God versus Gravity

[Hatuey]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

[Mithrae]

Then every event is a natural event by definition, rendering supernatural not only a myth but also superfluous as a term.

I suggest that there is a more purposeful way to define these terms. The world seems to follow certain laws and patterns. If something could break these laws and patterns at will or in an unpredictable non-patterned manner, then it would make sense to call that something supernatural, as it would seemingly transcend the otherwise consistent patterns.

Thus, for something to be supernatural, both of the abovementioned elements would have to be present. Neither one alone should hardly be labeled as supernatural.

Both elements? I see only one; events unusual enough that they can't be considered a pattern.

Trouble is that's an entirely relative definition: By that definition, it would have been correct for ancient folk to consider the likes of comets or eclipses supernatural (depending on the length and detail of their astronomical observations). A trick which makes a feather fall as fast as a lead ball would be correctly considered supernatural by primitive folk.

I'd agree that without first presupposing some form of naturalism, this is the only sense in which the term could describe anything on more than a conceptual basis. But it pretty much renders it meaningless, merely a synonym for 'very unusual.' Comets and quick-fall feathers are indeed unusual.

Admittedly many supernaturalist folk are just as keen to imagine that there could be some definite, recogniseable distinction between the 'natural' and 'supernatural' as many naturalists are. But it's pretty much a false dichotomy as far as I can see (though the term can still be used as shorthand for 'stuff which naturalists and supernaturalists would consider supernatural').

[instantc]

Then every event is a natural event by definition, rendering supernatural not only a myth but also superfluous as a term.

I suggest that there is a more purposeful way to define these terms. The world seems to follow certain laws and patterns. If something could break these laws and patterns at will or in an unpredictable non-patterned manner, then it would make sense to call that something supernatural, as it would seemingly transcend the otherwise consistent patterns.

Thus, for something to be supernatural, both of the abovementioned elements would have to be present. Neither one alone should hardly be labeled as supernatural.

Both elements? I see only one; events unusual enough that they can't be considered a pattern.

The other element would be unpredictability or arbitrariness.

Trouble is that's an entirely relative definition: By that definition, it would have been correct for ancient folk to consider the likes of comets or eclipses supernatural

Now you are mixing up questions with epistemology with ontology. It's one thing to say that there is a meaningful definition for 'supernatural' and another thing to ask when we can justify our belief that something supernatural has happened.

As per my above definition the ancient folk would not have been correct to call eclipses supernatural, for those eclipses are caused bu natural patterns and are thus entirely predictable. It does not fulfill the conditions.

Another question is whether the ancient folk were epistemologically justified to label eclipses as supernatural occurrences. I think they very well may have been. Just because they turned out to be wrong in the end does not mean that their belief was not justified given the limited knowledge at the time.

I'd agree that without first presupposing some form of naturalism, this is the only sense in which the term could describe anything on more than a conceptual basis. But it pretty much renders it meaningless, merely a synonym for 'very unusual.'

This would be case without the second condition, namely arbitrariness of the event. The event needs to be unusual in the sense that it is breaking an otherwise consistent pattern and arbitrary in the sense that it cannot be causally explained by appealing to other observable patterns.

[Ancient of Years]

Gravity is obvious...

Only if you define it solely in terms of effect. The idea that objects consciously want to be near each other as much as possible could hardly be identified with gravity as we conceive it, yet there's no obvious observational distinction between the two.

How would one go about seeking evidence for a hypothesis like that? To consciously want something is suggestive of human behavior. In humans it is generally the case that the further one is from having something, the more one wants it. If a person is starving they (*) will go great distances to find food.

Hi Ancient, and welcome to the forum. I only just wandered back for a quick glance last night, but I've already noticed some of your interesting and well-informed posts

I don't think you could make anything even remotely approaching a universal rule with this. Even your starving person might be expected to start running or struggling harder against any obstacles once his meal is actually in sight. Destitute people in the third world are much less likely to want a Ferrari than a first world business executive. I'm much more likely to want a cute girl who catches my bus than a cute girl in Japan. A valiant effort, but I don't think it works.

