I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?
Good question and I agree with your notion of definitional conflicts. In the context of my discussions I’m referring to ……..
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1. 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureb : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)
………… number 1 not 2. So it would be an equivocation error on any objector’s part to counter with examples of 2.
While we are at it……..
Either something that satisfies definition 1 can interact with or leave an observable trace in the universe or it can't. Those are the only two options. If it can, it is a legitimate object of scrutiny and, dare I say it, scientific investigation. If not, it might as well not exist because it's identical in all directly and indirectly ascertainable respects to something that doesn't exist.
In this context when I’m referring nature I’m referring to the universe. By which I mean all of physical reality. All space, time, matter and energy. That which science can study. Ex. He dedicated his life to studying nature.
Generally here is my case.
The universe had a complete beginning. (Supported by science)
Actually, this is by no means settled. The observable universe in our 13.8 billion light-year radius had a beginning, but we have no reason to believe this represents "all space, time, matter and energy". There could very easily be a larger manifold in which these things exist, currently beyond our ability to access. The larger reality in which our observable universe may reside could itself have a beginning, or no beginning. We don't know. But, in order to proceed with your argument, I'm willing to grant your assumption for the moment.
Thus I’m asserting the nature had a complete beginning, all space, time, matter and energy began to exist. (Supported by logic)
Thus a cause it needed. (Supported by logic)
This is not supported by logic. For it to be supported by logic, you need an extra premise: everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, even if you include this premise the argument fails, because the truth of the premise is itself unupported. For one thing, we have never seen something begin to exist, strictly speaking. Everything we have seen 'begin' actually was just a reconfiguration of existing parts. We have never seen something begin to exist where nothing existed before, so we have no reason to think a cause is necessary in that situation. Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused. But again, in order to keep going, I will grant this extremely contentious premise of yours and assume the universe began to exist and had a cause.
The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful (Supported by forensic science)
I had to suppress a chuckle here. Forensic science? Anyway, this premise is also problematic for several reasons.
You have often used the term 'categorical fallacy' in this thread. I believe that asserting the cause of any phenomenon to be 'timeless' is such a fallacy. The concept of causation is inextricably tied to the concept of time. Causes must come before their effects. It cannot therefore be coherently said that anything caused time
itself to begin, because it would have had to take place 'beforehand', which is a contradiction in terms as it would require the existence of the very thing whose creation is being explained.
Secondly, your assertion that something 'incredibly powerful' must have been the cause is not supported by anything, least of all forensics. All of our estimations of how much power is required to do something are based on observations made in the universe, in the context of laws and magnitudes that presumably would not apply outside of that context. We know it would take an incredibly strong force to break a planet in half because within our universe, there are fundamental forces keeping things like planets together. Without any larger context to set limits on what can and cannot be done, nothing about power can be asserted... again, it's a category error.
The cause must be a personal creator (philosophy/logic)
This is a huge leap. You have absolutely no reason to make this claim based on the foregoing premises,
even if they were all true. Why couldn't the cause of the universe be an incredibly powerful, timeless, immaterial event that was
not a personal creator? You can't just say "philosophy/logic" and call it a day!
I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)
Inferring the cause of the universe to be God, who transcends nature…..definition 1 from above not 2. (Supported by logic)
One last time, I have to stop you. Your last clause there, "God, who transcends nature" is written as if God is already proven to exist and to have the characteristic of transcending nature. No such proof is implicit in your argument or any other, as far as I know. God may or may not exist, and may or may not transcend nature in either case. The only way to make the rhetorical jump you just made is to
define God as "that which transcends nature"... but then you have to stick with that definition, and not smuggle in anything else! You cannot say, okay, now that I have proven God created the universe, everything my favorite religion says about him must be true. This is very important for you to understand: even if there were no problems whatsoever with your argument, all it would have proven is that
an entity who transcends nature created the universe. Not God the Father, YHWH, Jehova, Elohim, or whatever name Christians prefer to use. Thus, you have not actually presented anything that supports Christianity. It supports deism at best.
Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.
Cute. So if I wrote down a description that more closely matched this God than the Bible does, you would adopt it?
I should point out the irony that forensic science is actually the examination of a crime scene, which is about the best that can be said of your argument, I'm afraid.
Further focus…..the context of my participation here was … Theism and science are compatible.
No doubt you folks will disagree. I welcome opposition, but you must defend your counters as reasonable. Every one of them. You don’t just get to say something is wrong and not defend it. That’s where we will battle over the epistemologies. The core of ones worldview.
The problem is that none of what you presented accords with scientific evidence except for the notion that the universe had a beginning, which is still yet to be conclusively demonstrated. Every other move you made is a deduction from that one premise, and a shoddy deduction at that.
But this is all window dressing.
The difference between religion and science comes down to epistemologies, as you rightly point out.
So I will ask you one simple question, and I need you to answer it honestly. Your answer will illustrate whether you are actually a person who follows evidence, or someone who defers to a holy book. Here is my question.
If it were conclusively proven that the universe had no beginning, would you renounce your belief in Christianity?