PIT2 said:
Tested how? U mean by scientific methods?
Did u just say that the limits of science determine what is natural?
The limits of science are what is testable. All that is testable is in our universe. Hello?
And does something being 'natural' proclude it from being 'designed' or being 'intelligent'?
No, it certainly doesn't. We're both in nature, as is water. You can get poetic and say that both are 'designed' by physical laws, which dictates all matter.
(just a note: if god doesn't come from earth, then he would be an alien.)
That's sort of true. If God can be detected in the natural universe, he would be an alien. But then what's to keep us from calling any alien God?
If nature turned out to be intelligent, then is nature supernatural?
Okay. This is the last time I'm going to respond to a statement like this, and if you do it again I'm leaving this conversation.
Intelligence does not make something supernatural. I never said that.
Then prove to me that u are conscious. Also prove that consciousness is governed by physical laws, because as of yet, not a single physical law describes or predicts anything even remotely like consciousness. Furthermore, the (supposed) origin of consciousness is incorperated in the theory of evolution (by enthusiastic proponents at least) as nothing more than a miracle (one which completely overshadows the 'jesus-walks-on-water' miracle).
We can prove that we are conscious by exposing ourselves to random stimuli and reporting simular results of what we experience. And then further support it by repeating it with other people. consciousness is governed my physical laws because 1) touching certain parts of the brain causes certain responses (famously, the smell of coffee) 2) it can be further supported by the fact that the brain is made of material that we know follow the laws of the physical universe 3) We can measure the brain activity during thought.
I'd like to see your source on the evolution of consciousness. It was probably not a primary source as there are no "miracles" in science, only what is "not well understood." Of course, in science, "miracle" is poetic language for "not well understood".
But ok, let's suppose that consciousness is natural - with which i fully agree (though it wasnt according to ur definitions of natural and supernatural)
Test... Did you read this?
- then what do u suppose a god is? Could god perhaps be some kind of consciousness that exists and creates things much like our own consciousness creates things? Why could god then not be natural aswell?
What I suppose a God is is moot. I can not test for God or control for God so I can not consider God in a scientific investigation. If you can think of a way to either test or control for God, scientifically, please let me know.
But wait a second. Nature was defined as being what the painter can paint with his brushes. Ur statement 'a sculpture would exist in nature' is thus false according to the analogy - it is supernatural and exists outside of nature.
Then the painter would he himself be supernatural, as would a sculpture, and whatever he was paining on, and his brush, etc. If you want to switch "supernatural" and "natural" here (it's cute, I suppose), that is fine. But that painter, IN THIS SCENARIO, can conduct science ONLY in HIS nature, the "supernatural."
Also, painting a 2D image is not the same as creating a sculpture.
I can make a drawing of god creating life, but that doesn't turn it into the origin of life on earth.
Hey, knock yourself out and paint it in 3D. And you just agreed with me.
I know a few billion people who also have an explanation for how life originated. They have lots of support also.
Where is the SCIENTIFIC support for this?
Look, I've been proceeding in this conversation in good faith. I am however a busy person who on top of everything else just began summer classes. I can't continue in this conversation if you're just out to waste my time.