: : There's been an awful lot of talk about why God can't be accepted as scientific. : : Well let's look at the definition of the word supernatural. Nobody denies that God is a supernatural entity. Supernatural, by definition, means that it is beyond natural. It cannot be explained by natural processes EVER. It's a phenomenon that transcends physical laws. If a previously thought supernatural event could later be explained through naturalistic laws, it would cease to be supernatural.

: : Ex. Jesus turning water into wine would be classified as a miracle-a supernatural event. You could not begin to attempt to construct any kind of mechanism for the process because it's impossible by definition.

: : It's not that scientists are being biased by not looking for supernatural explanations, its just that supernatural explanations are impossible by definition. What are we supposed to do? Accept that God did it, clap on clap off? Case closed? Science will always try to find a naturalistic explanation because that is what it does by definition. You can call it a limitation if you want, but science never claims that it could do more than that.

: : Note: having the foresight to see an "evolution is a supernatural event because it violates physical laws/ or big bang violates physical laws" counter argument, I will only say this: evolution/big bang is a naturalistic explanation with a proposed mechanism. God waving a hand and causing all things into being has no mechanism because "our intelligence is so hopelessly limited we can't begin to understand… yada yada yada.." So which is better? A mechanism that actually makes sense and that we CAN understand, or some other explanation with no mechanism because "we're too stupid to comprehend it"? I've never thought the "we're too stupid" argument was ever especially compelling.

: : Another note: those of you who still think that evolution is evil/completely false, I say this. If you can prove to me that species are immutable (ex. All the species of cat in the world aren't related) then I'll jump on the creationist bandwagon.

: : Final note: there are plenty of scientists that are theists… get over it. A literal interpretation of the bible is impossible. Why be so hard on yourself?

: Ok well, In fact, it could be possible to turn water into wine : and still not break any natural laws. You would need technology : that is mearly in it's infancy to do it. But I could see it being done. : In fact, I do not think Jesus did not HAVE to break any natural laws. : What he needed to do the things he did was a complete mastery or those laws. : A "tool" if you will, that allowed him to manipulate the world around him. : But since he was "In" this Universe, he would have to obey it's laws.

: Walk on water? dynamicly change the molecular structure of H2O. : Water to wine? Shift around a few subatomic particles and viola, you have wine.

: Just a matter of moving things around.

: Now, I'm not making the arguement that Jesus was from the future, : or that he was some sort of space alien. He very well may be the son of God. : But, since he existed in this universe, he would have to obey it's laws.

: (not sure about this, but he might have broken the 2nd Law of thermodynamics : with his buddy Lazurus.)

: My argument below on the big bang and the supernatural might prove interesting reading for you.

What is your argument?? i dun see any below??

• Re: supernatural/natural... sigh - bzrd - January 25, 2000 - 18:18 UTC
  • clarification in order... - tenacious - January 25, 2000 - 21:13 UTC
  • Re: supernatural/natural... sigh - Greg Armel - January 25, 2000 - 22:53 UTC
• it's the one titled: "logically disprove me please" (no text) - tenacious - January 26, 2000 - 23:09 UTC