Hello again wonderful people.

Today, I want to be talking about why things we consider "supernatural" don't serve as proof of a "God".

This is something I hear a lot of theists say. And in my most recent discussion, I was asked on several occasions if i would accept "God" if I had a supernatural experience. I find a number of things wrong with that question.

But before I continue, I want to quickly say that this post isn't trying to disprove the existence of God, or any specific religious god (whatever that means). The goal is simply to show that the argument for the supernatural as proof of a God, is not a very good one.

Let's begin.

Two major issues I have with questions like this are

1. What you mean by "God"
2. What you mean by supernatural

If by God, you mean a supreme creator deity, who is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it, I don't see why things deemed as supernatural are required to prove its existence. A universe created by a "God" can still exist without the occurrence of supernatural events. A natural world can serve as much proof of a creator as a supernatural one.

The next issue I have with the question is the word "supernatural". In most cases, this is used to mean something which goes beyond our current understanding of the natural world. While there's nothing wrong with that, there's something we need to understand.

Our current knowledge, or understanding of the natural world is incredibly limited. Granted, we know way more today than we've ever known in the past, but there's still so much we don't know.

To claim that something is supernatural, is to imply that you completely understand how the natural world is supposed to work, and that whatever occurred could have never occurred in a natural world. Please not that rarity does not equate to impossibility. The fact that something rarely happens, doesn't mean it could never have happened.

Science or the scientific method tries to observe the world as we know it, and then creates laws based on how it has observed these things to work. As our knowledge grows and we observe more things, these laws are either further solidified, or updated, to reflect our expanded view of reality. But at the end of the day, it all falls in the realm of the natural.

Since i want this discussion to be more of a philosophical thing and less of a religious thing, i'll give some examples of things we have either experienced, or heard of. And not things found in religious texts. So let's take 2 examples. The experience of Voodoo (like someone disappearing, jazz against guns, etc), and the reports of ghost-related stories (seeing dead people or relatives, talking with ghosts or being attacked by them, and so on)

The first is the experience of voodoo, or jazz. As nigerians, we've either seen, or heard of things like this. Touch and follow, teleportation, madness jazz, bulletproof and knifeproof stories, and so on. I'm not trying to deny the existence of these things. But at the same time, these events are proof of one thing. That there exists certain things, which we don't yet understand.

Based on our current knowledge of reality, there's no logical explanation for why someone can vanish into thin air and re-materialize elsewhere. Or why a lead bullet going at several hundred feet per second won't be able to penetrate human flesh. But these things only prove that many conditions of our reality are still unknown to us.

They don't prove a "God" any more than our current observable universe does. Whether or not our current observable universe is proof of a god is another debate entirely.

The other scenario is ghost-related stories. We have stories of people seeing ghosts, or being attacked by them, or being able to talk to them, and so on.

First of all, we don't completely understand what we are. The origin of consciousness is still a mystery to us. To say that something can, or cannot exist after death is to imply that we completely understand how the conscious mind works, as well as what happens after the body ceases its function.

As humans, we evolved to see and interact with the immediate world around us. But that doesn't mean all we see is all there is to reality. For example, most science students know of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV rays, gamma rays, radio waves and so on. We can't physically see them, but we can experience, as well as measure their effect.

Radium is one of the most radioactive elements we currently know of. It emits powerful gamma radiation which is incredibly dangerous to humans. Our 5 senses (touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing) have no way of detecting gamma radiation. But it still has a very real effect on us. It is as natural as natural can be.

If you told people about 4000 years ago, that a pile of radium could kill you by simply standing near it (not touching it. just standing around it), they would probably attribute it to a god of death of some sort. Or say the element was cursed or something. After all, the 5 senses were the only tools they had at the time to detect danger.

Same thing goes for germs. Before we invented microscopes and found out about germs, a physician named Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that washing your hands before delivering a baby stopped people dying from what was known as "childbed fever". The idea seemed incredibly nonsensical at the time, and the death were probably attributed to the wrath of the gods or something. Today we know better.