It is the variability of desire in humans that prevents the idea of objects ‘consciously wanting to be near each other’ from serving as a paradigm for gravity. You have seen that cute girl a hundred times on the bus and you just saw a picture of a dynamite Japanese girl. You might suddenly want to be near that Japanese girl. Alternatively, you just saw an even cuter girl on the same bus but she is further away. Which one are you more attracted to you. Are any of the above at all attracted to you? Maybe a fellow passenger on the bus likes the redhead and you like the blond. There is no way an inverse square law of mutual attraction is derivable from analogy to human behavior.

The point of presenting alleged supernatural occurrences is to demonstrate that there is something beyond the natural world. It is exactly the rare and special nature of the alleged events, that they are not natural, that is intended to make that point. But not surprisingly, confirmable ‘supernatural’ events do not seem to be available for examination. To serve their purpose they would need to be definitely and undeniably not natural.

Like many sceptics I'd suggest that if something actually occurs, it's proven by that very fact to be part of the nature of reality, even if it's an extremely unusual event. The question is whether it's best explained by speculating unseen intelligent agency/s behind it, or by speculating that there are simply some deterministic laws behind it which we haven't understood yet. Neither is a very compelling assumption really, and even the former wouldn't necessarily indicate a deity. I think that at most, 'supernatural' events might suggest problems with naturalism and/or physicalism as they're currently understood; they don't prove theism.

IMO for an alleged miracle to qualify as such it would need to be undeniably the result of deliberate action by a conscious volitional being exempt from the laws of nature. Discovering new physical phenomena does not qualify. It is for the former – the supernatural - that I am unaware of any supporting evidence being available. The point of a miracle is to demonstrate the existence of that conscious volitional being who is exempt from the laws of nature. If there is a large margin of reasonable doubt, that is clearly not the case.

But we're back to the same problem as gravity there: The 'effect' of this hypothetical 'God' may well be obvious, but there really isn't any way to completely rule out alternative explanations for that effect. So short of defining the contentious term solely in reference to its effects, it can't really be said to be obvious. At most, it might be the simplest and most broadly-applicable theory available.

Einstein, who has been getting a workout around here lately, was of the opinion that the universe embodied deliberate intelligent design but that there was no deity who cared how we behaved. This is the God of Spinoza, as Einstein himself explicitly referenced. Scriptures (Jewish scriptures in his case) were just stories. To Einstein the existence of a ‘God’ was obvious but had nothing to do with religion.

Yet others can look at all the same information as Einstein and not think that a deity is obvious at all. And if we lived in a society in which animism was still prevalent, we might have the same kind of uncertainty about gravity.

I am one of those who disagrees with Einstein in the matter of an obvious deity. He was not pushing animism of course but only an ‘Old One’ (one of the phrases he used) whose existence is evidenced by the presence of amazing order in the universe. As one early researcher of General Relativity put it, GR must be right, it’s beautiful. It is that sense of astonishing design in the depths of realty that impressed Einstein. (I have metaphysical reasons for not believing in a creator but that is much too long of a story.)

I share Spinoza's panentheistic way of imagining 'God' (though I scarcely think there's any grounds for knowing what interests or motivations It does or doesn't have), but it is, at most, the best available explanation for what we observe. That's all anything can ever be - it's only the scarcity of alternative, non-naturalist explanations for stuff like gravity which makes us forget that.

As I said above I have metaphysical grounds for not requiring a creator deity or for that matter an immanent one. But I am not ready to go there at this time. Need to boil it down to a reasonable post size.

[Mithrae]

Now you are mixing up questions with epistemology with ontology. It's one thing to say that there is a meaningful definition for 'supernatural' and another thing to ask when we can justify our belief that something supernatural has happened.

Good point.

