Partially in response to a recent thread along the lines of "bwah ha ha" I wasn't going to announce this but I don't recall ever seeing a "baptized" thread.

I just went through my not really denominational but mostly evangelical Christian baptism yesterday.

No I don't feel different or "cleansed of all my sins" because that wasn't really the point of it.

What was the point?

Getting married?

Baptism is a ceremonial proclamation to my family and friends that I have accepted Christ and have chosen to follow Him in my life.

Oh and I am already married... guess I didn't announce that on here.

Why did you do it? did you want to be accepted by your family and friends? would they not accept you if you didn't do that?

It's a social thing, like belly boxing or fist bumping, if you don't do it, you won't be "rejected", merely thought to be a little off the norm. After the baptism I bet he high-fived a bunch of people.

And he declared his baptizm here to be rejected by the slew of atheists.

Oh and congrats.

Like relay said, baptism is a public declaration of his choice to follow Christ. No one is going to reject him or toss him out if he doesn't get baptized. I didn't get baptized for more than two years after I started going to church, no one ever made a fuss about it.

I believe that there is no god, and that we, humans, need to evolve by ourselves.
In H I trust. I'm a soul man (dadadaaaaaaaaa) !

Now that's done, well, I guess all I can say for your baptizm is Yay, cool for ya.
I hope you had a BunchTon(c) of presents ^^

You won't be rejected or tossed out, though if you openly said that you thought it was stupid and refused to ever do it, some individuals and groups would reject you. You're just looked at as half-there instead of a serious Christian. In actuality, most people probably don't even know the "baptized" status of their peers.

If Christianity was a biker gang, the unbaptized would be a prospect instead of a fully-fledged member. Baptism is a bit of an initiation ritual. It's really just one more magical idea. Who wouldn't want to have all of their mistakes "washed away" with 5 seconds under water? It's an easy sell.

Really, proclaiming your acceptance of God shouldn't even be something to be proud of. It just demonstrates that it's more of a social club than an actual belief. "Everybody look at me, I'm one of you now!"

You fail to understand that most denominations place no spiritual significance (especially in terms of salvation) to the so called "believer's baptism." It's simply considered to be a public proclamation-celebration.

Your hatred of all things not Sony continues to humor me.

Congratulations!

P.S. I'm glad you didn't get the circumcision instead.

Do you have something against circumcised peoples ?

Congratulations! Now you're one of some of us. And now you're not anymore one of some others of us.

Out of curiosity, what then is the point of baptising babies? It obviously can't be to show that they've made any choices about Christ or not.

Yeah!

Our mutilated penises.

Lots of people don't like religion or see only certain aspects of it. It's not a big deal.

Congratulations on doing it though! I went through one a few years ago.

This is one of the things denominations actually fight about. Some believe you have to be baptized to get to heaven, some believe you are immediately "baptized" by the holy spirit when you acknowledge Jesus as your savior. I'm of the latter category because the first seems more like crazy tradition (community approval) and not about God.

As for babies, it's either:
1. The only way the baby will get to heaven.
2. A dedication of the baby to God in front of everyone. You're asking that God will guide your child, and publically acknowledging that you will do everything God commands you to do, to help this child grow into a rightous adult.

I don't see a point in it. A baptism is a way to tell everyone about your choice to follow Christ. Babies haven't made any choices yet (they're babies). So, really, all it does is make parents feel better because they believe it means something.

And then they of course bring up the child in a Christian fashion. Therefore he hardly has an option to quit the church if the conditioning was extensive enough.

That's true, and often depressing. Don't blame Christianity, though, you can find that sort of conditioning under any belief system.

It's nothing you'll find in the Bible. (Jesus himself was baptized, but no babies ever were.) Supposedly, the Greek word used (baptizo, or something like that) meant a literal immersion, so again, there's not really any direct scriptural support for sprinkling babies with water.

As for the purpose, I think most people see it as a symbolic dedication, although there's definitely mainstream denominations that consider it as part of the process of becoming a Christian.

Some denominations' only form of baptism is sprinkling babies with water, others only do "believer's baptism," while some do both.

If a baby isn't baptized and dies before accepting Christ, he/she will burn in hell for eternity with all of the other sinners.

Edit: At least that's what I was taught in Catechism.

I was raised as a Lutheran, and IIRC, the baptism was like a temporary "get in Heaven if you die" license. Then you went to "confirmation class" one night a week to get further indoctrinated, and when you completed this, you were allegedly well informed enough to make a choice, even though Darwin wasn't given equal time. You also could go suck down the blood and choke on the body of Christ during Sunday service after this confirmation.

In terms of significance given toward infant baptism, it goes something like: Catholic > Lutheran > Methodist > Presbyterian.

I'm pretty sure the official stance of the Lutheran church is that infant baptism "creates" faith, and as such, you are doomed to heaven, regardless of what you do with the rest of your life. Of course, though, they are going to want to keep you in the church your entire life.

No, I clearly remember us kids asking about this, and the way it was told to us is that you couldn't get to Heaven even if you asked for forgiveness before you died, so we asked about the unlucky people who didn't get Baptized and were told that they didn't get to Heaven, tough on them. You still had to ask for forgiveness even if you were baptized, though, and I worried about sinning once or twice between praying for forgiveness and suddenly being flattened by a truck.

I never went to church steadily. Stayed long enough to get baptized as a baby, then there was that Christian girlfriend, and after that, found another church to get the "real" baptism, and that's about it. Congrats to the OP.

Yeah, I grew up in a Catholic family. So my view of Baptism is probably somewhat skewed. We also had these "special" necklaces called Scapular which gave people special abilities like one-way tickets to meet their patron saints after death, and +2 damage to Undead.

Congratulations, relay01.

I once dated a girl in high school who was very Christian. She was always concerned about my soul and well-being, and kept insisting that I be baptized. One day I spilled the beans and told her that I already had been, and the look of relief on her face was... priceless.

That same thing didn't work out so well for the Insane Clown Posse.

You should play Dante's Inferno

In my Lutheran church, we view baptism as a sort of welcome into the church and a dedication by the parents to raise the kid with the church. Then, when the kid is old enough and willing enough, he goes through Confirmation where he actually studies the Lutheran faith (Old and New Testaments, Large and Small Catechisms, the rise of the Protestant movement, and the Gospel (lots of focus here)).

After 1-3 years (depends on the church, I had two years), the kid is confirmed. This is where he/she formally acknowledges and accepts Christ as their savior.

Baptists really seem to hang onto the whole dunking into water thing, but what matters is where the spirit is, not the body. If a church tells me they have to baptize me because what I have done wasn't, "Good enough," I'm going to find a new church.

EDIT: Idk about the whole "will the baby go to Hell?" thing. I don't remember any text in the Bible about it.

Well, I know that's not the official stance of the Lutheran church, at least as written in its theological confessions, but I don't doubt that is how it might be presented to you in Sunday school at a given church.

Especially when the teachers are second generation homesteader housewives.

I left many times and came back on my own terms.

Do not mistake bringing up children based on a set of morals and examples with brain washing, fear and hate mongering. Not everyone is raised in a household that makes headlines.

My father is almost Athiest, my mother is a leading example of a modern saint--she gives everything and almost never asks for anything, she prays about everything. Her living example is what keeps me coming back to Christ, and listening to her advice--not a forceful pressure or fear of condemnation.

It did, and was the same word that was used to talk about ships that sank into the water. So the "sprinkling" that some denominations is a puss-out--but it's all non-salvation related anyway, so to each his own.

And I'll strongly preface this by saying "to each his own" but that just sounds like a silly "religious" way of wrapping up loose ends of Christianity (someone dying who never got a chance to hear the message). It doesn't have very much foundation in biblical verses as it does our attempts to "make sense of it all."

The truth is, nobody knows.

Cognitive Dissonance describes many of my feelings toward Catholicism. I don't attack the good they do, but it's unfortunately surrounding by lots of odd traditions that seem more like Greek mythology. For humorous example: Saint Kevin

I know a couple of people who play the lottery because "it gives them hope".

My religion says that you don't get baptized until you're old enough to be accountable (8 years old at least). It has to be done by someone who has the authority to actually perform the ordinance. Otherwise, it's nothing but a glorified bath.