Similarly, who is to say that voodoo, ghosts, and other things we deem supernatural are simply not just the effect of things we've not yet discovered, but are still very much real? Who is to say that we won't discover something new that could change our entire concept of reality?

A lot of things don't make sense yet, but who is to say they never will? As our knowledge grows, so will our understanding of what we call reality, and the real world. And when we finally understand things. It won't be "supernatural". It'll just be natural. As natural as UV, radio and gamma rays. As normal as microscopic organisms. As normal as any other thing we consider "normal" today.

Once again, this post is not to try to disprove the existence of a god. A creator being, or first cause, could still exist without the experience of supernatural events like we see today. But that is another debate entirely.

Over to you guys

Na person wey no get job go Dey follow you read and ague this issue early morning I don enter street alreay

Wilgrea7:
and
Today, I want to be talking about why things we consider "supernatural" don't serve as proof of a "God".

Two major issues I have with questions like this are

1. What you mean by "God"
2. What you mean by supernatural....

Over to you guys

You did not tell us the "why", you only showed us that you have problems understanding basic known and settled things, which is not our fault.

It is yours to fix!

IT WAS NOTED YOU FLED FROM OUR PREVIOUS DEBATE AND OF COURSE YOU FLED BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT INVALID ARGUMENTS SUCH AS THE ONE YOU HAVE JUST STARTED WITH, WOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED BY ME!

Danibonk:
Na person wey no get job go Dey follow you read and ague this issue early morning I don enter street alreay

Person wey get work break fit do am, so I dey here.

Dtruthspeaker:


You did not tell us the "why", you only showed us that you have problems understanding basic known and settled things, which is not our fault.

It is yours to fix!

IT WAS NOTED YOU FLED FROM OUR PREVIOUS DEBATE AND OF COURSE YOU FLED BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT INVALID ARGUMENTS SUCH AS THE ONE YOU HAVE JUST STARTED WITH, WOULD NOT GO UNNOTICED BY ME!

I apologize for not responding on the other thread. It was unfortunately derailed, so i decided to abandon it. But thank you for calling my attention to it. I will respond to it here.

Before I do that, let me quickly address the point you made here. I'm not saying that I in particular have problems understanding basic things. I'm saying we, collectively as humans, still don't understand a lot about our current universe and how it operates.

And because of that, saying that things we don't yet quite understand prove the existence of a god, is simply using the "god of the gaps" argument, which states "I don't know, therefore god". It's not a very good argument.

I'm not trying to say that a god does not or cannot exist. That's another debate. I'm just saying that things we don't yet understand (A.K.A supernatural events) are simply proof that we don't yet understand certain things about our reality. It doesn't necessarily prove a god.

Now onto your post in the previous thread.

Dtruthspeaker:


You are still bringing in the universe even when I have shown you that we can not validly and Truth fully talk about it because none of the 2 of us and the billion of the rest of the world, have truth fully gone out of this House called earth to go round the universe, such that we can give Truth Full Report on it.

I fail to see the point of this case. Your argument is that we cannot give factual information on the universe because neither of us have gone out beyond the earth to directly observe it. The same argument you're using for the rest of the universe beyond earth could also be applied to every other part of the earth that we have not individually explored.

Besides, the earth is part of the universe. Talking about the earth is still talking about part of the universe. They aren't mutually exclusive things. The statements I made about the "universe" still apply to the earth.

So, the Truth that we can give if you are interested in Truth, is The ones we can see and we can find and have found "on the earth".

And we can put down the Stones of these Truths, to stand on it, as we build upThe House of Truth, if you are still interested in Truth.

So, would you confine your self to this earth where we can both easily give Truth Full and verifiable/Confirmed Truths and evidence of Truth? (After all we are both on the earth and the question of God rises from the earth. So let us settle it on the earth first, before we go any where else, if you may)

So would you take the correction and confine the debate to the earth, that we both know very well like this first steps of writing begins with A,B,C? (The earth is our A,B,C, so let us do the A,B,C,if you truly care to know the Truth)

It is difficult to talk about just the earth, since it is not an independent body. For example, talking about the creation of the earth involves talking about the events which led to it, and that includes events about the universe at large.

