The supernatural

[IanS]

Oh my God. I did not say that anyone hit me or read me. No. I said enemy of God. And God will punish His enemies after the respite He has given them, if they do not repent. Didn't you answer my question? How will you treat your enemies? Will you forgive them despite your torture and killing you and your family? Definitely your answer is no. Good. God will punish his enemies. you understood? God will throw his enemies to hell. This is logical. How will you treat your enemy? Okay. God is also rational. It burns its enemy. Not his friend. you understood? Be a friend of God. You will see that God is only merciful.

Who are the people here who have as you claim "tortured and killed your families"?

You are talking to people here, in this thread. And you claimed that we will all be slaughtered by your God ... you also claimed that was correct and good and that you Love Your God ... why will he slaughter us? ... none of us have ever done anything at all to you or your family, have we? (the answer to that is that we certainly have not ever harmed you or your family at all).

You are indeed actually supporting and condoning the mass slaughter of billions of completely innocent people just because they do not believe that your God exists (and hence do not believe that books like the Koran or the Bible are true).

You are, by your own words, and your own unintended admission, someone who insists that people who do not accept your religion, must be killed.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 12

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Oh my God. I did not say that anyone hit me or read me. No. I said enemy of God. And God will punish His enemies after the respite He has given them, if they do not repent. Didn't you answer my question? How will you treat your enemies? Will you forgive them despite your torture and killing you and your family? Definitely your answer is no. Good. God will punish his enemies. you understood?
God will throw his enemies to hell. This is logical. How will you treat your enemy? Okay. God is also rational. It burns its enemy. Not his friend. you understood? Be a friend of God. You will see that God is only merciful.

Why on Earth would an all-seeing, omnipotent, infinite being, outside of Time and Space be so foolish as to believe we mortal humans could be any sort of threat to him? To be his enemy? Wat are we going to do to him? Poke him in his balls? If he is so damn clever, could he not be bigger than this? If we screw up, surely it is his fault for creating us imperfectly?

Just asking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why on Earth would an all-seeing, omnipotent, infinite being, outside of Time and Space be so foolish as to believe we mortal humans could be any sort of threat to him? To be his enemy? Wat are we going to do to him? Poke him in his balls? If he is so damn clever, could he not be bigger than this? If we screw up, surely it is his fault for creating us imperfectly?

Just asking.

It long ago occurred to me it would be impossible for me do anything which could surprise an omniscient being. Or indeed disappoint an omniscient being who had made me the way I am.

 

[Scorpion]

Heydarian. Further more, the bible verse that actually says God will send another comforter is John 14.16 and Muslims are actually dumb enough to claim the comforter is Muhammad,. But if they read down a few more verses they would see that John 14.26 says the comforter is the holy ghost.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh for ****'s sake.

Here I'll solve this.

GOD! HEY GOD!

Two of your believers are arguing over what you think. How about you clarify it?

 

[Scorpion]

Heydarian, here are some bible verses that say we are Gods.



Psalms:82:6: I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Isa:41:23: Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

Joh:10:34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

1Co:6:19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Verse 5.18 of the Quran says in Muhammad's time Jews and Christians all believed they were sons of God. But Muhammad denied it saying "ye are but men"

Therefore Muhammad does not confirm the previous messages as the Quran says. In fact he denies the spiritual truth that we are all Gods children. Then he divides humanity into believers and unbelievers in him, and sets them at war with one another.

A completely evil thing to do which has led to countless wars which are still going on today. Jesus said of false prophets " by their fruits ye shall know them" and Muhammad's fruits are wars and hate.

 

[Rincewind]

Actually, watching two guys arguing over who's religion is better reminds me of an old saying - two bald guys fighting over a comb!

 

[Jimbo07]

Two of your believers are arguing over what you think. How about you clarify it?

Jesus said of false prophets " by their fruits ye shall know them" and Muhammad's fruits are wars and hate.

Actually, watching two guys arguing over who's religion is better reminds me of an old saying - two bald guys fighting over a comb!

OHHH!

I read back a few pages and thought Scorpion was using scripture as an ironic counter, but couldn't make sense of it! Now I get it!

Ok, I can participate!

Who is the most toughesterest? Gandalf or Dumbledore?

 

[Scorpion]

Have you read the Bible or the Torah? You have never even seen it.

heydarian, Have you read the acts of the apostles in the bible? If so you will have read that Jesus and the apostles were filled with the holy Ghost, who spoke through them using their mouths. There are over 40 verses that mention the Holy Ghost in the acts of the apostles. I suggest it its you who needs to read the bible not me.

Acts:2:4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts:10:38: How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

In the bible the angel Gabriel had no need to give messages to the apostles or to Jesus or Paul, because they were filled with the holy Ghost who spoke through them. True prophets did not get messages from the angels they got it from the holy Ghost within them. In the bible, the angel Gabriel only came to announce the coming of John the Baptist, and Jesus.

But the lying false prophet Muhammad could not speak from the holy Ghost within him, without going away and thinking up verses, so he claimed he had to get messages from the angel Gabriel.