This would be case without the second condition, namely arbitrariness of the event. The event needs to be unusual in the sense that it is breaking an otherwise consistent pattern and arbitrary in the sense that it cannot be causally explained by appealing to other observable patterns.

I'm still not sure about that second criterion. Think about many of the most common supernaturalist claims we see, and the observable patterns so often associated with them:
> Miraculous healings supposedly follow prayer and faith
> Lingering ghosts are generally said to come from terrible trajedies
> Levitation or divination associated with a lifetime of yoga or meditation
> Out of body experiences associated with brushes with death

Maybe those common associations aren't enough to make them causally explained, but if they actually occurred things like these really couldn't be considered arbitrary, even if they're not entirely consistent. We'd simply have to acknowledge that we don't fully understand all the 'rules' which make some murderers/victims ghosts while others are not, or one person is healed while another isn't.

But that's pretty much what I was saying from the beginning; in most of these cases it's clear that if they were actually real, they would be part of 'nature,' just a part we haven't fully understood yet. We'd live in a world in which humans really do have something like souls or spirits, which persist after death and sometimes linger, which can harness unusual powers and so on - that would simply be the nature of reality. Even claims of visits by angels or demons are more or less on par with the concept of some exotic extra-terrestrial lifeforms.


######################
######################

I don't think you could make anything even remotely approaching a universal rule with this. Even your starving person might be expected to start running or struggling harder against any obstacles once his meal is actually in sight. Destitute people in the third world are much less likely to want a Ferrari than a first world business executive. I'm much more likely to want a cute girl who catches my bus than a cute girl in Japan. A valiant effort, but I don't think it works.

It is the variability of desire in humans that prevents the idea of objects ‘consciously wanting to be near each other’ from serving as a paradigm for gravity. You have seen that cute girl a hundred times on the bus and you just saw a picture of a dynamite Japanese girl. You might suddenly want to be near that Japanese girl. Alternatively, you just saw an even cuter girl on the same bus but she is further away. Which one are you more attracted to you. Are any of the above at all attracted to you? Maybe a fellow passenger on the bus likes the redhead and you like the blond. There is no way an inverse square law of mutual attraction is derivable from analogy to human behavior.

Matter isn't human though, and most matter won't ever even be a part of humans. I said only that we can imagine the same gravitational effects being produced by massive objects' conscious/animistic desires to be nearer each other. What makes you think that this would have to be strictly analogous to human desires? That's like arguing that the impersonal force of gravity can only be reasonable if it's strictly analogous to the impersonal force of magnetism!

Like many sceptics I'd suggest that if something actually occurs, it's proven by that very fact to be part of the nature of reality, even if it's an extremely unusual event. The question is whether it's best explained by speculating unseen intelligent agency/s behind it, or by speculating that there are simply some deterministic laws behind it which we haven't understood yet. Neither is a very compelling assumption really, and even the former wouldn't necessarily indicate a deity. I think that at most, 'supernatural' events might suggest problems with naturalism and/or physicalism as they're currently understood; they don't prove theism.

IMO for an alleged miracle to qualify as such it would need to be undeniably the result of deliberate action by a conscious volitional being exempt from the laws of nature. Discovering new physical phenomena does not qualify. It is for the former – the supernatural - that I am unaware of any supporting evidence being available. The point of a miracle is to demonstrate the existence of that conscious volitional being who is exempt from the laws of nature. If there is a large margin of reasonable doubt, that is clearly not the case.

But there's nothing which could prove that a being is beyond the laws of nature. Take one of the most heavily-criticised biblical miracles for example; if the sun appeared to stand still for a day, the argument goes, the sudden halt to earth's rotation would means all kinds of unfortunate pandemonium from our existing momentum, according to the laws of nature. So if that event really and truly occurred, would it prove that the being responsible was beyond the laws of nature? No, because it could simply have been an illusion. Still an impressive feat, but with no need to go toe-to-toe against the 'laws of nature.'

