Can we really know anything about the supernatural and God(s)?

Avatar image for Blood-Scribe
Blood-Scribe

6465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Blood-Scribe
Member since 2007 • 6465 Posts

While I was walking towards campus the other morning, I started to contemplate the question of whether or not we really have the necessary cognitive faculties and means of reasoning to make qualitative statements about the supernatural and God(s), assuming they both exist. This isn't the first time I've contemplated the question, but I've been thinking about it a lot as of late and I thought it'd be something worth asking you guys.

In the natural world, we come to understand our environment mainly by means of inductive inferences. That is, we make extrapolations about the nature of the physical world on the basis of previous instances of any given phenomenon, and from that we come to make generalized statements about causal connections between events. We see that dark clouds precede rainfall, and that objects fall towards the ground after they are released. From this we reason that there is a causal relationship between the events, which allows us to make qualitative statements about the physical world. Though this is a really over-simplified model of how we come to understand our environment, as we also use abductive and deductive methods of reasoning as well. But the point is that our understanding of how the physical universe behaves is essentially predicated upon our observations of the effects of natural phenomena.

Of course, this methodology isn't perfect, and it is important to realize that the veracity of our descriptions of the universe tend to lie on a continuum of truth. The history of science is littered with failed theories that have been tossed out the window due to our inability to account for data that contradicts them. For example, it was only around a century ago that physicists thought that Galilean Relativity was the correct model of the universe, and that there was a universal medium through which light could propagate, known as the Ether. It nicely explained why it was that light appeared to have a definite value for its velocity and why it exhibits wave-like properties (as waves require a medium through which to propagate). A consequence of this model would be that velocities can be added linearly between frames of reference, which would allow for light to appear to travel faster than c in reference frames that are traveling at very high speeds. But later experiments showed that Galilean Relativity can't be true, as the speed of light was found to be invariant between all frames of reference. This means that light appears to travel at the same speed regardless of whether you're remaining stationary or traveling at a velocity close to the speed of light.

But the important thing to note is that this was determined experimentally. Near as we can tell, there is no a priori reason why it makes more sense for light to travel at the same speed in all reference frames, rather than being able to add velocities between reference frames in a non-relativistic manner that would allow for light to appear to travel at a speed greater than c depending on your own frame of reference. It just so happens that this is how light behaves.

The same can be said for many other aspects of the physical world, which is why reasoning it out on an armchair simply doesn't work. There doesn't seem to be some sort of ultimate reason as to why it would make more sense for gravity to be an attractive force rather than a repulsive one, or for organic matter to be built around carbon-based molecules rather than being built around some other element. This just so happens to be how the physical world behaves, and none of this appears to be a function of logic or rooted in axioms. This is why at some point we have to get off the chair, away from the desk and into the lab, because natural phenomena must be understood by means of observation and experimentation --not merely rationalization.

So then this begs the question as to how it is that we're able to make assertions about the nature of reality outside of the physical world if we're more often wrong than right about the physical world itself. If they exist, by what means are we able to understand the supernatural and God(s) if our current methods of reason already have enough trouble trying to model the physical world --the one world that we can be sure of? We can't investigate it through the same means by which we investigate the natural world, because scientific methodology is fundamentally restricted to natural world given its inductive nature. So then what does that leave us with? Rational deduction by reasoning a priori?

Since it seems as though the physical world itself isn't modeled very well by such reasoning and instead requires empirical investigation, I'm skeptical of the notion that a supernatural realm would somehow behave in a manner that is consistent with our systems of rational deduction (which is something that a lot of arguments for the existence of God(s) or the necessity of metaphysical dualism seem to be rooted in). Moreover, we also don't seem to have any reason to assume that realms outside of the physical universe --assuming they exist-- behave analogously to our own universe. So if we can't make claims regarding the nature of a supernatural realm or God(s) using the same methodology as we do in the physical world, and reasoning a priori doesn't effectively model the physical world, what reason do we have to assume that it would work for a realm beyond the physical world? It seems to me as though we really don't have good reason to think that this would be the case, and that such metaphysical arguments for the existence of God(s) and realms beyond the physical world simply have to ignore the question of the veracity of this assumption in order to work.