But like I said, all my previous statements still apply to the earth. If you'd like to focus your discussions on the earth, I'd be more than happy to do so, and would try my best to avoid talking about things beyond it. Although I can't guarantee that, since like I said, the earth isn't an independent body.

Wilgrea7:

Before I do that, let me quickly address the point you made here. I'm not saying that I in particular have problems understanding basic things. I'm saying we, collectively as humans, still don't understand a lot about our current universe and how it operates.

See, now you have brought in the universe again, a place no man has been to, such that even more than a billion of us have never left earth, so how can anyone give Truthful testimony about it?

Get this Truth, no man can give a True testimony about the universe exactly as no man here can give a true talk about your house and household.

Why?

Because, none of us live there with you. It's as simple as that!

Dtruthspeaker:


See, now you have brought in the universe again,

It seems to me that you view the universe, and the earth as 2 separate things. The earth is part of the universe. Setting them apart makes no sense. I really, sincerely do not see the point here.

a place no man has been to, such that even more than a billion of us have never left earth, so how can anyone give Truthful testimony about it?

Get this Truth, no man can give a True testimony about the universe exactly as no man here can give a true talk about your house and household.

Why?

Because, none of us live there with you. It's as simple as that!

I'm sorry, but this seems like faulty logic. Do you necessarily need to have physically gone somewhere to give accurate information on it? This logic can be applied to other parts of the earth as well.

Can you give any information... any information at all, on countries like America, China, India, and any other country you've not been to? Obviously the answer is yes. You don't need to have physically gone somewhere to give information about it. You only need to have accurate information about such places to be able to give them.

But for the sake of this argument. I'm going to agree to keep the discussion strictly based on the earth, and what we can immediately observe. So please proceed with your question. Thanks

Wilgrea7:

Can you give any information... any information at all, on countries like America, China, India, and any other country you've not been to?

Not any information but Truthfull information that is where validity lives.

So, if I have not been to those countries, I avoid talking about them.

Why?

"Hearsay" evidence! (Dem say evidence)

Hearsay evidence is bad and invalid and unacceptable evidence. Unless you fall into specific allowable exceptions.

So go read up on hearsay evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:


Not any information but Truthfull information that is where validity lives.

So, if I have not been to those countries, I avoid talking about them.

Why?

"Hearsay" evidence! (Dem say evidence)

Hearsay evidence is bad and invalid and unacceptable evidence. Unless you fall into specific allowable exceptions.

So go read up on hearsay evidence.

I know what hearsay is. There is a difference between fact and hearsay. We both know China is a country... Not because we've gone there, but because we have undeniable proof that it is..

But this is besides the point. I have agreed to keep the discussion in the realm of earth as you suggested... so feel free to proceed with your questions

Wilgrea7:


I know what hearsay is. There is a difference between fact and hearsay. We both know China is a country... Not because we've gone there, but because we have undeniable proof that it is..

But this is besides the point. I have agreed to keep the discussion in the realm of earth as you suggested... so feel free to proceed with your questions

I did not expect you to get back to earth so I forgotten your issue.

[b][/b] Wilgrea[color=#990000][/color]
What is your discipline? Your like to be controversial.

TAYO124:

What is your discipline? Your like to be controversial.

I'm sorry. What do you mean by my discipline? Do you mean my beliefs?

Wilgrea7:


I'm sorry. What do you mean by my discipline? Do you mean my beliefs?

I mean what did you study in school?
If you have a mainstream belief you can mention too?

TAYO124:


I mean what did you study in school?
If you have a mainstream belief you can mention too?

I studied engineering. But I've recently found myself really interested in cosmology and other things related to the universe.

In terms of belief, I'm really not sure where to classify myself. I don't subscribe to any religion at the moment.

Wilgrea7:


I think a much better question is ... What do you mean by "God"?

Seeing that no thing created itself in this world nor are they capable of so doing and therefore, we refer to that Someone who created this lovely "house" we call earth and everything in it as The One Who we call God!

