A supernaturalism theory sounds good, I expect nothing less from truth seekers. In fact, it sounds similar to a normal faith journey in most people. Over time, as you look back at these online forum discussions, I hope you would see this as stepping stone of enlightenment. Each person looks at their journey differently, and yours may truly be seeking the theory of supernaturalism.

To flesh that out a bit more, developing a theory of supernaturalism, may I ask what kind of characteristics or evidences you would like to encounter, if the supernatural truly exists? Are coincidences something that you see as random experiences, or could they hold meaning? This is one area we could delve deeper into-- I have many examples I could share.

Or, do you put any weight unexplained phenomena's? Stories of the paranormal, or spiritual encounters? We could delve deeper into here as well.

Or, are you a person that only considers your own senses, own experiences, own encounters? Deep down, what is something that would give you a strike of lightning, something that could cause you to earnestly feel "whoa, maybe something is out there"? Could it be a message, a life changing moment, something completely extraordinary? If we're tracking so far, could you put that into words?

For me, the greatest encounter of the supernatural, and this may sound cheesy, but I believe wholeheartedly in the God of love and forgiveness. It is rare, but I have seen incredible moments of the selfish human heart, darkened by bitterness and hatred, miraculously being transformed in the love of Christ, bringing healing in broken families. I seriously would never in my life imagined certain relationships find healing and forgiveness, and I attribute it all to a God of healing that can transform the human heart-- which if you know already, the human heart is truly a dark and selfish thing.

Final thoughts on the Big Bang: I truly think this discovery has been such an incredible truth revealed to all mankind. Ironically, at first when scientists discovered it, the initial reaction to the theist community was shock and terror. At one point, they thought the Big Bang was a denial to the creation account explained in Genesis 1 and 2. But over time, many theists realize the magnitude of its truth. In order for the Big Bang to even occur, all the energy of the universe needed to fit in one small and almost infinitely powerful ball which exploded into the universe we see today. All of it makes sense considering the Big Bang brought forth time, space, and matter. What could have come "before" it? I agree with you, the word "before" doesn't even work in the implication without time. It breaks our human understanding of reality. But that's exactly it, isn't it? Supernaturalism should break our definitions of reality-- if it didn't, then it wouldn't be supernatural.

For me, it is not a big leap to consider the existence of the supernatural. With the discovery of the Big Bang, it almost necessitates the supernatural.

1. something you added never made any sense to me either

2. "the term Atheist or Antitheist (which has the 100% exact same meaning) " ...........nope. easy way to explain it is a antitheist is a militant atheist. antitheist goes around proselytizing for their own beliefs trying to get converts. antitheist can be ruthless nasty people. typical atheist on the other hand can be reasoned with to an extent. btw atheist church is a thing ......

3. all atheists think that are the smartest. just a person claiming to be atheist is high narcissism. if it wasnt true you wold claim some kind of agnostic.

4. i dont believe you. nothing you offered at first showed you hand any inkling bout the one way speed of light. it was only recently you would mention it. I brought it up for the reason why i stated at the time. gate keepers of knowledge are not being forthright with you.

5. ya you did thats why I had to start posting a link to it. then thats when you made up the current excuse. (atheist maneuvering is always fascinating)

6. "Abiogenesis is a fairy tale? Now you make assumptions of your own, right? "
nope, its an observation. prove the statement false
darwin was at least honest about his theory. cant say the same for the dishonest clowns that came after him.
science is just an institution it wouldnt say anything at all. its the kooks that claim to be all about science saying stuff.
"Religion cant come up with any proof or anything evidential for their claim, so what Religion always does and did for hundreds of years is trying to talk about the flaws of science and then they fill every gap of knowledge with god and tell us how smart they are and how dumb science is because science doesnt have answers."
ya but you dont know squat about scripture so your assessment isnt even worth a squat
"Life is awesome, isnt it?"
sure, tell me about it

7. ya he was an atheist

8. let me remind you, remember you said this "Abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact" you have no evidence to make the extraordinary leap to atheism and you bring no challenge to my belief and you cant bring a challenge because you understand nothing about it.

1) Your question here was essentially: What would make a supernaturlism theory?
You know, a theory is not a guessing game. It is strong directional evidence, just like the Big Bang theory.
Coincidences, alleged paranormal or spiritual encounters and things like that do not speak for anything supernatural in an evidential way. Its not recreational, you cant test it and repeat it and you cannot count out natural causes. Just look at the big bang and see what I mean. The path to the big bang is fleshed out. We can explain it, recreate it, show it to everyone and come to the final conclusion. No one has to guess around and no one has to make a claim he himself experienced as opposed to everybody.

If someone claimed he saw a Ghost, thats worthless. He might have, he might have not. He might honestly think he has seen a ghost, which doesnt make it true. He might lie, which makes it wrong. Nobody knows. Its like he never said anything, it has no empirical value.