So what do you guys think? Does any of this make sense? Do you feel that our current methods of reasoning are sufficient to make qualitative statements about the supernatural? Do we have good reason to assume that such a world beyond the physical realm would behave in a manner that is consistent with our deductive models of logic even though the physical universe doesn't necessarily do so? Is there some other method of reasoning or investigation by which we can make qualitative statements about entities beyond the physical world, should such a realm exist?

Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts

The way I see it (note that I don't believe any gods exist to begin with, but anyways..) I find the term 'supernatural' rather meaningless....if something exists at any place in any time, then surely it is natural and has a natural explanation. It's just existing in a state not yet recognized or not possible to recognize with our vision, technology, or within the capacity of our minds. I do indeed find it rather silly that religious folk always give the description of their god as "beyond time and space, all knowing, and all powerful, and also all loving" and then go on to describe what it wants from us and how exactly it created the universe....its a complete contradiction.

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
As the supernatural is within a realm outside of that which is natural, I make the assumption that there exists no natural means to even know about the supernatural. In other words, the natural is incapable of "leaping into" the supernatural. There are no glasses we can put on to magically be able to see it. However, I also make the assumption that the supernatural is capable of revealing itself and effecting the natural order. To put it another way, natural humanity is incapable of learning about the supernatural by natural means. The only way to therefore gain knowledge of that which is supernatural is by the supernatural intentionally revealing itself. I am inclined to believe that the supernatural has indeed revealed itself to this natural order through prophets of old as contained within the Bible. As I was reading earlier, the basis for preaching is the notion that God has spoken and more specifically spoken as recorded within the Bible. Because of my assumptions I mention here i have grown to do rather little to actually give proof to Christianity. If our knowledge of divinity cannot be obtained by natural means, then how can one truly "prove" that God exists beyond God's direct intervention? My basis for the truth of Christianity is therefore based in the Bible itself, not my ability to argue what has been referred to as Natural Theology. Natural Theology is essentially the study of what we know of God apart from special revelation. Personally speaking, I would argue that if we can determine anything about God through the natural order it would be very little. Basically, it could be that there is a way to argue for the existence of God by way of Natural Theology but nothing regarding such things as his character. As far as all this that I have stated, I still have to develop it further but this is where I am now regarding this topic, for better or worse.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

As the supernatural is within a realm outside of that which is natural, I make the assumption that there exists no natural means to even know about the supernatural. In other words, the natural is incapable of "leaping into" the supernatural. There are no glasses we can put on to magically be able to see it. However, I also make the assumption that the supernatural is capable of revealing itself and effecting the natural order. To put it another way, natural humanity is incapable of learning about the supernatural by natural means. The only way to therefore gain knowledge of that which is supernatural is by the supernatural intentionally revealing itself. I am inclined to believe that the supernatural has indeed revealed itself to this natural order through prophets of old as contained within the Bible. As I was reading earlier, the basis for preaching is the notion that God has spoken and more specifically spoken as recorded within the Bible. Because of my assumptions I mention here i have grown to do rather little to actually give proof to Christianity. If our knowledge of divinity cannot be obtained by natural means, then how can one truly "prove" that God exists beyond God's direct intervention? My basis for the truth of Christianity is therefore based in the Bible itself, not my ability to argue what has been referred to as Natural Theology. Natural Theology is essentially the study of what we know of God apart from special revelation. Personally speaking, I would argue that if we can determine anything about God through the natural order it would be very little. Basically, it could be that there is a way to argue for the existence of God by way of Natural Theology but nothing regarding such things as his character. As far as all this that I have stated, I still have to develop it further but this is where I am now regarding this topic, for better or worse.mindstorm

It can be seen that the bible was constructed through natural means, through textual criticism.