Wilgrea7:

2. What gives you the impression that IF a god exists, it has to be singular? .

Because we have seen that it Only One can be King or Lord of the land (Land Lord).

If there are 2 more, there will be war. And when there is war the inhabitants will suffer.

But as you see, no War above and the tenants/inhabitants of the earth dwell in peace.

No 2 Earth Lords fighting which make the we earthlings suffer.

What does it prove then if not that an intangible realm exist?

Dtruthspeaker:


Seeing that no thing created itself in this world nor are they capable of so doing and therefore, we refer to that Someone who created this lovely "house" we call earth and everything in it as The One Who we call God!



Because we have seen that it Only One can be King or Lord of the land (Land Lord).

If there are 2 more, there will be war. And when there is war the inhabitants will suffer.

But as you see, no War above and the tenants/inhabitants of the earth dwell in peace.

No 2 Earth Lords fighting which make the we earthlings suffer.

Lovely submission especially your second point

Dtruthspeaker:


Seeing that no thing created itself in this world nor are they capable of so doing and therefore, we refer to that Someone who created this lovely "house" we call earth and everything in it as The One Who we call God!

Why must it be singular? Why can't multiple people create something?

Because we have seen that it Only One can be King or Lord of the land (Land Lord).

If there are 2 more, there will be war. And when there is war the inhabitants will suffer.

But as you see, no War above and the tenants/inhabitants of the earth dwell in peace.

No 2 Earth Lords fighting which make the we earthlings suffer.

This doesn't really add up. Your post seems to presuppose that if several of this "God" exists, they necessarily need or even want to fight each other. Also, your analogy of the kingdom doesn't really hold up.

We can clearly see countries that are close allies with one another. We can clearly see people that are close friends. You don't even need to be friends. What happened to just co-existing? Do you go out and fight everyone else you see on the street? I certainly hope not. And even if you do, a lot of people don't.

You've provided no reason as to why the existence of multiple entities necessarily needs to result in a conflict.

You know what? Let me take it up a notch. What makes you feel that the so called conflict between the multiple deities isn't something that's going to happen in the future. If countries A and B exist peacefully alongside each other for 10 years and go to war in the 11th year, does that mean during that 10 years of peace, country A or B didn't exist? What if the so called conflict you're describing is actually something that's going to happen in the future?

Wilgrea7:
Hello again wonderful people.

Today, I want to be talking about why things we consider "supernatural" don't serve as proof of a "God".

This is something I hear a lot of theists say. And in my most recent discussion, I was asked on several occasions if i would accept "God" if I had a supernatural experience. I find a number of things wrong with that question.

But before I continue, I want to quickly say that this post isn't trying to disprove the existence of God, or any specific religious god (whatever that means). The goal is simply to show that the argument for the supernatural as proof of a God, is not a very good one.

Let's begin.

Two major issues I have with questions like this are

1. What you mean by "God"
2. What you mean by supernatural

If by God, you mean a supreme creator deity, who is responsible for the creation of the universe and everything in it, I don't see why things deemed as supernatural are required to prove its existence. A universe created by a "God" can still exist without the occurrence of supernatural events. A natural world can serve as much proof of a creator as a supernatural one.

The next issue I have with the question is the word "supernatural". In most cases, this is used to mean something which goes beyond our current understanding of the natural world. While there's nothing wrong with that, there's something we need to understand.

Our current knowledge, or understanding of the natural world is incredibly limited. Granted, we know way more today than we've ever known in the past, but there's still so much we don't know.

To claim that something is supernatural, is to imply that you completely understand how the natural world is supposed to work, and that whatever occurred could have never occurred in a natural world. Please not that rarity does not equate to impossibility. The fact that something rarely happens, doesn't mean it could never have happened.

Science or the scientific method tries to observe the world as we know it, and then creates laws based on how it has observed these things to work. As our knowledge grows and we observe more things, these laws are either further solidified, or updated, to reflect our expanded view of reality. But at the end of the day, it all falls in the realm of the natural.

