Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Prove that there can't be evidence for a god or other supernatural things.

At first some definitions:
natural - as found in nature. And with that describable in that.
supernatural - not describable in nature; the opposite of natural.
evidence - a fact or information that is described in a structured way.

Prove by contradiction:
1: Let's assume there is evidence for something supernatural.
2: From (1) it follows that it has to be describable for it to be evidence.
3: If it's describable, it has to be natural.
(3) is a contradiction to (1) thus the assumption is false.
Thus there can't be evidence for something supernatural.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

OliRos · 18-21, F

Is something troubling you, my son?

View 7 more replies »

OliRos · 18-21, F

@Luke73 😲 Hair? You've got hair?

Sorry, my mistake! My dummy son is totally baid.

You concentrate on your musings.

I will get back to being God.

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@OliRos I'm relieved to know that I can't be a dummy and your son then.

OliRos · 18-21, F

@Luke73 A relief to both of us, to be honest.

Being god is difficult enough.

BlueSkyKing · M

No need to assume anything. Evidence is detectable, measurable, and testable.

There can be evidence, but no one accepts the burden of proof. Supernatural does not mean unnatural. Better to say there is no evidence of the supernatural. Discribing is pointless and contradictions are not evidence.

View 4 more replies »

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@BlueSkyKing Again you confuse evidence with proof. A proof has nothing to do with accuracy or statitics, it's only about logic. What you mean is evidence. This prove is a logical one, you don't need evidence. All you need is logic. And I've proved my claim if you've read my post.

BlueSkyKing · M

@Luke73

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@BlueSkyKing My bad for assuming you were a logical person.

Blondily · F

I cannot prove whether a god or supernatural beings exist. But years ago I saw something paranormal and another time saw a UFO. That's all the information I have yet never took pics as I was scared shitless when I witnessed them both. And both times there were others with me.🤷🏼‍♀️

RageAgainstTheMachine · 36-40, M

Proof? I have been shown proof from many sources but is it truth? All we have is faith in what we believe in.

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@RageAgainstTheMachine A prove is always true, if it's done right. You can disagree with the assumptions then but otherwise it holds.

And this is a mathematical, logical proof. If you agree with my assumptions, my result is true too.

BlueSkyKing · M

@Luke73
[media=https://youtu.be/5ksV4nnXOsQ]

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@BlueSkyKing You do know that for every model or anything, you make assumptions, right?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@jshm2 I did define them, didn't I?

darkknightt · M

We all have our own point of view

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@darkknightt Yes and no. If you make the same assumptions, you should also come to the same conclusions.

DocSavage · M

WTF ?

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

For that matter, I have a problem with the word supernatural. Because with respect to your definition and your understanding, my understanding of the word stems from the root words. Super = above or beyond, or sometimes outside of. Natural = well, natural. So for something to be supernatural, it would not only be indescribable in nature, it would have to be outside of nature. In my opinion, based on my own research, nothing can technically exist outside of nature, as nature encompasses everything.

That's not to say that I don't believe in things that are currently outside the realm of understanding. I've seen too many inexplicable things to rule them out. I'm simply saying they aren't supernatural, because nothing can be. Magick, spirits, demons, angels, even gods or goddesses, are not supernatural.

Luke73 · 22-25, M

@LordShadowfire I get what you say. Though there can be things that would exist out of what we think exists, like for example in the simulation hypothesis.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@Luke73 absolutely. I just don't think we should call it supernatural because it exists outside of our frame of reference. That's suggesting nature has limits.

Add a comment...