It seems like a lot of people have the truly naïve idea that if they can give arguments that the world must be supernatural this should automatically give their creation myths support.

But is this really true?

Actually any indication that the world is supernatural would loan support to all spiritual philosophies and mythologies equally.

For example, if the world is supernatural the Eastern Mystics would simply say, "Well of course it is, and we are it. Tat t'vam asi". End of story, their religious beliefs have been supported.

But does the recognition that the world is supernatural loan support to all religious mythologies and philosophies? I mean if we discovered that the world is truly supernatural (which many people believe we have), then shouldn't we go running back and re-examing religions like Greek Mythology more closely? Or the myths of Thor or Odin. What about the witches' Moon Goddess? If the universe is truly supernatural any of these may be true. How about Wanka Tanka of the American Indians, etc. There must be countless creation myths and religious fables. Even the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be supported by this. The mere observation that the world is supernatural would not single out any particular spiritual or supernatural philosophy.

So in other words, even if we accept that the universe is supernatural we're still in the same boat as always. We need to start weeding out religious myths and philosophies based on their own stories and merit alone. For example if a mythology makes outrageously contradicting claims, like say it claims that its God is all-powerful, but then has a demonic angel who supposedly has the power to direct living souls away from their creator to be lost forever, then it's already in self-contradication with it's own premise that God is all-powerful, and therefore it can easily be rejected as being oxymoronic in its own right. Never mind whether or not the actual universe might be supernatural.

Your thoughts?

I think your analogy has flaws depending upon its interpretation,,,,someone can have power and not use it,,,it doesnt negate that they have it,,,

I think the world is spiritual, I dont really see the usefulness or need to direct how people choose to interpret that spirituality, including whom they acredit it to

I truly believe , when it comes to spiritual beliefs, to each their own

we will find out when we die,,but if we have tried to live a good life, we at least have a bit more of a chance,,,

We can only view the world and universe around us with five senses normally. There are other realms of the universe we cannot perceive without assistance.

Only as an example of this thinking and not a rationalization because this does not fit in mechanics but ideal, We can see a drop of water but we cannot see the microbes (the world) within it. We can only define "life" as to what we can perceive by gratis of our senses. We as humans do not posses the ability to see far into the Ultraviolet like many animals with a capacity for night vision. But life in itself can possibly contradict everything we understand it to be because by gratis of our technology we can expand on our existing senses. We can see more of the universe in X rays and Infrared than we can with telescopes. That does not say that we can see other life out there without the right assistance. Right now knowing there is a wold in a drop of water we are open to the possibility now of life beyond our Solar System.

But how about among us???

Could there be an entire ecology of life around us we cannot perceive by gratis of our five senses? Take this movie for instance, it was cheesy but it illustrates this ideal perfectly! "From Beyond." In the movie the Mad Scientist stimulates the Pineal Gland to such an extreme it opens a special sight where these eels are seen "swimming" among everyone but when "seen" the eels attack. It is very possible we have a "parallel" universe among us. Something that defies physics as we understand it.

That very well could explain SOME ghosts. Imagine someone who has a sixth sense just barely awaken and they can sort of perceive this parallel world. It would seem "Supernatural" to them and anyone else who understood what they were saying. many unexplained things gain "all powerful" connotations.

Medieval Europeans used to freak the hell out over Comets portending doom on them all. The few times we witnessed a Supernova in our history in our night sky supernatural events are also tied inexorably to the phenomenon. Since God in itself cannot be explained a lot of other unexplainable things get pinned to these events more on coincidence more than anything else.

What if one day someone does indeed flip a switch on some camera and suddenly we can see the parallel universe among us? Would that not be a teety twister to Einsteinian physics?

Now let us also add this spice to the sauce...

Manifestation made real by will. Basically if you believe it exists then it does somewhere out there. The most extreme form of this is when you have the MOB mentality behind this and suddenly the belief becomes Canton Knowledge where it is just accepted as truth without proof. Mormonism is a real good example of this phenomenon. their golden plates do not exist and yet even without proof of their existence people believe in them, just like the 10 laws of Moses. They were destroyed. Yet an entire faith thrived under the law of two stone tablets as the 'word' given by God to one man.


Many "elder" religions (pantheons) each God was a facet or aspect of life around us. The Greek Gods were all personifications of mankind like Hera being the Goddess of fidelity, Zeus the "Father" of the gods, Aries being War, and the list goes on. It is the same for ALL pantheon religions. In Animism all things have an essence or spirit to them. All things are intertwined somehow. Mankind also has a habit of wanting to see a beginning and an end. In my mind it is a bad habit but one we have none the less. In the end it boils down to how badly people need structure even in the knowledge they have in their lives. If they cannot explain the unexplainable they rationalize it through creative means. Bad stuff suddenly is accepted as part of "God's Plan."