Since i want this discussion to be more of a philosophical thing and less of a religious thing, i'll give some examples of things we have either experienced, or heard of. And not things found in religious texts. So let's take 2 examples. The experience of Voodoo (like someone disappearing, jazz against guns, etc), and the reports of ghost-related stories (seeing dead people or relatives, talking with ghosts or being attacked by them, and so on)

The first is the experience of voodoo, or jazz. As nigerians, we've either seen, or heard of things like this. Touch and follow, teleportation, madness jazz, bulletproof and knifeproof stories, and so on. I'm not trying to deny the existence of these things. But at the same time, these events are proof of one thing. That there exists certain things, which we don't yet understand.

Based on our current knowledge of reality, there's no logical explanation for why someone can vanish into thin air and re-materialize elsewhere. Or why a lead bullet going at several hundred feet per second won't be able to penetrate human flesh. But these things only prove that many conditions of our reality are still unknown to us.

They don't prove a "God" any more than our current observable universe does. Whether or not our current observable universe is proof of a god is another debate entirely.

The other scenario is ghost-related stories. We have stories of people seeing ghosts, or being attacked by them, or being able to talk to them, and so on.

First of all, we don't completely understand what we are. The origin of consciousness is still a mystery to us. To say that something can, or cannot exist after death is to imply that we completely understand how the conscious mind works, as well as what happens after the body ceases its function.

As humans, we evolved to see and interact with the immediate world around us. But that doesn't mean all we see is all there is to reality. For example, most science students know of the electromagnetic spectrum. UV rays, gamma rays, radio waves and so on. We can't physically see them, but we can experience, as well as measure their effect.

Radium is one of the most radioactive elements we currently know of. It emits powerful gamma radiation which is incredibly dangerous to humans. Our 5 senses (touch, taste, sight, smell and hearing) have no way of detecting gamma radiation. But it still has a very real effect on us. It is as natural as natural can be.

If you told people about 4000 years ago, that a pile of radium could kill you by simply standing near it (not touching it. just standing around it), they would probably attribute it to a god of death of some sort. Or say the element was cursed or something. After all, the 5 senses were the only tools they had at the time to detect danger.

Same thing goes for germs. Before we invented microscopes and found out about germs, a physician named Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that washing your hands before delivering a baby stopped people dying from what was known as "childbed fever". The idea seemed incredibly nonsensical at the time, and the death were probably attributed to the wrath of the gods or something. Today we know better.

Similarly, who is to say that voodoo, ghosts, and other things we deem supernatural are simply not just the effect of things we've not yet discovered, but are still very much real? Who is to say that we won't discover something new that could change our entire concept of reality?

A lot of things don't make sense yet, but who is to say they never will? As our knowledge grows, so will our understanding of what we call reality, and the real world. And when we finally understand things. It won't be "supernatural". It'll just be natural. As natural as UV, radio and gamma rays. As normal as microscopic organisms. As normal as any other thing we consider "normal" today.

Once again, this post is not to try to disprove the existence of a god. A creator being, or first cause, could still exist without the experience of supernatural events like we see today. But that is another debate entirely.

Over to you guys

Funny things was that half way through this, i had to go back and check the name of the OP. Thought i might have posted this. Could see myself writing this. But we live in a society where religion supersedes common sense. Its an excuse for our docility and lack of scientific zeal.

Arthur C. Clarke: “Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”

And his last two laws

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Imagine telling Ptolemy, Archimedes, Pythagoras of a machine that can travel underwater, or fly humans in the air. Or telling them that they can talk in Rome and someone in sparta will hear then near instantly. 100years ago, most of what we take for granted now are in the realm of magic. Nuclear weapons, long range missiles, travelling to the moon, self driving cars etc.

If the supernatural is only so until we understand it, then was it ever supernatural?

Wilgrea7:

Why must it be singular? Why can't multiple people create something?

I have explained it already. A tenant having 2 landlords is a tormentous living! Peace resides in having One Ruler!

Wilgrea7:

This doesn't really add up. Your post seems to presuppose that if several of this "God" exists, they necessarily need or even want to fight each other.