A body coming to life after three days? Even the crew of The Enterprise could beam a body out of a tomb, keep it in stasis for a bit and then revive it Any miraculous observation could be replicated by sufficiently advanced technology. Like I say, 'supernatural' stuff might well suggest problems with how we currently imagine the world, but can never prove the existence of a deity.

I am one of those who disagrees with Einstein in the matter of an obvious deity. He was not pushing animism of course but only an ‘Old One’ (one of the phrases he used) whose existence is evidenced by the presence of amazing order in the universe. As one early researcher of General Relativity put it, GR must be right, it’s beautiful.

Stands to reason.

• Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this, Ridcully reflected as the Council grumbled in, would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to choose which pair-the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief. Indeed, as a goddess she would have lots of shoes, and thus many choices: comfy shoes for home truths, hobnail boots for unpleasant truths, simple clogs for universal truths and possibly some kind of slipper for self-evident truth.
  ~ Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals

[Ancient of Years]

I don't think you could make anything even remotely approaching a universal rule with this. Even your starving person might be expected to start running or struggling harder against any obstacles once his meal is actually in sight. Destitute people in the third world are much less likely to want a Ferrari than a first world business executive. I'm much more likely to want a cute girl who catches my bus than a cute girl in Japan. A valiant effort, but I don't think it works.

It is the variability of desire in humans that prevents the idea of objects ‘consciously wanting to be near each other’ from serving as a paradigm for gravity. You have seen that cute girl a hundred times on the bus and you just saw a picture of a dynamite Japanese girl. You might suddenly want to be near that Japanese girl. Alternatively, you just saw an even cuter girl on the same bus but she is further away. Which one are you more attracted to you. Are any of the above at all attracted to you? Maybe a fellow passenger on the bus likes the redhead and you like the blond. There is no way an inverse square law of mutual attraction is derivable from analogy to human behavior.

Matter isn't human though, and most matter won't ever even be a part of humans. I said only that we can imagine the same gravitational effects being produced by massive objects' conscious/animistic desires to be nearer each other. What makes you think that this would have to be strictly analogous to human desires? That's like arguing that the impersonal force of gravity can only be reasonable if it's strictly analogous to the impersonal force of magnetism!

The original wording was ‘consciously wanting to be near each other’. The only forms of consciousness we know of are those in some living things, most familiarly in humans. We can imagine all sorts of things, but to use such an analogy and then remove all familiar aspects of it except those that pertain is not exactly cricket.

In any case it tells us no more than Newtonian theory, which postulates an unexplained action at a distance. How does the hypothetically conscious matter ‘know’ about other matter, how much mass it has and how far off it is? Also where does the consciousness lie? If two asteroids merge, how many conscious entities are there afterward? What if one asteroid breaks apart? Are individual atoms conscious? What about fission and fusion?

And that is just Newtonian gravity. What about relativistic spatial distortions and time dilation? How do conscious desires of material objects account for those?

Like many sceptics I'd suggest that if something actually occurs, it's proven by that very fact to be part of the nature of reality, even if it's an extremely unusual event. The question is whether it's best explained by speculating unseen intelligent agency/s behind it, or by speculating that there are simply some deterministic laws behind it which we haven't understood yet. Neither is a very compelling assumption really, and even the former wouldn't necessarily indicate a deity. I think that at most, 'supernatural' events might suggest problems with naturalism and/or physicalism as they're currently understood; they don't prove theism.

IMO for an alleged miracle to qualify as such it would need to be undeniably the result of deliberate action by a conscious volitional being exempt from the laws of nature. Discovering new physical phenomena does not qualify. It is for the former – the supernatural - that I am unaware of any supporting evidence being available. The point of a miracle is to demonstrate the existence of that conscious volitional being who is exempt from the laws of nature. If there is a large margin of reasonable doubt, that is clearly not the case.