Where is the doctrine of the age of accountability taught in the Bible, or does your religion add it in to make hell seem not so harsh?

And out of curiosity, what is the age of accountability for the person who never heard the gospel?

In terms of "doing bad things," David wrote: "For I was born a sinner—yes, from the moment my mother conceived me. ... Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

So he obviously didn't buy into the whole "all babies are good" line that churches like to give to mothers.

Cognitive dissonance 2, organized religion 0.

My team is winning by a land slide!

I'm circumcised and I still pee on your back, witch !

That's the kind of thing who bring your silly score table to zero !

Lost, you're lost !!

I had a Christian upbringing. One day my parents told be that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Some years later I figured the rest out myself. Pity about the rest of you.

I've actually reached a level of meta-philosophy in that I think multiple truths exist--as far as the pragmatic results are concerned.

Basically, if going to church makes you feel good about yourself, enhances your friendships, and gives you success in life: go to church. If not, please try another one (for they are not all the same), but if a few attempts don't work for you try something else. Give Buddhism a try, give Hinduism, give Scientology a try. The point is living a happy, fulfilling life without having it at the expense of others.

I don't want anyone to be miserable and a failure just so that they can fit in to some group or label!

If Athiesm is your bag, more power to you. Just please don't work to take away something that works for others (religion), and I'll promise to do the same.

Amen.

I extend it a bit further, as even if a choice of religion works for one, it is still beneficial to give other religions a try, as you can take the best values from each of them and combine them to form your own opinion / beliefs.

Hold on -- last time I checked, Lutheranism (for those who claimed to follow that) specifically states that all salvation is predestined, i.e. God has long before your birth determined your fate, and there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- you as a human can do to affect whether or not you will be saved (collectively known as divine monergism, if you're interested). Not works, not faith, not nothin'. Then they go full circle and say "but I'm sure you are one of the elect to salvation, because you have faith". Go figure.

In other words, baptism has zero bearing on your salvation in any Lutheran denomination. It's certainly not a "get out of hell free" card.

But it's a marker, see? They were infused with faith beforehand so they could go to heaven.

[EDIT]

Closely related; when cornered by evangalists, "God made me an atheist! Who are you to question his wisdom?"

I think your wording is needlessly vague and complicated, but I agree with this conclusion: people should choose whatever makes them most comfortable in living their daily lives. If that means they believe in something I don't, no matter how silly it seems to me, that's up to them. Live and let live.

With the side remark that that freedom of course has to go both ways. "I" don't hinder "you" in practicing "your" believes, "you" don't intrude "your" believes on me. And this is where, in practice, things can get complicated. If "you" think, based on your believes, that euthanasia (say) or homosexuality are "wrong", am "I" shoving "my" (lack of) believe down "your" throat when "I" say these things should not be forbidden, or do "you" impose "your" believe on "me" when you say they should be?
In theory, separation of church and state should at least somewhat take care of that, in that no particular belief should form the basis for legislation. In practice, it's of course not simple.

Something I had not realised before going to North America is that "church" there has a much broader community and social function than it does where I grew up, where most of the social and community aspects are covered by secular institutions.
When debating "going to church", that's an important thing to keep in mind, because "going to church" does not mean the same thing to all people, either individually or collectively.

EDIT

Oh, I've said "thank God I'm an atheist" on several occasions. Very tongue in cheek.

Only an evangelist who has no knowledge of scripture would be stumped by that. Also I highly doubt you were always an atheist. You can blame your childhood beliefs on ignorance but I could say it's relative innocence and you've since been corrupted. Although I'm mostly with David's Psalms i.e. what Matthew referred to earlier which is why I use the term "relative innocence".

Anyway Thanks all for your congrats.

http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/603954/863944#target

Unfortunately, I think that because of this (which is obviously true), the statement that one should just "live and let live" does not hold water. It is true that as long as you are harming no one with your actions, you should be able to do as you wish and hold whatever opinion you wish. That much we must grant any person.

But we have to be careful that we don't interpret that to mean that anyone is immune to criticism or debate. You being allowed to think homosexuality is evil also means I must be allowed to think your opinion is evil and dangerous to our society, and to want to legislate against you making action of your opinion. I guess one tends to forget that there is such a thing as solidarity: just because I am not personally affected by your hideous opinion doesn't mean I should therefore not care about it. I'm not homosexual, but I will still strongly argue against anyone who claims homosexuality is evil.

This stretches to territory that might be a bit sensistive. For instance, should we intervene if someone is teaching their children harmful and blatantly untrue things about the cosmos? We do intervene when parents are harming their children in more direct ways. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of who decides what is harmful, I think it would be negligent for us not to at least intervene verbally and point out that parents may be doing harm to their children. At worst, words do not hurt, so I can't see why we shouldn't be justified in saying it, at least.

It's complicated.

If you actually think that and weren't just trying to prove some point, I'd think you were full of yourself. Specially that corrupted bit.

Makes me laugh that one group will scream bloody murder when you try to push beliefs on them, but when they do it to anyone else, its OK. Yuh. Things like saying people who don't believe are somehow ignorant or corrupted

{"name":"atheist-cartoon.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/4\/b4ed647f8b6823c07fae6ebf0d9f3efe.gif","w":400,"h":529,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/4\/b4ed647f8b6823c07fae6ebf0d9f3efe"}

Mostly just a counter-example remember, I was a very strong Atheist. Yet to hear an excuse I didn't once use.

EDIT:
Until I was filled in on Arthur's more specific reasoning for his current beliefs, I made an assumption based on his given reasoning in this thread.

I don't believe anybody comes to Christ by bashing them in the head with a cross. (as the cartoon put it) In my case, which had similarities with Arthur's case somebody in much worse shape then I ever was had to explain how seemingly unanswered prayers is not a good excuse for believing in no god.

And why is that?

Yup. That's what I meant.

Absolutely.

And I think you would be right to do so.
I'd like to put it stronger than that: anyone who does the opposite (argue that homosexuality is evil, and homosexuals should therefore have fewer rights, or be prosecuted) is guilty of not tolerating other views or lifestyles, and should rightfully be condemned for it. But it's complicated. Things are much simpler if you just don't accept other views.

Schools should definitely not be teaching it, at least not as part of the curriculum that deals with our current best understanding of the cosmos.
But they should be free to teach (in the relevant course) that some people believed that the Earth was a flat disk, sitting on top of a bunch of elephants, standing on an infinite stack of enormous turtles. Or that in the middle-ages, the belief that the Sun went around the Earth was wide-spread (as long as they don't teach the fiction that everyone thought the Earth was flat until Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to get to India).
But yes, it's a tricky question. I can't find the reference at the moment, but at least one investigation found that when you give equal time to intelligent design and evolution, there is a larger fraction of students that come to the conclusion that evolution is, shall we say, better argued and documented.

It is. I don't think there's an easy answer as long as you want to be tolerant of other ideas.
And I think we should be (I also think we shouldn't start sentences with words like "and"), because I quite like to have the freedom to think whatever the hell I want myself, and the only way I can be assured of that is if everyone has that freedom. Which, unfortunately, includes people who are opposed to that same freedom.
Yeah, ok, again, complicated.

I'm sure someone will come around shortly and say I'm being close-minded and not open to "alternative" explanations for what I just said about evolution and intelligent design.

Re-reading my previous posts, I've made a horrible defense here. Something about the "God made me an atheist" remark got to me and I made the bad decision to try and reply while at work.

Let's try this again:
Since I became a Christian, I've always been trying to be more God centered in everything I do. I have not read the entire Bible but am rapidly moving toward completion of this goal.
If you are an atheist as I was or any other religion including denominations within Christianity and you are doing or thinking things that don't match up with what I recognize as God's Word, I'd love to talk about it if you'll allow it. I'd expect you to do the same with me. If we cannot be in fellowship and make an agreement please pardon me if I'd like to pray for you.

OK, you do the praying for both of us and I'll do the thinking for both of us.

With that statement I'm reminded of your cartoon, except with the roles reversed.

Many atheists are not at all resistant to labeling people of any religion as ignorant, unevolved, silly, or the like. In an atheistic view, can not a theist be considered smart?

Sure, but they tend not to say things like

or

Way to take a hypothetical argument and use it as cannon fodder.