Also people are prone to be attracted to bad stories. Most if not all Pantheons are dripping with violence. Take the myth of Medusa for example. The God Poseidon rapes a priestess of Artemis in Artemis's own temple but instead of being pissed off at the Aggressor (Poseidon) the Goddess Artemis takes it out on Medusa and punishes her. That was really a fuqued up story especially since Medusa becomes a tool for punishing men.

Gotta love the contradiction of Christianity's "God of Love" being the supreme "God of Everything" including evil! If God were so loving how can God allow serial killers to act in his name (Abortion clinic bombers and Crusaders for example)?

In a nutshell people explain confusing things with contradictory stories and allegories becasue they want to come off as smart and they need to have some kind of answer for the other sheeple.

Well, there's no reason not to live a good life even if a person does not believe in the supernatural. There are plenty of atheists who have impeccable ethics and morals.

So the idea of believing in a supernatural God really has nothing to do with being 'good' or 'bad'.

Are you suggesting that on a personal note you'd actually prefer to be a 'bad' person and live a 'bad' life, but you only choose to be a 'good' person in the event that you might need to appease a judgemental God in the afterlife?

I personally prefer to live what I consider to be a "good" life whether any judgemental God exists or not. So from an ethical and moral point of view it's totally irrelevant to me whether the world is ultiamtely supernatural or not. I'm safe either way.

Well, those are the kinds of ethical questions that individual creation myths must deal with independtly.

In other words, even if we have proof that the universe is supernatural then the Christian myth still has it's own ethical problems to deal with concerning the behavior and nature of its presumed egotistical godhead.

I'm all too aware of that one.

Besides, there's really nothing inherent in the idea of 'supernatural' that implies the existence of a single egotistical persona as the creator of reality. On the contrary, I think the Eastern Mystical view that the sum total of reality is actually a manifestation of the supernatural creator makes a lot more sense. But that's just me.

My thoughts are that "you" do the exact thing you claim religions do.

You hold the position that your word should be final without ever providing proof of what you claim or you say that others claim.

Next time you're running in circles backwards lighting candles and bobbing, Ask Jesus if you can speak to his Father and then ask God if you really know everything.

So it would be much better to believe that there are billions of inept creators than simply one?
For if we all are god, then there are a hell of a lot more attrocities being commited "in god's name" than if there were only 1.

Either way, it's loose-loose for you unless you find a new philosophy.

sorry had to get that out of the way.

A supernatural world doesn't make god more likely or less likely.

There are definitely things we cannot comprehend in this world and our universe. We are babies in this universe.

There is no way we are the center of the universe and most religions apply this philosophy. Man is gods favorite creature and the closest to him/her/it in most religions. That is arrogant and presumptuous at best and ignorant to boot.

I thank you very much for your vote of confidence in my views. But in all honesty I don't ever recall stating anywhere that my views should be 'final'.

Clearly you just recognize that my views are unapproachable and impossible to reject. Otherwise, why wouldn't you view them as being so "final".



Well, if I were to accept your limited view, then clearly atheism is the only win-win philosophy around. With atheism there are no inept creators, all is just one big accident and it will soon be over, so it's not a problem.

The problem with your view is that you clearly do not understand the Eastern Mystical view. This is because you are thinking purely in terms of egos, in both cases. In the case of Eastern Mysticism you view every individual as a seperate ego. In the case of Christianity, you view God as a seperate ego and every soul as an individual ego.

To truly understand the Eastern Mystical view you need to transcend the idea of viewing everything in terms of being an ego. I'm afraid I can't help you with that. That is something you must do on your own.

You say, "A supernatural world doesn't make god more likely or less likely."

Well, I agree and disagree. That all depends on how you define "god". If you define "god" as the supernatural, then the existence of the supernatural is automatic proof of "god".

But I understand what you are saying. Most people (especially Christians) view "God" as an egotistical individual who has opinions, desires, wants, likes and dislikes, just like humans do. That very picture of a God reduces God to having human-like frailties

All that "God" amounts to is an immortal human complete with an ego and everything.

If you restrict the word "God" to only apply to egotistical Godheads, then I'm in compelte agreement with you.

In fact, for all intents and purposes when talking with "Christians" it's probably impossible to get past the idea of an egotistical godhead, because that's the only concept of "God" that they can comprehend, and they can't get out of that box. It's all about ego for them. A God who has no ego, would not even be a "God" from there perspective. Ego is an essential ingredient for "God" by their definition of what "God" must be.

I agree.

It does depend on the definition of god.

God is anything but supernatural. God is the most natural there is. God created us in his image.

If God is natural, then Science can test God, since God has failed every test so far, that means there is no God.