I find it unrealistic to pin one's hopes on a book so dubiously authored and so full of contradiction in relating supernatural occurrences with naturalistic explanations.

I believe you hit the nail on the head in your first sentence though. I note that the realm of the supernatural declines as we gain naturalistic explanations for what we previously didn't understand. I can only see this method of naturalistic discovery expanding our knowledge and decreasing supernatural unknowns. It works best when we refuse to cling on to our pre-conceptions and superstitions and rely on unbiased methodical discovery. The supernatural is only a question mark for what we don't understand. Let's not pretend we do.

 

Avatar image for michaelP4
michaelP4

16681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 michaelP4
Member since 2004 • 16681 Posts
This sounds like philosophy. All I'll say is I don't believe in anything supernatural nor do I think it could ever exist.
Avatar image for Zeviander
Zeviander

9503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 Zeviander
Member since 2011 • 9503 Posts
I read the whole OP and I cannot really give an answer. I've been out of school for too long, it seems, or have spent too much time away from academia. I'm becoming intellectually lazy, and as much as I'd love to get involved in this discussion, it seems I will be unable to, at least along the original lines of the topic. I can however express something I thought of while going through your expertly written OP, Blood, and that is my interest in seeing science explore the inner world of the mind, conscious and subconscious aspects. A systematic, objective (as it could get) exploration of our perceptive faculties. I do believe if we can come to understand how our mind perceives things, and extract the mysticism and religion from those who have already attempted such an experiment (i.e. meditative gurus of the Indian subcontinent and mainland Asia; in addition to all the other mystics of our history) we might finally come upon a complete system of understanding our place in the universe and the universe itself. I know what I say might sound like newage (rhymes with sewage) drivel, but if there was one thing I took away from my study of religion, it was that science greatly under-appreciates the value of the mind and it's insight into how we perceive things. We are always so focused on the outside world, that we often forget there even is an inner one. This was what drew me into Buddhism and Hinduism in the first place... a systematic, *almost* scientific evaluation of the mind from within, rather than from without. I have only dabbled infrequently with meditation and introspection... but my experiences earlier this year (with Watchmen and complete frustration with religion) has given me reason to think there is something more to the human mind than just a set of neurons and senses (don't infer anything supernatural from this, I refer only to the sense of complete interconnectedness I felt).
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
It can be seen that the bible was constructed through natural means, through textual criticism.

I find it unrealistic to pin one's hopes on a book so dubiously authored and so full of contradiction in relating supernatural occurrences with naturalistic explanations.

I believe you hit the nail on the head in your first sentence though. I note that the realm of the supernatural declines as we gain naturalistic explanations for what we previously didn't understand. I can only see this method of naturalistic discovery expanding our knowledge and decreasing supernatural unknowns. It works best when we refuse to cling on to our pre-conceptions and superstitions and rely on unbiased methodical discovery. The supernatural is only a question mark for what we don't understand. Let's not pretend we do.

RationalAtheist
Your de-emphasis of natural theology is, ironically, un-Biblical. I believe it was Paul himself who stated that even those who have not heard the name of Jesus are without excuse as to whether or not they believe because the existence of God is apparent throughout all of God's creation. Thus, the existence of God should be able to be derived from nature and creation through a natural theology, which you say is impossible without prophets and the Bible.Android339
Let me clarify a point that I might have gone overboard in as you mention Android. What we can know through natural theology is minimal and is mostly excluded to the knowledge that God exists. Romans 1 points this out. However, we are not limited solely to this because God has spoken. This means we have special revelation of God as well. The basis for such things as the Bible itself and textual criticism is the notion that God has spoken and shown himself. Therefore, apart from revelation we can know very little of God. However, God has indeed revealed himself.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Let me clarify a point that I might have gone overboard in as you mention Android. What we can know through natural theology is minimal and is mostly excluded to the knowledge that God exists.

Romans 1 points this out.

