I agree that science won’t be able to prove it, because it’s designed by God not to be found out that way:
It is a different type of learning, one that has to start from the beginning, and not mixing our worldly learning in it, but building from a blank slate. This would apply for God, but also IMHO things like spirits/demons and the like.
It’s there, but they are not in our physical world, so science that is designed to study the physical world can not find them.
I think you’re missing the point. Science is driven by empirical evidence.
If some guy produces compelling evidence that ghosts exist, then the onus would then be for us to try to formulate a model that makes reliable predictions about the phenomenon.
If the phenomenon seems to resist modelling, then, tough shit. The Universe is not limited by our ability to understand it.
Note: I don’t believe in ghosts. But we give the “believers” an open goal when we say we will never consider their claims no matter what. I for one would sit up and listen to solid evidence.
The supernatural is science we haven’t figured out yet. Dwarves, epileptics and salamanders are all mundane people and things that used to be considered magical beings. Lightning, too. Magical things get “proven” all the time and then redefined as hard science.
You do realize that you just said that if you are right about me “blathering”, that your own precious theology is just blather ?
And sneering at my argument won’t make theology less unsupported.
But I didn’t say that. I said that they had no good evidence at all for their claims - nothing that’s not much more easily explained by fraud and error - and no reason in physical law to consider their claims even possible. They haven’t come up with “compelling” evidence, or even moderately interesting evidence. Just really bad photos and hearsay ( and frauds ); and if that’s “evidence” enough for ghosts to be taken seriously then just about every goofy belief should be taken seriously.
And far more get shown to be imaginary.
Not necessarily. You forgot the most likely explanation: it doesn’t exist. You are confusing “that which may be explained in the future” with “only a fantasy”.
If you can’t find them, how do you know they’re there?
It’s not that they can’t be found, but they can’t be found by using science but learning a new way to perceive from the beginning, which starts by faith.
The supernatural by definition does not exist. Nature is all that is. If God exists, God is part of the nature of things, not a supernatural being. Same with ghosts.
Would not God have to be the creator of nature and if so preexisted before nature and therefore would be supernatur(al)
By beginning your search with faith rather than facts, you have already poked holes in your argument. Start with facts and see where your journey brings you.
Very well said. Or as Arthur Eddington put it, “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.”
See, that’s what’s so humorous about your method of “reasoning”, and what is so endearing about you despite all. If this were the 19th century, you’d be bellowing endlessly about how we have evidence for the ether, how perfectly complete Newton’s equations are, and how it’s impossible to go faster than sound. When an argument is never anything more than railing against imaginary enemies, it’s a pretty good clue that the arguer is, let us say generously, uninformed.
Even facts have to start on faith. We look up that there is a Burger King at 2525 Rt 9 on the internet. Is that a fact or not? The only fact is some web site stated at the time you looked, to the best of your understanding that it says it exists. We get in the car and drive there on faith, partly based on our past experience with the internet. When we arrive we will find out if it exists or not.
Just as with faith in God, or experiences will show if the source is trustworthy and giving true facts. As one grows in the ways of the world, I find more and more things we once assumed as facts turn out to be lies and assumptions, while growing in the ways of the Lord Jesus I find out more and more that He is the source of all truths.
I think you’ve misunderstood me.
Basically, I agree with the essence of what you’re saying: there’s no good evidence of, say, ghosts. And I think you’ve made some excellent points in this thread.
The thing I was taking exception to was when you were saying ghosts and such “…aren’t scientific theories, not even incomprehensible ones”.
Because in science evidence is far more important than theories. If there were empirical evidence, the fact that there’s no model for how the ghost phenomenon works shouldn’t matter a jot for whether we accept that the phenomenon is real.
And think of some of the examples you’ve given e.g. continental drift. There was good evidence that the continents must have been together before there was a scientific theory for how they could have moved.
Should we have refused to look at the evidence for continental drift because there was no theory?
No. “Nature” includes whatever there is or ever was. God might be the first part of nature creating the rest of it.
I doubt it. And what does any of that have to do with God or the supernatural ? The ether was head and shoulders above God or ghosts in plausibility. And Newton’s equations are still used. They were a limited approximation, not wrong.
I have no idea what you are trying to insult me about here. But it’s silly for a religious person to complain about someone else railing about imaginary entities.
Looking back, I see that this digression started because I was responding to an attempt to equate the Higgs boson to ghosts, because both haven’t been seen. The point I was trying to make back then was that in the case of the Higgs, you have theories consistent with known physical laws that say it should exist, therefore scientists look for it. Whereas with ghosts known physical laws DON’T imply they exist.
Yes, evidence is much more important than theories, but theories can at least tell you where to look for evidence, and can serve as limited evidence themselves if they imply something exists, and have themselves been proven in other areas. Rather like the law of conservation of energy implying the neutrino; they couldn’t detect them for some time, but were sure they must exist because otherwise that would mean that energy was just vanishing.
Ghosts and God have neither evidence for them, nor do known physical laws have room for them, much less imply them. So they aren’t in the same category of hypothetical object as a Higgs boson or dark matter.
God warns us not to worship the creation, but the Creator.
And by your definition ghosts, demons, spirits would also be part of nature and they would not qualify as supernatural.
That doesn’t contradict what Brainglutton said though. Assuming God came before everything else, he’s natural.
Which is what he and others have been arguing all along; that if they are real, they are natural, not supernatural.
But I know that Burger King has posted locations on their site in the past, and they were accurate. Therefore, I can have faith that they’ll continue to post accurate information on their site. When it’s wrong, I freely admit I was led astray by inaccurate information.
I have to ask…what past facts or experience do you base the existence of any sort of god on? What have you gotten in the way of verification that your assumption is in any way correct? What, in light of the enormously fucked up state of the planet, makes you think anything you’ve been told about the powers of a god is even remotely true?