2. According to myself, no I do not know how evidence for the supernatural would have to look like as I have no point of reference.

3. Your own best evidence is, and I dont wanna be disrespectful here, really worthless for anybody else. Its a 100% religious argument without foundation. The human heart is a dark and selfish thing is the cringiest thing you could have ever said :-D I dont wanna dive deeper into this, its a dead end for this conversation ;-)

4. Yes the Big Bang and the question of how this even happened breaks our mind, but thats not evidence of supernaturalism as supernaturalism is only what we make of it.
We explain the boarders of our mind with something else, thats what this is.
I personally think its also not a big leap to see god and supernaturalism overall as creations of ourselves to understand what we are not able to.

1. Well the sentence had a context, but you could also extend it to our whole conversation. Nothing I say should be seen as proof for or against god because both things are nothing I try to achieve or am able to achieve.

2. Again, the words Atheist and Antitheist have the same meaning, theres no difference. It doesnt matter if someone tries to be special by calling himself Antitheist to split himself up from other Atheists, it still means the exact same.
A is just a short form of anti. Its the same.
Atheist church is just a mocking name I would guess.
Some Atheists apparently thought it would be funny to found an institution called Atheist church. Atheist church does not exist in the way that all Atheists are part of it. Its not like the catholic church, were every catholic is part of. There are several so called christian split groups as well, that you wouldnt accept for sure. I am not part of the Atheist church and wouldnt I have googled it right now, I wouldnt have heard of it in my lifetime I guess.

3. Thats just your opinion and nothing else.

4. For me personally the One Way Speed of light is not worth a mention, but believe me I knew about it as in fact even a short topic in universal lectures. Never a big one cause its a) not reliable and not necessary because we have great methods to measure the reflective or two way speed of light very accurately.

5. I never said the definition you posted was made up. Your own definition is what was made up. You said that I am by definition supernatural. Which is totally made up crap.

6. I am not here to prove the statement false, you made the statement bro, so prove it right. I am not your dad and not your mom and this is not kindergarten. If you make a claim, prove the claim. Its simple.

7. I never said Atheists cant be idiots. Doesnt matter if that guy was an atheist, hes an uneducated Dunning Kruger idiot.

8. Why would I need evidence to not believe your claim of god? You think I should just believe your god claim cause you are such a nice guy or what? Maybe you are a nice guy after all, but I cant see it in your posts thats for sure.
Bring a tiny bit of evidence and we can look into it, dude. Thats all I ask for. Not knowing if Abiogenesis is a thing is not it, I can assure you that.
Its not proof or evidence for or against anything or anyone. It only means that we currently dont know - and maybe never will. Thats it.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 9 2023 03:27am

Day 16: The Champion

Psalm 68:7-18 is a song of praise for the power of God as seen in salvation. There are three movements in this passage. Verses 7-10 describe the power of God in delivering the people of Israel from their bondage in Egypt. Then, verses 11-14 recount the power of God in the present to preserve his people as they lived amongst their enemies. Finally, verses 15-18 rejoice in the power of God that will safely bring his people home to the mountain of God.

These three movements describe the life of a Christian. We are those who have been brought out from the bondage of sin and death, are being preserved in our present journey, and have been given a promise that we shall arrive safely home. How are all these wonderful truths possible? These benefits are secured for us because of our champion.

Psalm 68:18 refers to one who ascended on high, leading forth a host of captives in his train. According to St. Paul, this passage is describing Christ Jesus, particularly the victory accomplished by him through his resurrection from the dead (Ephesians 4:8).

In Hebrews 12:2 we are told to keep our eyes on Jesus, the archegos of our faith. Although it has been variously translated as "author" or "pioneer," the best translation would be "champion." In other words, Jesus went toe-to-toe with sin and death and won! He fought the battle on our behalf with death and secured the victory. Now, we can rest in him, knowing that the very same power that raised Jesus from the dead is also at work in us (1 Corinthians 6:14).

Do you find yourself anxious today, maybe fearful of what the future holds? Let the truth of these verses be a reminder that the power of God is present in your life because of the work of our champion. Because of him we have been brought out of bondage, are being preserved day by day, and through his grace we shall arrive safely home.

Psalm 68:7-18

O God, when you went out before your people,
when you marched through the wilderness, Selah
the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain,
before God, the One of Sinai,
before God, the God of Israel.
Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad;
you restored your inheritance as it languished;
your flock found a dwelling in it;
in your goodness, O God, you provided for the needy.

The Lord gives the word;
the women who announce the news are a great host:
“The kings of the armies—they flee, they flee!”
The women at home divide the spoil—
though you men lie among the sheepfolds—
the wings of a dove covered with silver,
its pinions with shimmering gold.
When the Almighty scatters kings there,
let snow fall on Zalmon.