However, we are not limited solely to this because God has spoken. This means we have special revelation of God as well. The basis for such things as the Bible itself and textual criticism is the notion that God has spoken and shown himself. Therefore, apart from revelation we can know very little of God. However, God has indeed revealed himself.mindstorm

Textual criticism shows (to me) that the bible is not the word of God and has the hands of men all over it. Biblical authors have edited the bible together to make an attempt at a collection of tales that don't seem as coherent or inspired as one who is already partial and engrossed in their authority might see.

 

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Let me clarify a point that I might have gone overboard in as you mention Android. What we can know through natural theology is minimal and is mostly excluded to the knowledge that God exists.

Romans 1 points this out.

However, we are not limited solely to this because God has spoken. This means we have special revelation of God as well. The basis for such things as the Bible itself and textual criticism is the notion that God has spoken and shown himself. Therefore, apart from revelation we can know very little of God. However, God has indeed revealed himself.RationalAtheist

Textual criticism shows (to me) that the bible is not the word of God and has the hands of men all over it. Biblical authors have edited the bible together to make an attempt at a collection of tales that don't seem as coherent or inspired as one who is already partial and engrossed in their authority might see.

Textual criticism, when I see this terminology used, is in reference to examining the various manuscripts that are available in an attempt to figure out which are genuine. I'm aware of the variations but none have tremendous doctrinal differences. Over the past year or two I have been more persuaded to the Byzantine Majority Text family being the most faithful to what was originally written (very similar to the Textus Receptus used in the KJV and NKJV) as opposed to the Alexandrian Text family (used in the Westcott and Hort version of the Greek New Testament and in most modern versions of the New Testament). However, despite my own persuasion, the two text families are so similar I usually read from the Alexandrian Texts. (And no, this does not mean I am of the KJV-only brand.) That stated, I am very much persuaded that the biblical texts are absolutely infallible and without error in their original autographs. However, as the varying copies that we now have are so similar, I am very much inclined to believe that our current renditions of the text are sufficient for learning and teaching. However, I very much do have the tendency to work directly out of the original languages when teaching just so that I might be as true to the text as possible. As an example, next week I will be given the opportunity to teach 1 John 1:1-4. Within my study of the text I translated my own version before even looking at modern English versions. There are even discrepancies within this text regarding the original manuscript. Verse 4 states in some texts, "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete" while in others it states, "we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete." I still need to do more study to figure out which manuscripts say which because my conclusion is dramatically going to effect my thesis. However, regardless of which is true, joy is going to come to both the author and the readers because of this writing. If I hear someone preach the opposite of what I myself conclude regarding this textual variant they will still likely not be far from the original authorial intent. If the preacher is actually acknowledging the grammar in that much detail then he is doing that most preachers. Topics such as Textual Criticism, Source Theory, studies of authorship, etc. are not issues that hinder my understanding of the truthfulness of Scripture. Like you, because of this particular topic many do turn away from the idea that the Bible might be faithful to the original autographs. However, unlike many Christians who simply brush away this topic I am not fearful of truth. If the Scripture is true then it will hold up to any scrutiny. If it is false, it will fail. I do not fear this. As I was reading just earlier regarding the study of the use of genre within the text of Scripture, the author I was reading stated, "Although there are possible excesses involved in genre studies, conservative interpreters and expositors recognize that, rightly wed to a high view of biblical inspiration, such studies are valid and fruitful." I think this is true regarding many aspects of studying Scripture critically. There is a difference between studying the Bible critically and studying it hatefully. That is, many study it to find errors. However, I seek to study it to gain its wonderful riches.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Textual criticism, when I see this terminology used, is in reference to examining the various manuscripts that are available in an attempt to figure out which are genuine. I'm aware of the variations but none have tremendous doctrinal differences. Over the past year or two I have been more persuaded to the Byzantine Majority Text family being the most faithful to what was originally written (very similar to the Textus Receptus used in the KJV and NKJV) as opposed to the Alexandrian Text family (used in the Westcott and Hort version of the Greek New Testament and in most modern versions of the New Testament). However, despite my own persuasion, the two text families are so similar I usually read from the Alexandrian Texts. (And no, this does not mean I am of the KJV-only brand.) That stated, I am very much persuaded that the biblical texts are absolutely infallible and without error in their original autographs. However, as the varying copies that we now have are so similar, I am very much inclined to believe that our current renditions of the text are sufficient for learning and teaching. However, I very much do have the tendency to work directly out of the original languages when teaching just so that I might be as true to the text as possible. As an example, next week I will be given the opportunity to teach 1 John 1:1-4. Within my study of the text I translated my own version before even looking at modern English versions. There are even discrepancies within this text regarding the original manuscript. Verse 4 states in some texts, "we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete" while in others it states, "we are writing these things so that your joy may be complete." I still need to do more study to figure out which manuscripts say which because my conclusion is dramatically going to effect my thesis. However, regardless of which is true, joy is going to come to both the author and the readers because of this writing. If I hear someone preach the opposite of what I myself conclude regarding this textual variant they will still likely not be far from the original authorial intent. If the preacher is actually acknowledging the grammar in that much detail then he is doing that most preachers. Topics such as Textual Criticism, Source Theory, studies of authorship, etc. are not issues that hinder my understanding of the truthfulness of Scripture. Like you, because of this particular topic many do turn away from the idea that the Bible might be faithful to the original autographs. However, unlike many Christians who simply brush away this topic I am not fearful of truth. If the Scripture is true then it will hold up to any scrutiny. If it is false, it will fail. I do not fear this. As I was reading just earlier regarding the study of the use of genre within the text of Scripture, the author I was reading stated, "Although there are possible excesses involved in genre studies, conservative interpreters and expositors recognize that, rightly wed to a high view of biblical inspiration, such studies are valid and fruitful." I think this is true regarding many aspects of studying Scripture critically. There is a difference between studying the Bible critically and studying it hatefully. That is, many study it to find errors. However, I seek to study it to gain its wonderful riches.mindstorm

