asserting goes beyond scientific theory because it’s difficult to avoid metaphysical implications with it. Either our universe had no beginning, which is inconceivable, or it came from something which had no beginning, which is inconceivable. If eternity is an accepted concept which nonetheless could never be scientifically proven, then it seems that we may already be accepting something which possesses transcendent qualities, such as God has, for example.

I was pointing out that we do know of theoretical infinite quantities. Pick any infinite set. The integers, the reals, any infinite line, etc.

Also, just because something goes beyond scientific theory in that it has metaphysical implications does not mean that it is “supernatural” in any traditional sense, as far as I know. Think of any important scientific theory, viz., general relativity, quantum theory, evolutinoary theory, etc. It is in this sense that I think an eternal universe is a scientific theory. As it happens, that theory at the moment has little credibility, unless you countenance multiverses, which there is no good practical reason for doing so at the moment. Also, the above theories are certainly not incomprehensible. We’d be in serious trouble if they were. It is in that sense that an eternal universe is also not incomprehensible.

I certainly don’t think an eternal universe is inconceivable as a scientific theory. For one thing, it is a scientific theory. Again, not terribly likely at the moment, but a theory still, and no less conceivable for it. Likewise, I don’t think that a finite universe that was caused by something eternal, or inifinite, is inconceivable either.

Finally, all this speaks to your bit about scientific provability. In science, concepts aren’t “proven”, theories are. And they’re not proven the way theorems are proved in mathematics. They are sufficiently invested with empirical consequences and corresponding predictive value that scientists decide are good reasons for accepting, on the basis of scientific induction, their validity as good scientific theories. All that is a way of saying that, given what else we know, this theory is likely, and if we assume it, we expect to see things that, as it happens we do, in the way we expect to see them. This is why science is such a thrilling enterprise; because sometimes theories that are of immense predicitve value can clash. The best example at the moment is general relativity and quantum mechanics. It’s these types of tensions which drive scientists to silly hyperbole about a “theory of everything” and lead the general populace mystified as to how one can reconcile their religious beliefs with modern theories of everything that in principle cannot address religious belief. I’ve said too much.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn