New answers tagged

0

An actual proof would require the supernatural being in question be very precisely defined. It would be difficult to define any physical being that precisely. But if we lower the standards from "proof" to "evidence so overwhelming that no reasonable person could dispute the conclusion", it becomes much easier. For a god, especially a ...


0

In its original form, this question referred specifically to God. Either everything is a proof of God, or nothing is. If you view God as a Necessary Being, then the existence of anything is an irrefutable proof of God's existence. If you are capable of disbelief in God, then all demonstrations will strike you as capable of being faked. With regards to a ...


0

Carl Jung wrote about Synchronicity - "an acausal connecting principle". Such a phenomenon would only manifest from a high dimensional perspective. However, its manifestation would be personal, especially if it happened frequently around you. Then it's up to you to decide if it's real. A statistician could say synchronistic phenomena were very ...


1

A truly omnipotent supernatural entity can very easily prove its existence (and identity, e.g. as the god of the bible). It could for example alter the minds of everyone (currently existing and coming into existence in the future) to accept exactly this altering of their mind as sufficient proof. This kind of proof is irrefutable by definition, because there'...


5

TL;DR: Concluding from "if amputations are permanent then there is no Christian God" that "if amputations are not permanent then there is a Christian God" is the simple logical fallacy of the inverse. We don't need to reason about the metaphysical here — basic logic suffices. The fallacy is to inverse the "sign" of a conditional ...


-1

Would watching God explode disprove the claim that God is indestructible? Would watching God sin prove God imperfect? Would watching God fail to lift a rock prove that God is not omnipotent? But "God is defined as..." However, the same goes for explanation and nature, here: asking whether some physical event is a miracle would be like asking if ...


0

Your question really doesn't make any sense. Say there's a box and someone is claiming there's a ton of gold in it. And say my position is that there is no ton of gold in the box. So I try to pick up the box and I succeed. I pick the box up. This proves there isn't a ton of gold in the box because I can't pick up a box that weighs a ton and a ton of gold ...


0

Let us try out the idea that there is supposed to be at least one possible world where decisive evidence of God exists. Now, is this evidence that God exists in that specific world? God does not with any world make up a whole. Now, there would have to be decisive evidence in at least one world, that God exists in all worlds, or else such evidence that God ...


2

You're going to have to define "supernatural" to answer this question, and I think you'll run into the problem that "supernatural" is in practice defined by a lack of general acceptance. When you imagine a demonstration of a supernatural phenomenon, you're imagining something unconvincing, because if it were convincing it wouldn't be ...


-1

I believe it was David Hume who suggested that if we witnessed a miracle we would do better to disbelieve our own senses, rather than believe that something could occur that was contrary to the laws of nature. However, having witnessed the seemingly miraculous phenomenon of ki projection, up close and very personal during an Aikido class, I would have to say ...


3

If you want to prove to me that an omnipotent and sentient being (god) exists then you want to demonstrate omnipotence and sentience of this being to me. An isolated case of people regrowing limbs doesn't show either of these traits. If we assume that regrowing limbs is "impossible" then perhaps it is the result of omnipotence, or maybe we just ...


8

Short Answer As an athiest who advocates for philosophy, I would suggest there would be many rational bases for attacking your attribution of the regrowth to the supernatural which by definition places the agents outside of the known laws of the universe. The claim that gods and magical beings are real is essentially the assertion that it is possible to fit ...


10

The term 'supernatural' is generally used by modern skeptics in the sense: "That which cannot be explained by natural processes using the natural sciences." However, any event that can be observed systematically is ipso facto subject to the natural sciences, so the definition itself precludes the existence of miracles. It's a neat little Catch-22 ...


17

Logically, if we could prove that God healed amputees then it would as a corollary prove the existence of God. (it is simply the argument that; "if X is specifically observed to do Y, then X must exist"). But in practice that has two problems: Either, if science demonstrates God's existence, in what sense is He then "super"natural and not ...


2

Welcome, cheeser12 Merely as omnipotent (having infinite power) God has no motivation to do anything. Only if you introduce other attributes, the most obvious being omnibenevolence (having infinite goodness) and join them to omnipotence do you have anything that God might will to occur and have a motive for bringing about. It seems not too much to say that ...


1

Depending on whether motives, purposes, goals, aspirations, ambitions, desires, intentions, etc. are co-reducible enough or not, the question of divine willpower can be answered in enough ways for us to speak allegorically about a divine impulse as such at some juncture in our terms. But let's examine the contrast example of human actions being universally ...


0

Dr. Ed Feser's Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide (ch. 3, § "The Fifth Way") summarizes Aquinas's Fifth Way to prove God's existence (with Freddoso's better, 2018 translation substituted): The proof from finality starts with the observation that [1a] “things lacking cognition, viz., natural bodies, act for the sake of an end. This is apparent from the ...


0

One argument not yet mentioned is the positivist argument from verification. Since the world obeys the laws of physics and arbitrary miracles are never observed, it is not possible to determine empirically whether a God exists or not; therefore, the whole idea of a God is meaningless. Or, to turn it round the other way, if some supposed God did exist, why ...


0

It depends on your conception of omnipotent being. If it has the potential to be unique, it will. Does your concept of omnipotent includes such potential? The traditional problem of omnipotence comes from the concept such potential represents. It's quite common for omnipotent being dreamers to get in conflict when the potential is confronted to logic. Can ...


0

The motive of this question is an inference like, "If a being is omnipotent, it can do anything; having different arithmetic would be something; so an omnipotent being can have a different arithmetic." But if 1 + 1 = 3 is a logical (enough) truth, then... In other words, if an omnipotent being can do "anything," then it could be ...


0

It could if you'd restrict the meaning of omnipotence as was done in Fantastic 4 by introducing creatures, who could perform 4th wall breaks and turn to everything, thus not being "normal" The question whether one omnipotent being could kill another, is more of history than possibility. How would a mortal being know of it, if its creation is in a ...


0

If you wanna know about Philosophers, then I suggest Nietzsche, I would also suggest to read famous religious people and atheists to see the competition. the questions you shall have are: Is Free will truly free or a simulation inside a Matrix? If God exist/don't what does it mean to me, and what will I do with it? Why haven't the philosophers and writers-...


1

One of the biggest differences is that Neoplatonism, at least in its early forms, does not personify the divine. We may identify God the Father with the Neoplatonic "One," but in doing so, we either have to attribute a persona to the abstract singularity that is "the One," or we have to deny the personified descriptions of God the Father ...


Top 50 recent answers are included