Textual criticsm is not hateful or biased - it is neutral and well justified fom of analytics. It does not matter where the supposed source of the documents is, it the content; how they are written, sequenced and phrased. The differentiation of comparative styles and comparison to other documents, languages, terms and phrases used in a variety of other sources that matters to a documentary analyst.

Not being fearful of such things should make you investigate them, rather than protect yourself with a "high view of biblical inspiration". 

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
Textual criticsm is not hateful or biased - it is neutral and well justified fom of analytics. It does not matter where the supposed source of the documents is, it the content; how they are written, sequenced and phrased. The differentiation of comparative styles and comparison to other documents, languages, terms and phrases used in a variety of other sources that matters to a documentary analyst.

Not being fearful of such things should make you investigate them, rather than protect yourself with a "high view of biblical inspiration".

RationalAtheist
The thing is I simply do not come across anything in my studies that contradicts my view of inspiration. It's not that I'm hiding behind it as what I tend to find simply confirms it. I do want to differentiate myself from two things however: Higher Criticism and the Jesus Seminar. On the occasion they have some valid points worth listening to but I reject not simply many of their conclusions but their methods of obtaining them.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

The thing is I simply do not come across anything in my studies that contradicts my view of inspiration. It's not that I'm hiding behind it as what I tend to find simply confirms it. I do want to differentiate myself from two things however: Higher Criticism and the Jesus Seminar. On the occasion they have some valid points worth listening to but I reject not simply many of their conclusions but their methods of obtaining them. mindstorm

I guess your studies would only extend to that which supports and enhances the interpretations you make from the bible, which is probably your sole and central authority. Questioning the legitimacy of such a valued source would undermine its credibility.

How would things like the Q source or* the Wellhausen Hypothesis confirm authenticity of the Synoptic Gospels or the Torah? 