Well with your logic before we found the way to test things nothing existed. For instance, before we were able to detect oxygen there must not have been any oxygen.

Just because we don't have any tests to detect God just means we are ignorant in that and don't know how to yet. Believe it or not, we DON'T know everything.

Jesus because you can't see something with your bare eyes does not mean it's not there. That's how new things are discovered.... it is cause we have finally made the advancement to discover as such. So in the long way to say it is we just haven't discovered a way to discover God in a substantial way.

No **** we don't know everything. I just don't see a need to put God in the gaps of things we don't know yet.
There is a natural explanation to everything we currently know. There is no point where "God did it" comes up in real science.
My point (and the logic) isn't no test = no there. It's failed every single test so far = not there.
YOU said God was Natural, not Supernatural. Natural can be tested by Science. Science, at this point has tested countless natural phenomena, NOTHING points to a god. So, at this point a natural god cannot exist.

More power to ya brother.

you are growing,,,,

i think the natural is supernatural or there is no point in talking about the supernatural. it's all natural. and yes, i am wearing boxers.

It seems to me that you're jumping to a lot of unwarrented conclusions here.

You say, "There is a natural explanation to everything we currently know."

That's not exactly true at all. On the contrary, there are many observations made of the quantum world that completely defy any 'natural' explanation. The very notion of a 'Big Bang' defies any 'natural' explanation, yet everything in science points to the idea that such a 'Big Bang' has actually occurred.

Also, when you say "natural" explanation what does that really mean?

All it truly means in terms of science is that we have observed particular properties of the universe that appear to be consistent, and so we call those observed properties, "The Natural Laws of Physics". But to claim that any of those so-called laws are natural is rather ambigious already isn't it?

I mean all we are doing is looking at things we cannot explain (i.e. why the laws of physics are they way they are), and just calling that natural.

So the very term "natural" is a bit ambiguous and misleading.

Moreover, like I say, we have even observed behavior at the quantum level that even appears to defy this so-called natural laws.

So to say "There is a natural explanation to everything we currently know." is actually misleading and false with respect to what science actually knows. There are things that science has observed that it cannot explain using the natural laws of physics.

Even the theory of Quantum Mechanics doesn't "explain" anything other than observing that certain unexplanable probabilities appear to be associated quantum events. Well, if we then turn around and claim that "random probabilistic happenings are natural", then we're really going to be in some deep chit.

Yet it most certainly appears that they ARE "natural".


Just for the record:

I personally don't feel that a 'god' (or a spiritual essence of reality, which may be our very own ultimate essence), necessarily needs conform to what science has thus far deemed to be "The Natural Laws of Physics".

By that purest definition "god" (or spirit) may very well be completely supernatural (i,e, totally above and beyond any restriction of the apparent laws of physics)

After all, just because the logos of science has restricted itself to only considering measurable and obeservable events, in no way implies that "reality" is going to heed the rules of the scientific method. Why should it?

And like I say, even when measuring observables in the quantum world even science must rely on mere probabilities of potentiality. The observables become unobservable in the quantum world when they go about their magickal alchemical transformations. Yet they clearly do this, even whilst in an unobservable state.

Therefore, in a very real sense science has already proven that the very limitation of it's logical design of inquiry fails to properly reflect the true nature of reality.

In a very real sense, science has proven the existence of the supernatural via Quantum Theory. In fact, to go beyond Quantum Theory the theory itself must fail. It can't simply be "modified", it must necesarily fail because the theory itself demands that knowing can be known below the level of the Planck barrier. Therefore, to "break that barrier" would require that QM fails.

So in a very real sense, to hold out the idea that science can go beyond QM is to genuinely do nothing more than to cling to the blind faith, that current scientific theories and understanding will fail.

That's a pretty silly position to be in for someone who wants to claim that science "can explain everything in natural terms".

All it really amounts to is a blind faith that current science is wrong and that at some point in the future it will be corrected and merrily go on it's way with it's 'Newly Corrected" theories.

But at this point in time, there is really no reason so even suspect that QM is wrong. It's the most powerful theory that science has ever come up with. So there is absolutely no scientific basis to believe or imply that science should ever be able to go beyond QM, unless QM is actually wrong (i.e. unless science is actually wrong at this point in time)

So to suggest that science may someday be able to explain everything in terms of 'natural laws' is to actually suggest that current modern science is actually wrong.

But that's a matter of total blind faith right there.

...

And I still don't see a point in going "We don't know, therefore God!"

All "I don't know" means is that at this time we do not have the knowledge. To say that it must be god is a non-answer, it doesn't actually teach us anything, and it stops the desire to continue to expand our knowledge.

So, I still see no need to invoke a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) simply because Science has not yet found the reasonable, rational explanation.