O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan;
O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan!
Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain,
at the mount that God desired for his abode,
yes, where the Lord will dwell forever?
The chariots of God are twice ten thousand,
thousands upon thousands;
the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary.
You ascended on high,
leading a host of captives in your train
and receiving gifts among men,
even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.

Ephesians 4:8

Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

1 Corinthians 6:14

And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.

Stay tuned for day 17 of 40.

Let us consider another "strong directional evidence", may I bring our attention to the moral argument?

When we consider the differences between humans and animals, I think there is a big contrast of "morals" that govern how humans live and how animals live. Animals are instinctual, albeit they have certain social structures, but in general there is no "moral imperative" that is put on animals. If a lion kills a zebra, we don't put the lion into jail. It's part of "nature". We allow animals to live accordingly to how nature does, and human interaction is usually looked down upon, unless saving or remedying environmental disasters that humans have brought upon animals.

Humans on the other hand have a moral imperative, a moral framework, and a moral compass. We do not condone murder, we do not condone rape, and we do not condone extra marital affairs. All these are acceptable in the animal kingdom, but not acceptable in humanity. It is detestable, immoral, and punishable by jail/death.

How did we develop this moral imperative? I bring this to your attention as "strong directional evidence".

It is common to assign human evolution as the building blocks of morality. "We need it to survive, therefore we have morals". In essence, atheists argue that morality is simply a by-product of a human community that has achieved the pinnacle of "survival success" and therefore, morality is a social construct that has evolved over millions of years.

Is this really the case? Can we simply be "hands off" and let our human intellect to go forward? If survival is truly the crux of morality, then wouldn't it be justifiable to do anything to "survive"? It sounds a lot like animals, to be quite honest. Could a person argue that, in order to survive and pass on their genetic seed, they are justified in raping girls? If in survival mode, we need to steal, murder, and rape, wouldn't we be justified in doing those things?

My argument is this: the morality we observe today is an extraordinary accomplishment, setting us apart from animals, and giving humans a uniquely special set of behavioural compass. Where did this morality come from? Is the pursuit of morality something that is man-made, or is it something bigger?

Two common pitfalls I would like to point out before you reply: one common mistake is analyzing the micro understanding of morality, that is, Tommy decides he wants to illegally download movies, which we have state laws against downloading, but he doesn't care, so Tommy does what he wants, proving that morality is relative. To show cases of "immoral" or "amoral" people is not the focus of the topic (unless you truly are amoral, then that could be the focus of our time).

Second pitfall I normally see is within the macro understanding of morality, that is, comparing one moral system against another moral system. Bob believes that eating dogs is bad, Rachel believes that eating dogs is ok, therefore the presence of two conflicting moral systems prove there is no "absolute" moral system. This is not the point either. I'm not trying to demonstrate which moral system is right or wrong.

Ultimately, I am pointing out the meta moral conversation, in other words, is there a moral system at all, something that is a moral imperative? If so, do we follow it simply because we comply with social structures? If tomorrow, the social structure allowed for murder, rape and incest, does that immediately make it right? What exactly is that meaning of right and wrong?

If we say something is wrong, are we saying it is wrong in the strongest sense of the word wrong? We can take an easy case first: murder. Is murder "wrong" in the absolute sense? What gives us the moral authority to say it is "wrong", while other animals kill each other daily?

As a theist, I believe the reason why we can stand on moral high ground (or why the high ground even exists) is because a moral agent exists, a supernatural moral agent if you will. By dismissing the moral high ground as simply a product of evolution, then really our morals are quite arbitrary-- an illusion that humans have made up for sake of illusory compliance and peace. If murdering a person granted "peace", why not? If raping someone granted survival, then why not? Who is to judge?

This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 9 2023 11:23am

1. why you aded it still remains a mystery

2. maybe its time you googled the difference between atheist and antitheist.
atheist church is realativley new. its still a thing tho.... you can go get "unbaptism" and other silly things (speaking of silly have you ever heard of pastafarian?).
atheists/antitheists often have an obsession with what they dont believe in, especially the antitheist.

3. years of experience has shown me other wise.

4. doenst bother you in the slightest? knowing its unknowable. a mystery held from you by our own limitations, quieting the arrogance and boasting of knowledge. any humility at all?

5. you admit it your self even if indirectly. remember you said this "Abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact"

6. dont prove it false then

7. i thought that very funny. i also think of him as an idiot. I could pull out the old info and..................never mind you dont look at any thing

8. you have no explanation how life could arise by some kind of accidental random means. that trouble your belief no problem for my belief. do you have anything that could trouble my belief?
" It only means that we currently dont know - and maybe never will. Thats it" ya if we are created beings you will never know because you wont and cant find a naturlistic explanation for it. even dawkins is ready to consider a creator.