Why would you object to the methods of the Jesus Seminar? Is it that they're used to reach conclusions you don't agree with? Or is there some sinister methodology involved?

*EDIT: Changed "of" to "or" to fix typo - post Android's response.

Avatar image for nintendogamer6
nintendogamer6

1772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 nintendogamer6
Member since 2006 • 1772 Posts

I read the whole OP and I cannot really give an answer. I've been out of school for too long, it seems, or have spent too much time away from academia. I'm becoming intellectually lazy, and as much as I'd love to get involved in this discussion, it seems I will be unable to, at least along the original lines of the topic. I can however express something I thought of while going through your expertly written OP, Blood, and that is my interest in seeing science explore the inner world of the mind, conscious and subconscious aspects. A systematic, objective (as it could get) exploration of our perceptive faculties. I do believe if we can come to understand how our mind perceives things, and extract the mysticism and religion from those who have already attempted such an experiment (i.e. meditative gurus of the Indian subcontinent and mainland Asia; in addition to all the other mystics of our history) we might finally come upon a complete system of understanding our place in the universe and the universe itself. I know what I say might sound like newage (rhymes with sewage) drivel, but if there was one thing I took away from my study of religion, it was that science greatly under-appreciates the value of the mind and it's insight into how we perceive things. We are always so focused on the outside world, that we often forget there even is an inner one. This was what drew me into Buddhism and Hinduism in the first place... a systematic, *almost* scientific evaluation of the mind from within, rather than from without. I have only dabbled infrequently with meditation and introspection... but my experiences earlier this year (with Watchmen and complete frustration with religion) has given me reason to think there is something more to the human mind than just a set of neurons and senses (don't infer anything supernatural from this, I refer only to the sense of complete interconnectedness I felt).Zeviander
Agreed 100% The human brain is one of the most unknown and understudied things on this planet. I think the exploration of our inter subconscious could be one of the key things that lead to the discovery of why we are here, and why we are what we are.

Check out this book, Incognito: The secret lives of the Brain, by David Eaglemen

I haven't read it yet but im in the process, its quite interesting if your interested in psychology like me 

 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Check out this book, Incognito: The secret lives of the Brain, by David Eaglemen

I haven't read it yet but im in the process, its quite interesting if your interested in psychology like me 

nintendogamer6

I've just ordered this book. It seems right up my alley!

Thanks for the recommendation.

 

Avatar image for Blood-Scribe
Blood-Scribe

6465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Blood-Scribe
Member since 2007 • 6465 Posts

School's been keeping me busy, and I wanted to make some responses now that I've got the time to do so.



The way I see it (note that I don't believe any gods exist to begin with, but anyways..) I find the term 'supernatural' rather meaningless....if something exists at any place in any time, then surely it is natural and has a natural explanation. It's just existing in a state not yet recognized or not possible to recognize with our vision, technology, or within the capacity of our minds. I do indeed find it rather silly that religious folk always give the description of their god as "beyond time and space, all knowing, and all powerful, and also all loving" and then go on to describe what it wants from us and how exactly it created the universe....its a complete contradiction.wis3boi


I think there are a couple problems with this statement.

First, there's a bit of ambiguity regarding what you mean by 'exist', and I think you should clarify which sense of existence you're referring to. For example, I would argue that abstract truths regarding mathematics and logic 'exist' in the sense that they necessarily follow from the axioms that define logical and mathematical systems, and that human beings discover and recognize them rather than create them. There isn't a natural manifestation of the fundamental theorem of calculus, Green's theorem, or Modus Ponens, yet they can be said to exist insofar as we are able to recognize that they exist.

But I would further argue that such truths would still exist even if there weren't any minds to perceive them, as the truths themselves are not contingent upon whether or not a cognitive agent accepts them as true. They exist because theorems such as the aforementioned preserve truth values and simply express a logical equivalence, which is also why I would argue that they are discovered rather than created. What we create is simply the means of expressing the truth of the statement, not that actual truth itself behind the statement. But again, there is no natural manifestation of these truths since they're entirely abstract (although you could argue that the impetus to formalize such logical statements was inspired by events in the natural world). Yet by your criterion, it could be argued that such truths don't 'exist' as you have defined it, hence why your concept of what it means to exist needs more clarity.