But there's nothing which could prove that a being is beyond the laws of nature. Take one of the most heavily-criticised biblical miracles for example; if the sun appeared to stand still for a day, the argument goes, the sudden halt to earth's rotation would means all kinds of unfortunate pandemonium from our existing momentum, according to the laws of nature. So if that event really and truly occurred, would it prove that the being responsible was beyond the laws of nature? No, because it could simply have been an illusion. Still an impressive feat, but with no need to go toe-to-toe against the 'laws of nature.'

A body coming to life after three days? Even the crew of The Enterprise could beam a body out of a tomb, keep it in stasis for a bit and then revive it Any miraculous observation could be replicated by sufficiently advanced technology. Like I say, 'supernatural' stuff might well suggest problems with how we currently imagine the world, but can never prove the existence of a deity.

All true. But any event that does NOT involve a clear and patently intentional suspension of what we perceive as laws of nature does NOT qualify as a believable miracle. And potentially qualifying events are rarer than the proverbial (and non-existent) hen’s teeth.

I am one of those who disagrees with Einstein in the matter of an obvious deity. He was not pushing animism of course but only an ‘Old One’ (one of the phrases he used) whose existence is evidenced by the presence of amazing order in the universe. As one early researcher of General Relativity put it, GR must be right, it’s beautiful.

Stands to reason.

• Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this, Ridcully reflected as the Council grumbled in, would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to choose which pair-the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief. Indeed, as a goddess she would have lots of shoes, and thus many choices: comfy shoes for home truths, hobnail boots for unpleasant truths, simple clogs for universal truths and possibly some kind of slipper for self-evident truth.
  ~ Terry Pratchett, Unseen Academicals

I am reminded of Imelda Marcos who had 2000 pairs of shoes. OMG! How many did she try on????

[instantc]

I'm still not sure about that second criterion. Think about many of the most common supernaturalist claims we see, and the observable patterns so often associated with them:
> Miraculous healings supposedly follow prayer and faith
> Lingering ghosts are generally said to come from terrible trajedies
> Levitation or divination associated with a lifetime of yoga or meditation
> Out of body experiences associated with brushes with death

Maybe those common associations aren't enough to make them causally explained, but if they actually occurred things like these really couldn't be considered arbitrary, even if they're not entirely consistent.

First, I think we also have to consider the option that supernatural can be meaningfully defined, but none of the above would qualify as supernatural for the reasons you mentioned. That is not to say that if God existed, for example, he couldn't qualify as a supernatural being.

Second, I in fact think all the above-mentioned things would have both natural and supernatural aspects as per the suggested definition. Perhaps a ghost, for example, would essentially be an embodied mind with a visual appearance that can walk through physical objects. That is entirely predictable and could be a part of the natural order. If, however, human mind had the power to turn into a ghost at will when the body dies or something like that, then perhaps it would make sense to say that the human mind can arbitrarily transcend the natural laws and thus qualifies as supernatural.

[Mr.Badham]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

Gravity is proof of god.... according to the fine tuning argument. If it pulled any harder the universe would never have Big Banged and if it pulled any less the atoms would have all flown apart and nothing would have formed.

[Hatuey]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

Gravity is proof of god.... according to the fine tuning argument. If it pulled any harder the universe would never have Big Banged and if it pulled any less the atoms would have all flown apart and nothing would have formed.

Gravity is not proof of god....according to the law of physics. If it pulled any harder the universe would never have formed as it has with us in it to observe it. We simply cannot speak as to what existences might be possible if gravity pulled less or more.

Fine tuning is not proof of god any more than the shape of water in a hole is proof that the shape of the hole was specifically designed for the puddle.

If possible, please answer the question as asked. Thanks

[Mr.Badham]

Gravity is obvious and yet completely unexplained and mysterious.
Assuming god exists and it matters to humans in some way, why does he hide more than gravity?

Gravity proves that god could make his existence obvious to all while maintaining absolute secrecy concerning any interactions or their mechanics.

Gravity is god. God doesn't make his existence known through gravity. God's existence is felt through gravity.

I think.