The moral argument..Oh boy...okay lets go through this, why not. Always strange for me to hear about morals from christian believers when the bible itself is a total mess when it comes to morals, but okay thats another topic I guess.

The difference between humans and animals - or as a gorilla would say the difference between gorillas and animals or as a dolphin would say the difference between dolphins and animals and so on.
The way you phrase it makes me think you dont accept the fact that humans are genetically part of the biological group of "Great Apes", so humans are in fact animals.

I dont think there is a big difference in morality if you look a little closer.

Yes, animals do kill other animals, just like we do. The big difference is that they have to do it to survive while we do it because we want to. Oftentimes just for fun.
The main question here is the question what do animals kill?
Lions for example live in social groups and they have to trust each other. They dont attack each other frequently, they work as a team and they rely on each other.
Not saying lion fights never happen. They do fight for females or for territories and sometimes lions may walk away with deadly wounds inflicted by a fellow lion, but its unusual. Its far more unusual then it is for us humans to kill each other.

The reason why we dont put Lions into jail when they kill a Zebra is a) They have to and it doesnt affect us. Every animal thinks about it own species. If a Lion kills a human we kill the Lion without mercy.
We also kill the Lion if he comes close to a village. The Lion doesnt have to attack to be killed. If he comes too close, he's dead.

And yes, you guessed it - In my opinion morals are clearly tied to the evolution of social structures and basically out of survival instincts.

Morals are not objective. Thats why we had to come up with thousands of laws to keep our society alive and clean. What do you think why murder and rape is punished? Because of a greater will and god's moral compass? No! It is punished, because if we dont punish it, people would go ham and kill and kill and kill. It would be the end. We invented laws to keep us save from ourselves, not because someone superior said so.

The big majority of us of course thinks along those lines. Just like other animals we dont want to kill other members of our own social group and we also dont want to be the victim of other members of our social group. We wanna live a peaceful live, we wanna have friends, we wanna bond, we wanna live a good live.

There is no wrong in the absolute sense. All laws are basically subjective values. We just made them objective so that everyone has to follow them. Murder is considered to be wrong because it harms society. Sure.
However, in war it is legal to kill others. If it was wrong in the absolute sense, then war wouldnt justify it.

Humans have no moral highground. All we have is superior intelligence. Our way of thinking is far more complex compared to other animals. Our feelings are all far more complex. A lot, lot more. The good ones and the bad ones.

There is no absolute right or wrong. Both does not exist.
It exists for us personally, sure. We all have our own moral code, but thats about it.

If anything, morals are evidence against the supernatural more than in favor of it.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 9 2023 05:01pm

1. Thats fine.

2. You are right, thats silly things but I have nothing to with it.
I also have nothing to do with fanatics.
Fanatics are always bad. Doesnt matter if its religious fanatics, atheist fanatics or any other group of fanatics. They will always exist tho, so we have to accept it.

3. Fair enough, I wont challenge your own opinion. I am okay with you thinking I am a selfish idiot. I can take it.

4. The reason why it doesnt bother me (right now) is that I know humans cant technically do it at the moment. Its not ignorance or a lack of humility, its just acceptance. Measuring the One Way Speed of Light is just one thing out of countless millions of things we cant do.
We cant do it, because light is so damn fast that we cant synchronize clocks. Right now there is no way, its too fast. Thats it.
No mystery behind it, we are just not technically advanced enough. Science will always hit dozens, no more like hundreds of technical walls before it can progress. Science is nothing but ordinary men and women at work. They arent magicians, you know? Its normal dudes.

5. So because Abiogenesis is not a proven fact I am supernatural now?
God is also not a proven fact, so that means he doesnt exist now? You are once again misinterpreting the definition you posted.

6. I dont. Why would I?

7. Something we agree on. I like it :-)

8. Why would that trouble my belief if I dont have a belief?
I am okay with not having an explanation for the origins of life. No one does. You neither. Do I have anything to trouble your belief? I dont know, do I? Thats subjective. I am not here to trouble your belief.

Your last sentence makes sense to me. You said if we were created we could never know because there is no way for us to ever find out. See thats why I am an atheist. If I dont know if what I live by is the truth or not, I have no reason to consider it. Its a waste of time.

I'm trying to read your sentences carefully, trying to get to know you personally, so pls correct me if I'm wrong. You are deep down amoral, rejecting in any sense of moral high ground or even a belief in absolute good or evil, though you accept some kind of inner personal moral code, possibly to be functional in society or to be accepted socially?

Your inner being is amoral, but your outer being is morally functional? If the word amoral doesn't fit, maybe the words 'morally indifferent'?

I respect your honesty and efforts in responding.

This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 9 2023 08:32pm