 

[ynot]

 

[Agatha]

It is against the rules here to attack or insult other forum members (and that includes threatening them with hell or other consequences). It is not against the rules to attack or insult beliefs or gods.

Will you all please ensure that you do not attack, insult or threaten forum members.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Mojo]

Why on Earth would an all-seeing, omnipotent, infinite being, outside of Time and Space be so foolish as to believe we mortal humans could be any sort of threat to him?

Because men make gods in their own image.

 

[LarryS]

So the ongoing discussion is largely focussed around one poster, and certain scriptural interpretations...

... but how are we doing, in general? It's possible I'm out of touch with the current state of discussions around the world on these topics. That said:

Has anybody recently provided any credible, testable evidence that the "supernatural" is even a thing?

Or, allowing for the fact that the supernatural may circularly explain itself, and exist in some other kind of existence, not requiring evidence...

Has anybody recently provided any credible, testable evidence that the "separately existing supernatural" even interacts with physical existence as we otherwise understand it?

I not sure what form such a discussion can take . . . but has to begin with defining the term 'supernatural', for example:
If there is evidence for a 'thing', or there is no barrier to acquiring evidence for a thing (in principle), then then that thing is not supernatural, that thing is natural.
So, the supernatural would be defined as that for which there is no evidence, and can be no evidence (in principle).
Or put another way, if we had a set of all things in the universe, including all possible things, the supernatural would not be in that set.
Likewise, if we had a set of all beings in the universe, including all possible beings, the supernatural would not be in that set.
So what are we even speaking of here?

 

[Jimbo07]

So, the supernatural would be defined as that for which there is no evidence, and can be no evidence (in principle).

I left room for just such an imagination Christmas in my second question.

However, the supernatural (not bound by evidence) seems to regularly interact with the physical, be it through people hearing ghosts, statues weeping blood, messiahs appearing on a slice of toast, and so forth.

We don't have any evidence for the supernatural, and the supernatural may in fact be something not even amenable to evidence, but surely these interactions with the physical could be studied?

Has there been even one interaction which did not have a physical explanation, been outright fraud, or at least had a better indication of supernatural agency than "I don't know?"

 

[Little 10 Toes]

There is no need for every event to happen.

Why?

It must be scientifically proven to be believable to us.

Then according to your own words God does not exist.

Because some issues such as: the history of tribes, groups, kings, etc., which can not be proven except by writing and recording by the people present at that time.

Yet we have physical evidence they existed. We have artifacts. Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and Aztecs are some civilizations that have left behind relics.

And some other issues such as: miracles and extraordinary things, etc., which have the ability to be scientifically proven, but due to the limitation and imperfection of human science and the lack of sufficient growth and excellence of science have not yet been scientifically proven.

Wonderful. There is a story in the Bible of how the sun stopped moving for a day, yet other civilizations do not record the sun stopping. There is a story about a wolf who has the ability to destroy structures with his breath. There is a story about a person who can only die with a wooden stake through his heart. These should have the same validity as "miracles and extraordinary things". Perhaps you have heard of the saying, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

For example, we can refer to the soul, although we all agree that man has an invisible commander and ruler called the soul, which in modern science is called "personality" and "I".

No. We "all" don't agree there is a soul. There is no "invisible commander or ruler". A lot of people believe that once you die, that's it. There is no continuance of any kind. What the Bible calls the soul is not what "we" would call personality. If I have a radical change in personality, does this mean I have a new soul?

But in terms of experimental sciences (biology, medical physics, etc.) the principle of its existence has not been proven.

And by your own words, it does not exist.

That is, none of the position, how it exists and its nature and how it functions has been proven.

Prove it exists first.

(Of course, in the intellectual and philosophical sciences, there are logical and strong reasons for the existence of the soul. And I told you in my article in the same group

Are these the same articles that have been discredited?

Therefore, not proving something from the point of view of empirical sciences is not a reason for its non-existence or non-existence.

Your claim, your proof. Or better, I claim you have no soul and you are being controlled by the Evil One who is more powerful than God. Please provide evidence to the contrary.

Rather, it is the reason for its greatness and the insignificance of our knowledge as human beings against the phenomena of the universe.

What is? Not providing proof?

Now, the discussions have moved past beyond this post. You don't have to provide a response to any of what I have replied, but please learn to create better English sentences .

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1442&pictureid=12956[/qimg]

Did not Jonathan Swift in Gulliver's Travels (1726) express this with the Big-Endians group of people in Lilliput who believed that boiled eggs should be broken at the big end rather than at the little end, as commanded by the Emperor of Lilliput?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

In the following is the reply to message 1581:
Proof of God and the supernatural requires logical reasoning. I have said in my article in previous messages. Please read message 367 on page 10 and message 418 on page 11. Everything should not be proved by empirical science. Some issues only need to be proven by rational science and logic. Also, the lack of objective evidence and empirical science to prove the subject is not a reason to reject it.
Many scientific laws and scientific topics that have been proven in the present century. It had not been proven in previous centuries. And so people did not accept it. But after scientific proof, they all accepted. We have many such issues. For example, was quantum physics proven 200 years ago? And no one knew. Some issues have not yet been proven by experimental science. I declare that: the distance between physics and metaphysics with the advancement of science and technology is narrowing every day. I hope that the line between physics and metaphysics will be removed as soon as possible. And we understand both worlds. This will happen very quickly. Do not hurry. You will see the soul in the laboratory with special tools. Although I have mentioned this in my article.