There is no "presuppose" in what is Seen.

We have seen that no 2 Captains can rule a ship. No 2 kings can rule a land. No 2 C.E Os in one Company

So, you fall here.

Wilgrea7:

We can clearly see countries that are close allies[/b ]with one another.

2 kings, 2 Lands whereas you were supposed to show 2 Kings on 1 Land, so you fall here.

[b]So you see, by your example, you can not show 2 kings successfully ruling 1 Land!

So, you fall!

Wilgrea7:

You've provided no reason as to why the existence of multiple entities necessarily needs to result in a conflict.

You have seen I have provided it and you forget that this is not the issue. So provide a valid rebuttal if you have any and not call on me to give further proof.

Wilgrea7:

Let me take it up a notch. What makes you feel that the so called conflict between the multiple deities isn't something that's going to happen in the future. ..

Just repeating the same question already answered.

Hermes119:
Lovely submission especially your second point

Thank you!

Just as if Science answer everything.
Funny atheists!
If supernatural doesn't answer your curiosity about God then use science to answer what the supernatural means.

Your rebellious and disobedient heart won't change what others think about God!

Dtruthspeaker:


I have explained it already. A tenant having 2 landlords is a tormentous living! Peace resides in having One Ruler!

There is no "presuppose" in what is Seen.

We have seen that no 2 Captains can rule a ship. No 2 kings can rule a land. No 2 C.E Os in one Company

So, you fall here.

2 kings, 2 Lands whereas you were supposed to show 2 Kings on 1 Land, so you fall here.

You have seen I have provided it and you forget that this is not the issue. So provide a valid rebuttal if you have any and not call on me to give further proof.

Just repeating the same question already answered.

I completely understand your analogies, but you seem to be completely missing my point. I never claimed our universe necessarily has to have multiple rulers. We're not talking about rulers. We're talking about creators.

A tenant cannot have 2 landlords. But does that mean the landlord build the house all by himself?

The ship cannot have 2 captains. But does that mean the captain of a ship built it all by himself? Argument for the complexity of creation is not argument for a single creator.

We're not debating rulers here. We're debating creators. They are completely different things.

MaxInDHouse:
Just as if Science answer everything.
Funny atheists!
If supernatural doesn't answer your curiosity about God then use science to answer what the supernatural means.

Your rebellious and disobedient heart won't change what others think about God!

No one claims science answers everything. We have a lot of questions. But if someone wishes to answer them, then there has to be reason and evidence behind the answer.

I'm not rebellious against your god. I'm simply asking questions about the nature of the world.

Life itself is very complicated, so it is best to keep it simple. The test object in a tube in a science experiment can never understand why it is a specimen.
God has creator will never be fully understood because the very definition of Him is Infinite. For this reason faith in His person as a means to relate to Him is required.
Man if you still have a question then try to test tube Him perhaps you may succeed

Dtruthspeaker:


I have explained it already. A tenant having 2 landlords is a tormentous living! Peace resides in having One Ruler!



There is no "presuppose" in what is Seen.

We have seen that no 2 Captains can rule a ship. No 2 kings can rule a land. No 2 C.E Os in one Company

So, you fall here.



2 kings, 2 Lands whereas you were supposed to show 2 Kings on 1 Land, so you fall here.

So you see, by your example, you can not show 2 kings successfully ruling 1 Land!

So, you fall!



You have seen I have provided it and you forget that this is not the issue. So provide a valid rebuttal if you have any and not call on me to give further proof.



Just repeating the same question already answered.

There are thousand of deities claiming to be the one true God. Based on your earlier submissions, can you truthfully identify the one true God? Without using hearsay just like you mentioned. Books for me will fall into the hearsay category as you earlier refuted anything that is not based on direct observation as hearsay.

Wilgrea7:


I completely understand your analogies, but you seem to be completely missing my point. I never claimed our universe necessarily has to have multiple rulers.

See, you have fled to universe again, a place none of us have been to, therefore, we can not give TRUTH FULL testimonies on it. And remember you said you know hearsay evidence, so No Road!