The "you've since been corrupted" was a rather poor counter-argument but one that's generally accepted by theists and non-theists alike.

Would you not agree that since childhood as we grow more aware of the world around us we lose our so-called innocence?

As for praying, can you reason how praying correlates with ignorance?

"Innocence" can be construed as believing in fairy tales.

Show me a study that undeniably proves the absolute effectiveness of prayers, and I will convert from atheism right now.

There are plenty of studies that show being a God fearing person leads to longer life etc, but that's partly a result of not so likely to engage in risky behaviors such as driving around with high blood alcohol etc. There's also the placebo effect.

And since so many Americans are praying for an American victory in the Middle East, and so many Muslims are praying for the exact opposite, how does God decide?

There are so many other variables that factor into this I don't even know where to start. Correlation does not equal causation.

You'd be better off with an example that doesn't cross religions.

You're asking for the impossible. You would find fault with any conclusive study because your mind is already made up.

Having certain pets has been shown to result in a longer life. I have a cat.

I believe in things in which there exists credible scientific evidence supporting its claims. Thus, if one day, there came some form of evidence that proved the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt, I would become a believer.

"Reasonable doubt" is debatable in itself.

My avatar is debatable in itself.

Have you ever tried to have a debate with a kitten?

I don't doubt if God himself landed a UFO in front of your house and did a few magic tricks that you'd probably believe something supernatural happened.

But you are already backing up from your previous claim that "Show me a study that undeniably proves the absolute effectiveness of prayers". With every conclusive study, you'd just say you need one more study, etc.

Character assassination in the form of calling you "a pussy" isn't fair debate.

Supernatural is a null term.

Just to throw a thought out there ...

This would probably cause me to become a non-believer, personally. Science is supposed to be about the natural world. God is supernatural. Having natural evidence for something supernatural would just mean it wasn't supernatural. Am I wrong?

A reasonable person would be able to take the first few papers for their words. If there aren't a dozen papers refuting the claims of the first few

I'm not sure anything said god is supposed to be supernatural. Should god exist, it would be the most natural thing in the universe I'd think.

Praying is more for the prayer rather than the prayee. There's way too many people praying contrasting prayers for any "absolute effectiveness".

Praying is an attempt to make a connection to an entity they believe exists. That very belief makes the prayer feel comfort, even though they could just as well be talking to a wall. There's a reason a lot of people have imaginary friends while growing up.

Sounds like a good argument not to believe, but I am not entirely convinced that science has answered everything and that some divine entity could be shrouded in that unresolved mystery. Most scientific minds believe that is such a small chance that it is completely negligible. To me, it isn't negligible and therefore validates trying to connect with such an entity via prayer. Beyond this, I've become skeptical of most other religious teachings, considering them a work of fiction unless I can be handed physical evidence / proof.

I mean, as in, having evidence in which the only possible explanation was the intervention of a super natural being (God); i.e. if prayers actually worked

Science never claimed it answered everything. It merely claims to form a hypothesis that can predict events, and if the hypothesis seems to work, it's advanced to a theory.

And it will be a sad day when it has...

I feel left out. I'm going to check if there is a church of atheism so I can get baptised.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the word I take issue with is "corrupted", which implies some sort of degeneration.

I think an argument could be constructed. Not going to bother though, since that discussion is really pointless and a waste of everybody's time.

Apparently people who are very ill and are told that they're being prayed for have lower recovery rates because they experience stress by thinking that they have to "perform better" (recover sooner), which hampers the healing process.
The same research may have found some positive correlation between being prayed for and rate of recovery (just in case someone else cares to bring that up).
I don't remember the details either way, but my suspicion is that the statistics are not actually good enough to draw a conclusion either way.

There is also some anecdotal evidence that says that it takes about 18 years for a prayer to be fulfilled. Don't know what one could potentially learn from that. Probably either that prayers tend to fulfill themselves through people's actions, but it takes 18 years, or God lives on a spaceship that is 9 lightyears distant (assuming prayer and divine action both travel at the speed of light). That, or there's just too much paper work to get through before a prayer gets reviewed, passed and acted upon.

Same God though.

The blade cuts both ways.
Regardless of whether that's true in this particular case or not, there are many people of religious persuasion who will dismiss whatever does not fit into their worldview for no other reason than that it doesn't fit in their worldview. No, not all of them.

And for anyone who wants to raise that tired old argument that rejecting religion just means you're being close minded: wrong. It's perfectly possible to consider religious believes, find them wanting, and reject them.

You need to stand outside the Ed Sullivan Theater when the Dave Letterman show is doing the Hose Cam thing

Again, natural evidence of something supernatural. Anyone demanding this would just deny that it happened, or the evidence was cooked, or there was some other explanation yet to be determined, or any other random rationalization. This is why I won't argue with bambam in the other thread; some things are impossible or just not worth the time.

Agreed.
If I hadn't already apologized for my poor choice of words with a poor argument, here it is: I'm Sorry.

@23yrold3yrold: Thank you. Couldn't have put it better myself and I'm sure we both came to that realization at some point in our lives.

hmph.

To each his own.

Oh, that's fine, I'm sure.
Just goes to show that you have to be careful in how you pick your words, so you are not misunderstood.

Considering he is trying to prove a contradiction to the religious person, it's quite irrelevant what you believe.

And even if the Christian were to say that the Muslim is praying to the same God, they would still say the Muslim prayer is ineffective because they are not believers of a divine Christ. I'm sure there would be a similar argument in the other direction.

Please define natural vs. supernatural. If God is supernatural (unnatural?) then how does he make "natural" stuff? Is natural stuff the mundane events that don't raise eyebrows? It seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, as in talking about "what's outside the universe". If we can't possibly get to it, see it, or interact with it, it doesn't exist (for us at least).

Hurrah. I'm now an official minister of the church of atheism. So I've baptised myself.
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Just got to wait for my name to appear on the list then I can reap the average $300 charge

However, if anyone wants to be baptised over the web for free, just ask.

Holy crap.

I'm just using Mr. Lenney's own words.

Who knows? I'm reminded of the joke about the human-making contest where God tells man "get your own dirt".

Assuming the existence of Heaven, Hell, or any other afterlife destination of choice, I assume they would have to exist "outside the universe" as we understand it. Would you expect them to have a street address?

assuming we find god, that would (to me) imply he/she/it isn't outside of the known universe. Just our idea of the universe has expanded.

The best way I've heard this defended is using the dimensional approach. Say for instance your are a being that exists in 2 dimensions (perhaps 3 including time). If some other being that exists in the 3rd ( or 4th w/ time ) dimension were to somehow interfere with your 2D world, you would have no way of perceiving how this change came to be because it violates everything you can test within your 2D parameters. You would be aware of the change as it has effected your 2D world but what caused the change would be supernatural.

Our idea of the universe expanding would mean an unknown part of the universe had become known, wouldn't it?

Basically what I mean is science would adapt.

Which happens all the time! Tis what science is all about.

Ah. Now. That is an interesting question.
First, it actually doesn't matter what I think or whether Christians think that Muslims pray to the same god or not. Islamic faith is founded upon Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrism, and is explicit in saying that their god is the same as the Christian God (who is of course the same as the Jewish one).
There are sections in the Koran that acknowledge and accept the existence of Christian and Jewish believes alongside Muslim believes (and there are sections that say otherwise; puting those different passages in their historical/political context is interesting).
But of course there are (probably plenty) Muslims who will say that the Christian fate is "wrong" (and who will insult Jesus, which is quite funny considering Jesus is one of the more important prophets of Islam). And of course there will be Chrsitians who say the Muslims "got it wrong". Heck, they say that about other Christians too.

Yes, that's the usual way of explaining the unknown, from "a monster eating the sun" (solar eclipses), "here be dragons" (superstitious sailors reluctant to sail west indefinitely) or even "why evil people succeed" (they'll get theirs in Hell later, right?)

Not really familiar with The Gospel are you?

Metaphorically, sure.

The growth of scientific knowledge is far more than metaphor, unlike other trains of thought.

http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html

I haven't memorized it chapter and verse. Please enlighten me as to evil people getting into heaven.