Second, even if we ignore the ambiguity of what you mean by 'exist', the statement is reduced to begging the question because it implicitly assumes that only way for something to exist is for it to be natural. But what you've essentially done is redefine natural to mean that which exists at any place in any time, which ignores what the word actually means in this context (namely, that which is a part of the physical universe). Furthermore, you didn't give adequate reasoning as to why it is that it must be natural if it exists at any place and in any time. The problem is that we could take 'any place' to mean a place outside of the natural world, which would by definition be supernatural because it is simply that which does not obey the physical laws of the universe or exists outside of nature.


Because of my assumptions I mention here i have grown to do rather little to actually give proof to Christianity. If our knowledge of divinity cannot be obtained by natural means, then how can one truly "prove" that God exists beyond God's direct intervention? My basis for the truth of Christianity is therefore based in the Bible itself, not my ability to argue what has been referred to as Natural Theology.

Natural Theology is essentially the study of what we know of God apart from special revelation. Personally speaking, I would argue that if we can determine anything about God through the natural order it would be very little. Basically, it could be that there is a way to argue for the existence of God by way of Natural Theology but nothing regarding such things as his character. As far as all this that I have stated, I still have to develop it further but this is where I am now regarding this topic, for better or worse.mindstorm


This is interesting coming from someone as open about their faith as you. I'm surprised that you of all people would take such an apprehensive stance regarding the defense of the existence of God through theology. So with that said, what are your thoughts on apologists who attempt to defend the existence of God through such argumentation? Do you think that there are some strong arguments for God that are worth mentioning, or do you think that such an approach is an ineffective means of preaching the Gospel and does little to convince people?

I do believe if we can come to understand how our mind perceives things, and extract the mysticism and religion from those who have already attempted such an experiment (i.e. meditative gurus of the Indian subcontinent and mainland Asia; in addition to all the other mystics of our history) we might finally come upon a complete system of understanding our place in the universe and the universe itself.

I know what I say might sound like newage (rhymes with sewage) drivel, but if there was one thing I took away from my study of religion, it was that science greatly under-appreciates the value of the mind and it's insight into how we perceive things. We are always so focused on the outside world, that we often forget there even is an inner one. This was what drew me into Buddhism and Hinduism in the first place... a systematic, *almost* scientific evaluation of the mind from within, rather than from without.

I have only dabbled infrequently with meditation and introspection... but my experiences earlier this year (with Watchmen and complete frustration with religion) has given me reason to think there is something more to the human mind than just a set of neurons and senses (don't infer anything supernatural from this, I refer only to the sense of complete interconnectedness I felt).Zeviander


I agree that the human mind definitely needs to be studied more thoroughly, but I don't understand how a better description of how the mind works would somehow entail a better understanding of the universe as a whole. It'll most definitely give us a better understanding of why it is that people are pre-disposed to think and perceive things as they do, but I don't see how this translates to a better understanding of how the universe itself works, or how we even fit into the picture. All I see is an opportunity to understand the inner workings of the brain at the physical level. Anything other than that strikes me as mere philosophical speculation.

Going beyond a mere physical understanding of the brain, I can see how having profound experiences with meditation and introspection can make it seem as though the mind can't be reduced to mere neurons and senses as you said. But the problem is that it's difficult to separate what is objectively taking place within the brain from what is mere subjective experience on the part of the observer. I'll admit, I've had experiences like this before when my brother showed me some meditation techniques years ago, and whenever I go on walks through the wilderness or go camping I get this very elated sense of oneness with nature. But even so, I don't see why such experiences can't simply be reduced to physical processes taking place within my brain. I also think that in time, advances in neuroscience will be able to sufficiently explain those experiences.