Wilgrea7:

We're not talking about rulers. We're talking about creators.

Creators are Rulers over their creations. So we are definitely talking about Rulers.

And obviously, you are attempting to flee from this!

Wilgrea7:

A tenant cannot have 2 landlords. But does that mean the landlord build the house all by himself?

The ship cannot have 2 captains. But does that mean the captain of a ship built it all by himself?

Don't set yourself to be mocked.
Everyone knows that whether you build your house with your own hands or you commission other persons to build it, "You are the builder of the house".

A house will not get built unless you the landlord cause it to be built.

So, No Road!

venabili:

There are thousand of deities claiming to be the one true God.

Correction! There are thousands of earthlings and (not gods) saying whatever they wish to say!

venabili:

Based on your earlier submissions, can you truthfully identify the one true God? Without using hearsay just like you mentioned.

I can and that is what I am already doing.

And it is as obvious as a Prado is better for traveling from Abuja to Lagos than a bicycle.

However, we have seen people who will say that the bicycle or even a wheelbarrow is better for traveling than the Prado. And at this point, there is no thing any reasonable person can do but to watch them suffer as they travel.

venabili:

Books for me will fall into the hearsay category as you earlier refuted anything that is not based on direct observation as hearsay.

Yes and True!

But there is a very small pack of hearsay evidence that is Admissible.

Dtruthspeaker:


See, you have fled to universe again, a place none of us have been to, therefore, we can not give TRUTH FULL testimonies on it. And remember you said you know hearsay evidence, so No Road!

Jesus H. B. Christ! You're still going on about this universe thing.

Creators are Rulers over their creations. So we are definitely talking about Rulers.

And obviously, you are attempting to flee from this!

Oh my not God.. there are so many things wrong with this. I can't believe i have to explain this to you.

Someone can rule over something without necessarily creating it. A landlord is a good example
Someone can create something without necessarily ruling over it. The wristwatch you're (probably) wearing is a good example.

Don't set yourself to be mocked.

I don't mind being mocked lol.

Everyone knows that whether you build your house with your own hands or you commission other persons to build it, "You are the builder of the house".

Sir... Sir... I'm not sure there's a single logical person on earth that believes being a landlord equates to being the builder of the house.

A house will not get built unless you the landlord cause it to be built.
So, No Road!

The landlord in this case, is the will/desire. The builders are the process through which the house was built. Even if the landlord wanted a house, without the builders, and the right resources, his wish is just a wish.

venabili:


Funny things was that half way through this, i had to go back and check the name of the OP. Thought i might have posted this. Could see myself writing this. But we live in a society where religion supersedes common sense. Its an excuse for our docility and lack of scientific zeal.

Arthur C. Clarke: “Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.”

And his last two laws

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Imagine telling Ptolemy, Archimedes, Pythagoras of a machine that can travel underwater, or fly humans in the air. Or telling them that they can talk in Rome and someone in sparta will hear then near instantly. 100years ago, most of what we take for granted now are in the realm of magic. Nuclear weapons, long range missiles, travelling to the moon, self driving cars etc.

If the supernatural is only so until we understand it, then was it ever supernatural?

Thank you very much for this. A lot of people today don't realize that things they consider natural would've been considered supernatural about 4000 years ago. Supernatural is really just a fancy word for "things we don't yet understand"

TAYO124:
Life itself is very complicated, so it is best to keep it simple. The test object in a tube in a science experiment can never understand why it is a specimen.

Why exactly?

God has creator will never be fully understood because the very definition of Him is Infinite. For this reason faith in His person as a means to relate to Him is required.
Man if you still have a question then try to test tube Him perhaps you may succeed

You claim God is infinite and can never be fully understood. But you're making some claims about Him

1. That He, is male. You're implying gender
2. That He wants to be related to, or want people to relate to Him.
3. That He, as the creator, is singular

I'm not claiming to be able to understand God or a god or the nature of the "first cause" as people like to put it. I'm just saying for any statement anyone makes about this first cause, they need to provide some sort of empirical evidence that led them to that conclusion.