I'm not so sure about that. There could be lots more out there we can't see right now just because we aren't currently capable of seeing it. Just like back before the telescope, or before hubble, or before the new WMAP and other new telescopes.

Here's one for the religious folks out there: Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That said, it doesn't mean it isn't scientifically explainable either.

When Galileo tried to show the moons of Jupiter to some religious leader, the leader said something to the effect (paraphrased) "I don't have to look. The Bible doesn't mention them so they cannot exist".

Sure it does:

Oh, sorry, You said the moons.

Amusingly, you then link to a page covering the progression of a topic of study over a century. The same topic. A topic (the age of the universe) which is probably hundreds of years old. If the context were different, you wouldn't be making my case for me. This is assuming you're responding to me, of course.

There's not a lot of room to show the advancement of knowledge for something that was just discovered. Well, there is, but they try to get the small stuff out of the way before they publish.

So what was discovered? That the universe had age? That it had size?

It was discovered that the universe was incredibly huge (solar system), then this kept getting pushed further and further back to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy, then other galaxies etc. What equivalent is there in the Bible (errata published by God)?

Well before the 20th century it was believed to be no bigger than half the solar system, the earth at the center, and everything else spinning around it. Of course there are several variations on that theme. And before that it was just earth, and "stuff" above.

Equivalent to what, specifically? My alarm clock instructions have no information on the size of the Universe either; that makes it no less valid. I don't think you've really understood anything I've said up to this point; I was originally talking to JL.

I'm glad our understanding is increasing; I don't see what that has to do with our universe increasing. Aside from a metaphorical interpretation.

I don't think I said the universe was actually getting bigger (although it is).

Noun

* S: (n) metaphor (a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity)

Science isn't metaphorical, it's hard evidence or it's not science.

And my link referred to the known size of the universe, not the cosmological expansion.

You'll notice I wasn't referring to science specifically. Obviously science isn't metaphorical. Want to jump into anyone else's conversations?

Which is why I said the comment was metaphorical. I said it, and you said "Which happens all the time!" Why are we still talking about it again?

I knew I shouldn't have posted in this one. >_<

What were you referring to, specifically? It looked to me like you were implying science is merely an "opinion".

I dunno. It sounded like you misunderstood.

append:

If you recall I said this:

I did not say the universe expanded. I said our idea of it has expanded. The idea. Not the universe.

And if you'll recall, that's not what I responded to with "metaphorically, sure." now is it?

Its about the only thing I can think of that I said that could possibly have been misconstrued as saying the universe was expanding.

I took his "metaphorically" comment to mean that scientific advancement caused human knowledge about the universe to expand (a metaphorical expansion of the universe), but the actual physical universe was not expanded by our increased understanding of it.

If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me.

Maybe I'm stupid, but that doesn't seem like a metaphor to me. Saying your knowledge of something has expanded is not any kind of metaphor for the thing itself expanding.

But then I never did learns mah english propers like (though I did have a rather high reading comprehension level back in the day, though I have to really concentrate to see it these days, or I misread )

I don't know, I don't think it's technically a metaphor, but I can understand how someone would use the word metaphor to mean that.

EDIT:

Also, I could be reading it entirely wrong.

I think your use of the word "idea" is what's confusing me. The universe has a definition. If something exists outside of observable reality, or in some supernatural way, the definition of the universe will not suddenly encompass it. The things that are normally designated as "supernatural" by various religions, theologies, philosophies, etc. are generally such a paradigm shift that they would forever be thought of as separate even if they were ever proven in a natural, scientific fashion. They would not just suddenly become "normal". Does that make more sense?

We can barely detect neutrinos, and certainly can't see them, yet we don't consider them anything other than normal.

Keep backing me up Arthur, keep backing me up ...

That's arguing semantics, which is not very helpful.
The word "planet" originally referred to "wandering stars", where a "star" was one of these immobile unchanging lights in the night sky. As opposed to "sun", which wsa the big bright fiery thing in the sky during the day.
Now we know that stars are not immobile and unchanging: stars are formed, stars disappear. And along the way, they change. We know our sun is just another star. We know that the planets are spheres of gas or stone that orbit the sun, and that the Earth is just another planet. And we now know that there are planets orbiting other stars.
None of those fit with the "original" definition of those concepts. Should we not call the sun a star or the Earth a planet because those terms were introduced before the thing it referred to was fully understood? Of course not. That's called progressive insight; scientific truths are not set in stone, immutable for all time.

EDIT:
Not quite a peer-reviews source, but Wikipedia gives several possible definitions for the term "universe", which may or may not be interchangeable, depending on how inclusive you want to be and what the nature of said universe actually is. One of these is

which is certainly the definition I would have given. By that definition, it encompasses any existing dieties.

It was basically semantics to begin with, I suppose. No one has really said anything I didn't already know, so clearly I'm being misunderstood. Main point was that you'll never find natural proof for something generally deemed supernatural, by definition.

Two comments about that.
The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has not been defined. To me (and I'm not trying to give a water-tight definition here), "natural" means something along the lines of "following directly from the laws of physics" (our understanding of which is incomplete). Thus, a stone falling when dropped is, a house being built is not, although the principles on which the foundation of the house is laid and the plans according to which it is built and kept standing follow from said laws of physics. Supernatural, then, means something along the lines of "not following directly from the known laws of physics, possibly as a consequence of deliberate action by a sentient being". There are two aspects to this: the first is the limitation of our understanding of the laws of physics (contrast with the earlier definition of "natural"), the second part is the analogue of catching things like a house being built under the same umbrella term "supernatural".
In that understanding of the term "supernatural", there is nothing inherent in saying that what today is called "supernatural" might not be understood as "natural" tomorrow. I'm sure a medieval peasant would consider this aluminium box I'm typing on a very supernatural thing indeed. Doesn't that make the definitions very pliable, so you can fit everything in? Doesn't that invalidate any arguement to reject a supernatural explanation? Not quite, enter Occam's razor: you don't introduce a new concept (say, a diety, or a new law of physics) unless you have to.
I know it's a tired old example, but before it was understood as a natural phenomenon, thunder and lightning were considered supernatural (that distinction is of course more modern). Again, the distinction is not set in stone, immutable for all time.

Second point. Were I to look for proof of, say, the existence of a god, I don't care whether that proof is considered "natural" or not. All I care about is the proof, not the form it takes.

Scientifically speaking though, I'm not interested in that particular question: the burden of proof is not on me to show that God does not exist (which is impossible to do anyway; at most you can say that you found no evidence to the conterary), rather the burden of proof is on those who make the hypothesis that God does exist: to show that it's more than a convenient way to explain away anything we (or they) do not (yet?) understand.
And then finally, if such a proof were found, why would that not imply that this "god" is therefore part of "nature"?

So, long story short, I don't buy the "you can't reason about supernatural things because they're supernatural" argument.

{"name":"602388","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6.png","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/61b399bfdc8bf5c12c86574de83e8ec6"}

It would be my conclusion then, that anything supernatural has no relevance to reality (as it does not affect it). Either that or the supernatural conveniently skirts producing evidence that is provable.

I'm glad to hear that, because I didn't say you couldn't reason about them. We do that all the time on this forum alone, clearly.

I don't get the "skirting". Do you feel as though anything particularly supernatural has an obligation to drop by and set up a Wikipedia page?

Jesse Lenney: You base your beliefs around things you find poetic? I'm not following.

Something that can't be proven via scientific means has no relevance to reality, gotcha.

He explicitly states that, though not so harshly. I'll spend my time with stuff that might possibly be proven (and much more interesting besides) such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

Very interesting if you put a bit of thought into it.

A disturbing mix of scary and funny.

In hinduism you go to heaven if you have the name of god on your lips in the moment you die, regardless what you did before. Question is if you can remember this in the moment you are flattened by a truck.

Most people I know would be saved, since they'd exclaim "ZOMG!" as the truck hit them.

And they say it even applies if you have accidently or randomly a name of god on your lips.

In germany we have a margarine called "Rama". If you would go to a shop and say "please give me a package Rama" and you would die in that moment, you would go to heaven, no matter what you did all your life...

I'd love to see some sources on that. In my understanding of Hinduism, you only reach their analogue of "heaven" once you've reached enlightenment (broken free of incarnation). There are of course several sub-types of Hinduism (four I think?) so I guess they could differ in that aspect.