This does not cut it. Unlike religion, science is tethered to objective observation. Religion can never make that claim, and instead speaks of the supernatural, with hearsay as only "evidence". As for the incompleteness of scientific knowledge, and the changing perspectives we have on the data known, this is simply how science is done, and cannot be taken as supporting totally unfounded and entirely unrelated claims that shall never be shown true.

The line between physics and metaphysics is between physical space and conceptual space. While physical space happily follows its own laws regardless of our opinion, conceptual space can contain all sorts of things, from what is known from evidence, to pure conjecture. Metaphysics is pure, untethered conjecture, ungrounded and destined to remain so.

There is no proof using reason that can pertain to the natural world. You can be logical proceeding from an assumption, and be internally consistent in reasoning, and reach conclusions you find valid, but they are not proofs about nature. Empirical, experimental evidence is the only vehicle providing repeatable results, eliminating human opinion.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Heydarian, why are you refusing to deal with the poeple who have pointed out that your arguments are not logical and correct, but are in fact logical fallacies writ large? Why do you simply insult and dismiss them? I'm sure a logical, polite person such as yourself knows that the way to convince people is to point out why their counter arguments are wrong and not just tell them they are wrong, right?

I mean let's say that you post your "proofs" and I just reply with "That's not logical." I assume you would not be convinced that I was correct, right? Well that's all you're doing.

 

[IanS]

Oh dear professor, I am looking for logic and reason in your group and association. But I have seen less. If you think your success makes sense, please let me know. More than anything, I see people among you in this group who are: elusive logic - elusive system - irrational and a follower of speculation without any valid evidence !! And they are professional skeptics.

In the above post (which was a reply to Chanakya), you say we are not being logical or rational and that we have no evidence to oppose your belief in God and the Koran. But what we have been doing is quoting to you and explaining actual published science … in fact we are in effect quoting ALL of published science from the modern science era of the last 150 years. You are in fact claiming that the results of science are all illiogical, irrational and without evidence when it comes to claims of God, miracles and the supernatural.

I have pointed out to you many times now, that amongst all the many millions of science papers published in fundamental core science (that means physics, chemistry, biology and most of advanced maths), no evidence has ever been found for any trace of God or any supernatural miracles. So far, those areas of science have investigated every conceivable question ever raised by anyone for anything & everything in the entire universe, and not a single shred of any trace of any God or any miracle has ever been found.

For example – at the time when your Koran was written, and in fact since long before that when the Old & New Testaments of the Bible were written, everyone believed, and indeed claimed as a certainty, that God had directly and intentionally created Mankind on Earth. And indeed you appear still to believe that even today, correct?. But all of science has shown that Man clearly evolved from earlier apes around 300,000 years ago (and before that, there were more primitive relatives of Homo Sapiens, dating back to around 5 million years ago) … there are no credible scientists today who dispute that … out of perhaps 3 million (rough guess) scientists in core science, the only ones you will find who ever express doubt or disbelief about evolution, are a handful of religious fundamentalists who in fact cannot in any case publish any genuine papers with any results against evolution.

So when you are talking about what is logical and rational and the need to agree with actual evidence, there is simply no argument against evolution. If you disagree with it or dispute Mans evolution, then it's is YOU who are “proved” by sceince to be not merely illogical and irrational, but illogical and irrational on an enormous scale.

And the same is true for all the many millions of other things studied and explained by modern science … that is – the only way that theists such as yourself, can keep claiming belief in invisible gods/God and miracles etc., is by denying and refusing to believe what has been shown by all of science to be the true explanation for all of those things in the entirety of this universe. That is completely illogical and irrational of you.

The rational and logical way to determine whether or not ancient uneduated belief in gods/God, miracles and the so-called “supernatural” is unarguably through scientific standards of investigation, and that means results and explanations that can withstand expert peer-review to be published in the real science research journals. And that's what people here are presenting to you as overwhelming evidence against your belief in God.

 

[heydarian saeed]

Once again you are talking trash, there is nothing whatever in the bible about Muhammad. Muslims falsely claim that verse John 16.7 which says God will send a comforter means Muhammad. But it does not. It means God will send the holy Ghost.

You yourself say that such a verse is in the Bible. Yeah. So why do you say your interpretation after this verse that it is not Muhammad and it is the Holy Spirit. We tell you to stop lying. It is not in your best interest to be harmed. I will explain to you. Listen carefully in this verse the Bible foretells the future. And he said that a prophet named Muhammad will surely come in the future. Of course, the Holy Spirit was also revealed to them in the time of Jesus and Moses. Please understand.