How come there isn't something that's believable?

Look within yourself. That is all.

So I assume you fully agree with Evert's point.

Which is about the same as I said earlier. Once more with feeling^[1]: If it exists, it must be natural.

I thought I made it pretty clear that Evert missed my point completely.

/sigh

Since my involvement in this thread started with Jesse L. and ended after a few posts, I think I'm done with everyone else who just jumped in. Time to head to work ...

I don`t know, but it is something many hindus believe. Like Mahatma Gandhi, who was killed by an attentat but in the moment he died he had the name "Ram" on his lips.

They believe some souls go to heaven, but this doesn`t mean they stay there forever. Most are born again after a while. Only very few stay there forever.

If one goes to heaven only because having the name of god on the lips for a moment, it could be he stays there not very long.

Maybe you should be a bit more clear. I don't think anyone knew what you were trying to say. What with most of it being rather evasive...

[

Well, clearly you didn't.
Anyway, because I disagree with what you say doesn't mean I "missed your point". Sadly, that type of response is entirely typical for this type of discussion though.
I mean, obviously, your point is so reasonable and well laid-out that anyone who doesn't agree with it must have failed to get it. They couldn't possibly disagree with you for any other reason. That at least is the only conclusion I can draw from a statement like that.
Rather than backing up your point and expanding on your line of reasoning, you play the "you just don't get it" card, conclude the discussion is pointless and walk away. A great pity.

You said:

And I went to some length to explain why I disagree with that line of reasoning, mainly because sticking a convenient label on something ("supernatural"), contrasting it with something else ("natural"; "supernatural by definition is not natural") and then using those definitions to proof a point ("because supernatural is not natural, you cannot find natural proof for something supernatural") is circular reasoning. It's exactly the same logic as saying that the sun should not be called a star because stars are little points of light that are visible at night while the sun is a bright disk that's visible during the day, because that is what those terms originally meant.

I was clear enough for the person I was talking to originally. Not sure how that makes me evasive, other than I don't want to be dragged into topics that I know from experience will go nowhere ... but I think I was pretty clear about that from my first post. My own fault for not following through I guess. I'll do that now. /goodbye

You didn't agree or disagree. You talked about something else that I wasn't, and that I was talking to someone other than you about. You're right; that is typical.

I'm sorry that I won't play your game; I guess you'll just have to take your ball and go home. With that condescending attitude I won't miss you.

When I want to talk to you I'll use language and terms you understand. I realize that you disagree, and I see why you disagree, and I see what you disagree with, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that we're not talking about the same thing. And yeah I'm leaving it, not because I thought my point was so reasonable and well laid-out that anyone who doesn't agree with it must have failed to get it, but because I finished. The person I was speaking to understood, the people I wasn't didn't. Any further posts would just be arguing for the sake of arguing. Call me evasive all you like, but I've got better things to do.

No I'm pretty sure we just don't agree. Understanding and not agreeing is not the same thing, as Evert pointed out.

But hey, if you want to play that game feel free. If it makes you feel superior go right ahead.

My old computer died with some text on the screen like:
RAM failure FFEDC0:0080DB
I guess it's in Heaven now.

I guess it's in Heaven now.

and because you made some Allegro stuff with it i suppose he will stay there for a while...

That was sarcasm, in case you missed it.
I don't think you're the type of person to really think what I said, and I wasn't accusing you of being that type of person. But for all the world it comes across that way ("I don't agree with you, you just didn't get my point"). Discussions don't have to end that way, you know better than that.
That's why I called it a pity.

Ok, so the person you were talking to understood your point, the rest of us (who disagree) didn't? Again, I'm sure you don't mean to say that "whoever doesn't agree doesn't understand" but you sure don't make it come across that way.
Also,

Means he understood? Understood what, exactly?
And if what he understood is "to each his own", you may want to go back and read my first post.

I'm not interested in bashing anyone's religious beliefs here (which would be highly inapproriate, given the origin of the thread). I'm not out to argue or demonstrate that religion is a load of superstitious nonsense (or even saying that it is). All I pointed out is that a statement like

or

is hollow unless you specify clearly what is meant by "universe" or "supernatural" and we agree on the definition. Unless you simply want to argue semantics, which is entirely pointless (as in my example of the sun, stars and planets). I gave you my (philosophical) interpretation and why based on those I don't agree with

You didn't specify yours ("I was talking about something else") and are clearly not interested in discussing the issue.
Which, again, is a shame, because it's interesting.

On a different note,

There's no such thing as Silicon Heaven. So, where do all the calculators go?
(Free karma points for who gets the reference).
(Bonus points for who gets the reference).

Totally unrelated to the reference, but wouldn't they follow the magic blue smoke?

Lovely attitude. Why I won't talk about it will continue to be a mystery, I'm sure.

Reviewing my posts, I see a lot of agreeing on my part (mostly with Arthur ). How this comes across as disagreement instead of misunderstanding I'm not sure, but as you seem to have figured out, I just stopped caring.

Interesting. You have failed to realize I just gave you the same thing you dropped on us

This, mainly:

I don't "not understand" your point, I disagree with that conclusion. But if you think I misunderstood what you meant, then please clarify what you mean with some actual arguments, rather than saying "you don't understand and I no longer care," like you did again just now.

Is it fair to say that you argue that because "God" (or what have you) is "supernatural", by definition "natural" based reasoning (or investigation) cannot teach you anything about "God" because he is not "natural"? If not, please clarify. It seems to me that it's just repeating what you said in slightly different wording.
I've already explained (in detail) why I don't agree with that line of reasoning and the conclusion (but to summarise, I maintain it's only true if you arbitrarily and ab initio limit the meaning of your words so the statement becomes a truism).

Again, that's a philosophical discussion. It's not about whether religion is right or wrong (we both have opinions about that, but arguing over those is not very enightening) but whether it could in principle be demonstrated to be right (or wrong). I don't see why it couldn't be.

I suppose I have then, since I don't recall accusing anyone of feeling superior or being evasive. Perhaps you feel superior now, I dunno. I'll just keep agreeing, I guess.

It's that or ignore you. I'm going to keep doing it until you clue in.

Orly?

Thats just one example.

Most of your posts come across as "I'm better than you (or know better), and I know it". Maybe you're doing it on purpose I don't know. Either way though your actions say a lot about you.

I was responding to Evert in kind.

It says I feel no obligation to talk about something that I've said repeatedly I'm not interested in. Perhaps you presume otherwise. Think what you like; I don't think I can get much more blunt.

I didn't think you'd like getting treated to your own behavior. Most people don't.

I doubt that. But its hard to say when you continue to evade even a civilized rational discussion.

I'm evading the discussion, period. Are you getting this yet?

Long time ago. Which just seems silly, why haven't you stopped posting in it yet? Instead of posing what sounds like condescending, "holier than thou" type responses?

Evert, what "natural" based process would you use to prove something like instantly turning water into wine happened on a single occasion?

I haven't heard anything even remotely resembling an acceptance of my answer yet. My answers probably seem "holier than thou" because this is (intentionally, I suspect) painting you as incredibly stupid. If all you're doing is trolling, then fine. I'm done with you. Both you and Evert can perceive that as you like.

You're really not, you know.

I've pointed out why I think you come across as simply saying "you don't disagree with me, you just don't understand" without providing clarification or elaborating your statement. I've explained why I disagree, and all I get from you is "you don't understand what I'm saying".
But when I point this out, all I get from you is the accusation that I'm being condescending. Geez, thanks. No, I wasn't, and I won't raise to the bait here.

We don't have to agree to have a good enlightening discussion.

It's as though your mind is already made up about what I have to say and why I say it, and nothing I say or do will change that perception. And if that's true, then that's also a shame. And if it's not true, it's even more of a shame for coming across that way.

EDIT:

First, let me counter that with a reverse question: what process would you use to prove something like instantly turning water into wine happened on a single occasion? (Note the lack of a qualifier to the nature (/sic/) of the process there.)
It's a straw-man argument, to an extent, because nowhere did I say anything about proving whether specific events mentioned in the Bible (or any other religious text) are true or not. It's orthogonal to the general argument of whether "supernatural" things, in general, could be shown to be true or not and whether in so doing they're still "supernatural".

More later.

See? Yet more of your attitude.

Did I even imply you were stupid? I sure didn't intend to. Yet you pretty much just directly called me stupid. I don't get it. This is the kind of behavior I expect from a typical born again Christian. I really didn't think you were one. Ah well, I'm always open to being proven wrong.

append: Also I'm not sure why you're lumping me and Evert together. But hey, to each his own amiright?

Sorry to interrupt the other discussion again, i believe you can live with it

Jonatan Hedborg said:

I'd love to see some sources on that.

Now i have found one source. This thing is mentioned in the story of Ajamila in Shrimad Bhagavatam (6.1-6.3). Ajamila is going to die, servants of Yama are going to catch him to bring him to some kind of hell. Then he speaks the name "Narayana" to call his son, who had this name. But it is a name of god too, and some servants of Vishnu appear to bring him to a kind of heaven:

"When Ajamila was 88 years of age, his health started failing him. He lay in bed most of the time. He was resting one morning, when he saw three fierce-looking Yamadutas (agents of Lord Yama) approaching him. They had twisted faces and hairy bodies. They carried the feared noose to tie his jiva in the subtle body and take to afterlife. Ajamila was scared, he wanted to be helped. Narayana was playing with his toys a little far away, Ajamila called out for him, “Narayana! Narayana! Come here!”

Suddenly, four agents of Lord Vishnu appeared there. They were pleasant-looking, had eyes as beautiful as lotus petals, wore yellow silk and a crown on their heads, wore ear-rings and flower garlands. They had four arms and carried a bow, a quiver, a sword, a mace, a conch, a chakra-disc and a lotus flower. They came because they had heard Ajamila cry out for Narayana, which is a name of Lord Vishnu. They asked the Yamadutas to release the jiva of Ajamila.

It is said that three agents of Lord Yama came, because Ajamila had sinned with his body, mind and speech; and four agents of Lord Vishnu came because there are four letters in the word Narayana."

The whole story is here:

http://dcindia.blogspot.com/2007/10/redemption-of-ajamila.html

Actually, saying "OMG!" or the equivalent would be like a habit that had originally started by sincerely asking for help from the divine being at a time of trouble. It just became automatic, and other people who didn't even believe in this God would say this in a case of "monkey see, monkey do". Or would that be like the three wise monkeys since speech was involved?

To know whether or not it actually happened, I'd have to be there, see them put an empty jar down a water well, and have it come up filled with wine.

But I could just as easily doubt it, calling it a trick or illusion. So I'd ask somebody to give me proof. And by that, I mean a scientific explanation of how one could accomplish such a thing.

And such an explanation is impossible. There is no way now or in the future to instantly turn water into wine. There definitely wasn't a way in the first century. So either it was a supernatural event that superseded natural laws, or it was an illusion.

I don't see how it's a tangent... But of course it is hypothetical. I don't expect a rational person to believe that water was turned into wine because a 2000 year old book says it was. I'm not trying to prove that any such event existed.

I'm simply asking, "what if?" If your answer is "it must be a trick" (given that the event occurred) because it obviously breaks natural laws, then you (most likely) categorically do not believe in the supernatural.

The very definition of supernatural is "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena." So if you're saying something (like God) can be proved to exist by natural law, then he is not supernatural by definition. I don't understand how that can even be up for discussion, so evidently I am missing something...

That makes it sound like gravity was supernatural before Isaac Newton came along.

It was. "God Did It".

There is a difference between not knowing the explanation, and the explanation not existing.

I knew somebody would reply with that.

The natural law is eternal, whether known at the time or not. Of course one could always use the argument "that we just don't understand yet," which again tells me that one simply categorically does not believe in the supernatural.

This is why I picked a specific event as my example that obviously breaks natural laws. And to claim there might be a process that would explain it is more ridiculous than believing in the supernatural.

Not knowing the explanation means somebody knows, but you don't.
An explanation not existing means nobody knows.

I don't see how you can say that. Unless you're proposing that science is purely subjective? In which case, I disagree entirely.

Tell Lord Kelvin about radioactivity again (seance perhaps?)

[edited Thomson to Kelvin]

[EDIT2]

If prayers are deferred indefinitely, then you're back to the halting problem.

By the known laws of physics.

There's a much more simple explanation than that, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it: it just plain didn't happen. Perhaps that's what you mean by "it was an illusion", but that's not quite the same thing.

It's clouding the issue because I wasn't talking about specific events in the Chrsitian holy book, about Christianity in general, or even about "God" in particular.

This post, perhaps: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885580#target?
Clearly, if we don't agree on the meaning of the terms used, any discussion becomes a quagmire of misunderstanding (and in that case, the proper response is to clarify what you mean instead of tell people that "they don't get it"; this not directed at Matthew obviously).
I've also said (here: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885571#target) that I don't think it's useful to arbitrarily assign labels and stick to their original meaning if our insights change.
As I said before,

But ok, I'll rephrase what I said. You say "X is supernatural" where "supernatural" means "completely outside the scope of the natural world, for now and for all time, independent of our understanding of that natural world." Then the statement "the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through nature" is a truism. I say that if a phenomenon that is called "supernatural", if it exists, is not supernatural (by your operative definition of the word), but only appears to be so because our knowledge of nature is incomplete. Hence my emphasis on "/known/ laws of physics".

So I'll turn the burden of proof around: show to me that God, if he exists, is not "natural" and can never be explained or understood, even in principle, by "nature". You are not allowed to ab initio stick a label on God that says he can't be, because then you're assuming your conclusion to be true from the beginning, leading to circular logic. Arguing semantics is not useful.

Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter. A rose, by any other name, and so on.

Now, I don't think you can formulate an experiment that would irrevocably proof that God exists any more than you could devise a test that would proof that I am the best chess player in the world. But that has nothing to do with whether you call said "God" supernatural or not. It does have everything to do with why I don't think invoking "God" (or in general, the supernatural) is meaningful when trying to answer an empirical or scientific question, but that's a separate issue.

And, once again, this isn't about disproving anyone's beliefs.

Which sounds like you're dismissing the possibility of anything supernatural existing right from the start.

Ultimately, though I can't really agree with the idea that the supernatural can never be explained or understood by nature. If the supernatural effects nature, then it stands to reason that we could study the effect it has on nature and, indirectly, study the supernatural phenomenon itself.

Of course, then we get to argue if the supernatural could effect nature without actually being natural.

I'd say that the original meaning of "supernatural" meant anything directed by a sentient being (evil or otherwise, whatever "evil" means) where this sentient being couldn't be fought or resisted with traditional weapons that are effective on the usual meatsacks.

The modern replacement is to denounce some product by saying "ZOMG!!!111 It's full of chemicals"

Which is why the "supernatural" is just a label people use for things they don't understand. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it won't ever be understood.

It "plain didn't happen" directly contradicts my qualifying it with "given it happened"... I'm not trying to prove it happened or any such event happened. I'm just trying to get to the point that you would never give the supernatural any credibility, and as such, isn't it just simpler to just say this and avoid the discussion altogether?:

"I don't believe in the supernatural, and if you insist that God exists in the realm of supernatural things, then I don't believe in him either. If he did exist, then he'd be bound by the same natural laws that we are, and as such, be discoverable in some literal sense within the universe."

I'm well aware that many things once were considered supernatural by the general population have been shown to be perfectly natural. But to me that doesn't have much to do with the general concept of whether or not any supernatural things exist, particularly a supreme deity.

And that's perfectly reasonable thing to say, and is a subset of what my above fictional quote is getting at. The place I disagree is at your ultimate conclusion: that proving God exists "has nothing to do with whether you call said 'God' supernatural or not."

If somebody's god is supernatural by definition (i.e., he can break the natural laws in the literal sense), then he obviously cannot be proved to exist to you because you don't believe in the supernatural. To say that one could still prove that same god exists by using so-called natural laws would be asking them to change the very thing they are trying to prove. And as such, they wouldn't have proved that he exists.

So to me, a Christian saying that he cannot prove that God exists because he is supernatural is not simply a convenient excuse, but something that is very true by its own definition given your lack of belief in the supernatural. But obviously, I do not believe that reasoning makes God's existence any more credible.

So if we come up with some definition of a "natural law", for example the speed of light, and someone can exceed this speed, he's supernatural? Suppose we find out how he did it? It's a cop-out to say "we can't find out" by fiat. It seems to me to be obvious there's a method to exceed the speed of light, since this god did it, and perhaps some clever Einstein can deduce it.

I think you're presupposing here that natural laws can explain everything and anything that happens. You're assuming that simply happening proves that something isn't supernatural, and so you dismiss the possibility that anything supernatural can ever happen.

Circular logic is circular -- Circular Man

As I've already stated, the natural laws as I'm calling them are eternally true. I'm not speaking of our modern understanding of them.

In response to the generics of your question, either our understanding is inadequate or that thing is supernatural. And if you don't believe in the supernatural, then obviously the only explanation is that our understanding is not sufficient.

If you care to read through the Bible, you'll find that the Christian God goes far beyond stretching our understanding of the natural world... Considering the totality of what he supposedly can do, it's much much more than trying to define the speed of light. There is no rational person who could try to defend the Christian God by saying that everything he does can be explained by science. He is most definitely either supernatural or completely made up.

And, sorry, but I'll have to refrain from answering any questions from people other than Evert, as he's apparently the only person who can both remember what has already been said and respond in a meaningful way.

How do you state these natural laws? If you can't (because we don't know about them yet) aren't they "supernatural" in themselves? They're unknowable and immutable after all.

My bad, I'll shut up!

That's a lie, I don't know how to shut up. I will try to be more careful of what I say, though.

I can understand the argument that the supernatural cannot be understood, assuming the literal definition of supernatural and not just human ignorance. I best envision this as the "state" of the universe literally just changing without cause, like bits flipping in computer memory without intervention from the computer. The problem that I have is that there's no reason to believe that the supernatural exists at all. There never will be as it's basically impossible to sufficiently record. All there will ever be are human accounts of what they believe happened, which is perhaps the least credible source of information on the planet due to our ability to imagine.

Nail on head.

Which is why I say that the distinction is ultimately one of semantics based on incomplete and imperfect knowledge and why I explicitly stressed known laws of physics.

But I'm sure I've said that before.

But those "natural laws" are unknown. So the question is (as you've pointed out), is something that contradicts the known laws an indication of a "supernatural" event, or an indication that the knowledge is incomplete?
Assuming perfect knowledge, would that knowledge not include knowledge of the supposedly "supernatural"? And if it does, why would you make the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"? And if it does not... well, then it's hardly "perfect knowledge" now is it?

So that brings us back to arguing about semantics, where you argue based on what label you initially stick on something and what meaning you've given to that label. Which is ultimately pointless.

I would (as I've done) phrase that differently by saying that things that appear to be supernatural only appear to be so because our understanding is incomplete, and given complete understanding those things would no longer be called "supernatural". I suppose you could simplify that by saying I don't believe in anything supernatural, but to me that's not quite the same thing.

By the way, physical systems (in particular quantum systems, but also relativistic systems) can behave in ways that are more bizar than you could have thought possible. Which is probably part of why I'm inclined to say that supposedly "supernatural" only appear to be so because our understanding is incomplete.

I disagree.
Either everything he does is perfectly possible and explainable by natural laws (assuming we'd have perfect knowledge of what they are, which we don't), or the abilities that are attributed to him are partially made up (or exaggerated), or he doesn't exist except perhaps as a metaphore.
Of course, if your belief in said God's abilities is of the "all-or-nothing" kind with regards to the Bible, then the middle category is not for you.

Anyway, I guess that's cleared everything up for everyone then?

Oh, and as for how I'd set about proving water turning into wine? It's actually really simple, I build me a probe that can detect the chemical alteration (say, by measuring the composition, conductivity, opacity, acidity, etc. of the fluid), then I build a time machine and head back in time to record the event.

This I have to argue with. Why do you assume that natural laws can explain everything that exists? You're still working with the supposition that the supernatural does not and can not exist, and that anything that seems to be supernatural can be explained by currently unknown natural laws. I see no reason to just assume this to be true.

OK, just call them "laws" then. What's so super about some of them?

On the contrary, there is no reason to just assume it to be false.

If you assume it to be true, then even if the supernatural exists you will ignore any evidence of it, dismissing such evidence as "currently unexplained". Like has been said before, you'll simply decide before seeing any evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist.

I'd like to play religious roulette. What you do is stand with some friends at the top of a hill, and use the name of your favorite deity in vain. The last one to get hit by lightning wins! Some would say "the lightning is unexplained" and others would say "the lightning was supernatural" but the losers would still be ashes just the same.

I like to do drive-by envangelisms. As I'm riding in a car, I'll roll down the window and fling a Bible at someone walked by. The King James Version is the best translation for this purpose. As you drive away, scream loudly at them, "JESUS LOVES YOU!"

That had nothing to do with the current discussion, but Arthur reminded me of it. I did this to an agnostic friend of mine at a movie theater, and people thought I was actually attacking him.

So when you meet atheists, you literally "throw the book at them"?

Yes. Yes I do.

The thing is, though, that in terms of describing an abstract concept such as god and proving that he exists, the attributes you give him are important. If two friends, a Christian and an atheist, end up in an afterworld that is ruled by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can the Christian claim to have been more enlightened and correct in their previous arguments?

i.e, If one wants to claim that his god exists, then I think it's important to focus on the attributes that he describes.

http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885580#target
http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885731#target
and even
http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885768#target

The answer is essentially in those posts, as well as your own earlier statement:

Anyway, coming back to this:

First, a question. What do you do when you find something that is unexplained by current understanding of physics? Say you call it supernatural. Then our understanding improves, and it turns out you were incorrect in calling it "supernatural". It only seemed supernatural because of incomplete knowledge.
So the "it's supernatural" card comes with a great big warning that you should not play it too soon, if you should play it at all. But you can, of course, always play it when you don't understand something - which is why it's not an acceptable card to play in science: it ends the discussion and doesn't encourage you to search for alternative explanations.
Secondly, my own position here, which is simply this: any complete knowledge of the workings of the natural world must include the so-called "supernatural" if that affects the workings of the natural world, otherwise the knowledge is not complete. But then, "supernatural" is nothing more than an arbitrary label that we've assigned due to incomplete knowledge that doesn't tell us anything new. We don't have such complete knowledge. We may never do.
Third and last, many things that were deemed "supernatural" in the past today are no longer considered as such (also known as "God of the gaps" if you're trying to discredit the existence of a god). Extrapolating that by induction says all things that are considered supernatural can be understood this way. That does not have to be true, since this is an empirical statement rather than something that can be shown mathematically. But every gap in our understanding that is filled in chips away at the available room for anything "truly supernatural" and makes it at least intuitively more likely that all gaps can be filled this way, at least in principle.

So, caveat: does perfect knowledge, complete understanding of the physical world, exist? I don't know, but I think it does. Doesn't mean we have that knowledge, doesn't mean we ever will, doesn't mean we ever can. But a "supernatural god", if he exists and has the powers attributed him, surely has such knowledge (doesn't mean he knows what every person everywhere is thinking, or what the outcome of all events will be) - so in that case that knowledge certainly exists. Which again doesn't mean we'll ever have it.

To put that differently, is the "supernatural" still "supernatural" if you're God, or is it just a natural part of the "world" you live in?

And here's something else to chew on. Assuming God exists, who's to say he doesn't have Gods (bosses) of his own to obey? It'd be several kinds of stupid to tell us about it.

Maybe. On the other hand, I have fairly general objections to what could be (and has been) called the "God-hypothesis" that arguing about specifics is not likely to remove, and even stronger objections to invoking "God" as an explanation for anything particular.

That's a separate discussion though.

You're exactly right here (and I should have said something about this before). I don't like to assume a supernatural explanation to anything, because of exactly what you said, it ends discussion and doesn't encourage you to search for alternative explanations.

On the other hand, I also can't agree with just assuming the supernatural doesn't exist at all.

I don't really have a good counter for this argument. Darn you and your superior reasoning skills! I'm too used to arguing with people who don't even understand their own position! (Not talking about anyone on A.cc)

What do you mean by "complete knowledge of the workings of the natural world"? If you mean a complete and accurate understanding of the natural laws that govern our universe, then I don't think your argument works. The supernatural breaks the laws that govern our universe. I don't mean it breaks the laws as we understand them, I mean the actual, true laws that we don't have a full understanding of yet.

With perfect knowledge of the natural laws that govern our universe, we would be able to easily spot any supernatural influence (just look for things the natural laws cannot explain), but that doesn't mean we could understand those supernatural influences themselves.

If, by "complete knowledge of the workings of the natural world", you mean an understanding of the cause of everything that happens in our universe, then you have just extended the definition of "natural" to mean "anything that effects the natural world".

Heh, I got distracted and you guys posted while I was away.

I'd be interested in hearing these objections (although probably not arguing about them). Not in this thread, though. It's gone off-topic enough!

I always turn these discussions into quote-fests. Sorry about that.

There isn't one, I think, except that induction doesn't have to hold true. Which is all you need if you want a counter argument. You can't proof things by induction in natural science.

And I say that if it breaks those laws, then your understanding of those laws was incomplete, and there is another set of laws that under specific conditions reduces to the former set (like Einstein's theory of General Relativity reduces to Newton's theory of Gravity at low energies, or quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics for macroscopic systems) but that also allows "breaking" of said former set of laws.
As I said earlier,

The distinction is subtle.

On the conterary. I think you artificially and arbitrarily limit the meaning of "natural" if you insist that some things are "natural" and some things are "supernatural".

This is a philosophical point. In the absense of perfect knowledge, you can not show the difference between "supernatural" (using the strong definition of the term) or "apparently supernatural" (using the weaker definition I gave earlier).

Probably true. They're broadly similar to what I've said about invoking "the supernatural" as an explanation for anything though; the two questions are related, as is evident by "God" making an appearance in the discussion now and then.

Any laws that govern the supernatural don't directly effect our universe, but instead they govern supernatural things which then effect our universe. Imagine some two-dimensional people living on a sheet of paper. A pencil writing on that paper would be supernatural to them. They could see the line forming, study that line and reason about that line, but they could never actually see the pencil because it exists outside of their universe.

That's a bad analogy, really. I'm not even sure if higher dimensions would be supernatural (could we, in theory, directly study things in higher dimensions?). But, assuming the 2D people are unable to see into the third dimension, and given your obvious intelligence, I think it will get my meaning across.

I still think the quote above sounds like you're dismissing the possibility of something supernatural existing right from the start. But:

I'm probably just not getting the distinction. I'm a fairly bright kid (and so modest!), but I'm sometimes slow to wrap my mind around new ideas, and I often have trouble understanding exactly what people mean.

To be clear, I'm assuming that something supernatural is something that we cannot directly study, because it is unreachable to instruments in our universe. And so we can only learn about it by studying the effects it has on things we can directly study.

I arrive here a lot in conversations like this.

It seems to me that all the attributes God is known for are (strangely) examples of human ideals, as in, made up by humans. I think if this uni-conscious supernatural deity were real, his true nature would be so far removed from that which we presume, that worshiping our image of him is as futile as worshiping a golden calf.

Are the ideals made up by humans, or do humans follow those ideals because the god created them to act that way?

I doubt we'd ever agree on an answer to that question, unless one of us converted to the beliefs of the other. It's just too dependent on our own preconceived notions.

Ok. So why would you make an arbitrary distinction between what you call "natural" and "supernatural"? Why don't you consider both at the same time?

The interaction that binds quarks together within a proton is the strong nuclear force. It doesn't directly affect how the proton behaves when you place it inside a hydrogen atom. So should we call the laws that describe a proton inside a hydrogen atom "natural" and the laws that describe the quarks inside the proton "supernatural", or should we just call both of them "natural"?

No, not really. It's quite good, actually. It's like the sphere who visits Flatland and tells the Square about the Third Dimension.
Although the Flatlanders may live on a 2D surface ("manifold" in technical terms), they can infer that this 2D manifold is embedded in a larger 3D space that can interact with their 2D space - for instance by a line forming out of nowhere, or a Circle that can change its size, appear, disappear and reapper in different locations, at will.

These things only seem supernatural to them if they don't realise that their 2D world is a subspace of a larger 3D world.

You know what I think.

That's a question that very smart people are trying to answer, and something that they hope the LHC at Cern will help them with.

Lets not exaggerate here.

I'm not saying "it doesn't exist", I'm saying the distinction is artificial and unnecessarily limiting. I don't have to say "it doesn't exist" because that follows immediately if you think the distinction is false.

Sure, that's fine.
But you get into a tricky situation because you haven't defined the meaning of "our universe". What does it mean? Our 4D patch of space-time? The 11 dimensional beast of string theory? The observable universe? The loosely connected patches of space-time with localised laws of physics that show up in some theories (which some people would call a "multi-verse", reserving "universe" for each particular patch that has a particular set of physical laws)?
In such a multi-verse picture, our "universe" is just a small patch of all that exists, and our physical laws are just one particular set out of all the possibilities - but there are still natural laws and principles that govern this multiverse. Do you want to call all the rest "supernatural"? If you do, why?

Obviously, that's going into very speculative theory, close to the edge of what we know. It's not clear what models do and can work and which can't, or how you'd even test them. But people are seriously studying these things.

This reminds me of the guy who said we'd never know what the stars were made of, and only 10 or 20 (?) years later the spectroscope was telling us exactly that.

In my view, these things are supernatural to them, because the Flatlanders can't observe or detect the sphere, just the things it causes in their world.

Anything that we can (in principle) directly observe, I would consider to be part of our universe.

I had a very long argument once about whether or not anything could exist outside of our universe. My friend insisted on defining "our universe" to mean "absolutely everything that exists, has ever existed, and will ever exist". At the same time, he insisted that "our universe" also meant "anything we can, in principle, directly observe". I find these two definitions to be incompatible. I also find my tangent here to be irrelevant.

Emphasis added.
So it's not supernatural, they think it's supernatural because their understanding of their world is limited. We, as 3D beings, know better (as does the Sphere). It's the same as my earlier question: if you're God, is what you might call "supernatural" still "supernatural", or is it natural to you?

The Flatlanders can infer the presence of the Sphere by observing its effect on their world, so it's not true that they cannot detect it (but you've argued that yourself earlier as well).

Also consider this: if the laws of nature tell us that our universe is embedded in a higher dimensional space (as string theory would tell us), by what logic would you call those higher dimensions /super/natural?

So you can make the distinction, but I say that distinction is artificial and unnennesary, only due to your incomplete understanding of the world around you. Your Flatland example only reinforces that point.

(By the way, if you haven't read Flatland, do, it's an interesting read).

If we can't study the laws that govern those higher dimensions, and only know about them indirectly, then I would say that they are supernatural.

I may do that, it sounds interesting from what you've said. Apparently WKU's library has a copy.

By pun logic?

..but we know about them, they have an affect our nature. That to me would make them natural.

http://www.mat.ufmg.br/gaal/bibliografia/flatland.pdf

I'd also say we can't study electrons directly either, unless you want to get shocked.

Arthur: is that the full book?

I'm pretty sure it is, the hardcover version was rather small, and I looked at the ending, although it's almost 40 years since I looked at it last (required reading for geometry class in high school)

[EDIT]

Reading it now makes me want to stab my eyes out with a Soldier!

Awesome! Thanks for that, saves me running up to the library tomorrow. I went up today, but kept searching for "flatlander" instead of "flatland", and apparently the library's search engine can't make that connection.

I'm assuming you've already seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

I hadn't seen that video before, Mark. It was interesting indeed.

Clicking on the related videos led me to this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWM2oZgi4E&feature=related

I'm not sure how accurate or good of an explanation it is, though.

This is another one I love. It blew my mind when I was in 7th(?) grade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0

I love that one! That guy has a great voice, and I also grew up near the city it was set in.

And, yes, it would be slightly mind-blowing if I hadn't previously tried to wrap my head around powers of ten.

Ahem.

Ah, I missed that post, sorry!

I also think you explained the idea better than I did. But I'm feeling down on myself at the moment (unrelated, temporary circumstances), so I'm inclined to look poorly on my own work.

Hope you're feeling better soon. No reason to think poorly of yourself that I can see.

Like I said, it's just something temporary.