The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

Question:
Why should the burden of proof be placed on Supernaturalists (those who believe in the supernatural) to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural, rather than on Materialists to disprove it, as in "Materialists have to explain why the supernatural can't be the explanation"?

Argument:

Placing the burden of proof on Supernaturalists to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural is a logical and epistemologically sound approach. This perspective aligns with the principles of evidence-based reasoning, the scientific method, and critical thinking. Several key reasons support this stance.

Default Position of Skepticism: In debates about the supernatural, it is rational to start from a position of skepticism. This is in line with the philosophical principle of "nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it) and the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on those making the extraordinary claim of the existence of the supernatural.

Presumption of Naturalism: Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, the default assumption has been naturalism. Naturalism posits that the universe and its phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This presumption is based on the consistent success of naturalistic explanations in understanding the world around us. After all, since both the Naturalist and Supernaturalist believe the Natural exists, we only need to establish the existence of the Supernatural (or, whatever someone decides to posit beyond the Natural.)

Absence of Empirical Evidence: The supernatural, by its very nature, is often described as beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. Claims related to the supernatural, such as deities, spirits, or paranormal phenomena, typically lack concrete, testable evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those advocating for the supernatural to provide compelling and verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Problem of Unfalsifiability: Many supernatural claims are unfalsifiable: they cannot be tested or disproven. This raises significant epistemological challenges. Demanding that Materialists disprove unfalsifiable supernatural claims places an unreasonable burden on them. Instead, it is more reasonable to require Supernaturalists to provide testable claims and evidence.

In conclusion, the burden of proof should rest on Supernaturalists to provide convincing and verifiable evidence for the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural. This approach respects the principles of skepticism, scientific inquiry, and parsimonious reasoning, ultimately fostering a more rational and evidence-based discussion of the supernatural in the context of understanding our world and its mysteries.

If they can't provide evidence of the supernatural, then there is no reason for Naturalists to take their claims seriously: Any of their claims that include the supernatural. That includes all religious claims that involve supernatural claims.

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief. We all know they can't (they would have by now), but the burden is on them, and it's high time they at least give an honest effort.

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[The Tanager]

Sorry I didn’t see your last post here before.

The biblical God is not "supernatural". It is religion which has developed this embellishment to “clothe” the God-Mind in and (whatever the purpose for doing so) it is clearly an unnecessary cloth.

I’m open to hearing your case that the biblical God is not supernatural.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. It does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of.

The biblical (or wider philosophical) case for creatio ex nihilo isn’t dependent on Genesis 1:1 alone, but I still think this is what that verse is teaching. Genesis 1:1 is a main, independent clause and “the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew idiom that means the whole physical universe. There is no mention of pre-existing material, there are no warring gods and primordial dragons like in the creation myths around them. There is simply God and God creates the world.

Therefore there is no necessity to assume or infer from the description that God created the universe from some previously non-existent material (re ex nihilo) or that the God-mind itself exists "outside" of the universe.

Phrasing it as creating it from a non-existent material is ripe to cause mistakes because it treats ‘nothing’ as a thing that exists when it is not. Ex nihilo means there was no material cause. There was nothing, then there was matter.

And logic requires that the thing creating the universe existed without (“outside of”) it.

“And God said” stands as a testament to the eventual discovery (science) that all things vibrate and have unique signatures (re planets as one example) and given that information we can conclude that this is how the God-mind “brings particles together” in order for them to present as the objects human beings can measure and observe (experience).

Genesis talks about God saying and God doing, so it’s not always “God said”, but this is also a huge jump. You are reading science back into an ancient text; it doesn’t talk about all things vibrating and having unique frequency signatures. It doesn’t connect that thought into the phrase “God said”. “God said” could simply be a metaphorical way to talk about God creating.

If The Cause is initially dressed up in the cloth of supernaturalism, every subsequent story is interpreted through that lens of supernaturalism.
This spills over into the real world where unexplained (as yet) phenomena are also dressed in the same cloth.

While some will assume it, others reach that belief as a rational conclusion from other arguments. Those people do not try to explain unexplained phenomena as “God did it” because that is a textbook fallacy known as God of the gaps.

Thus, supernaturalism is what is biblically referred to as creating “a false image” (of The Cause and everything thereafter) and where the practice of idol worship originates.

I’ve already stated how the premise leading to this conclusion is flawed, but, taking this statement alone, idol worship is never explained as making God supernatural when He isn’t.

The answer is consistency. For example a supernaturalist arguing for kalam points to science "seeming to point that way" and yet the same supernaturalist when cornered, makes the claim that "There are some truths science cannot touch. Including the truth of science." effectively picking and choosing how science is used re method of "verifying" beliefs

While some supernaturalists do this, most do not and especially not the trained thinkers. The Kalam is argued for philosophical reasons and scientific confirmations are added but secondary. The same supernaturalist, from the get go, not “when cornered”, also philosophically argues for how science logically cannot touch some truths including the truth of science. This isn’t picking and choosing, but following logic and evidence where it leads.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #481]


Reassessing Theological Frameworks: Incorporating Scientific Insights into the Kalam Cosmological Argument

The biblical (or wider philosophical) case for creatio ex nihilo isn’t dependent on Genesis 1:1 alone, but I still think this is what that verse is teaching. Genesis 1:1 is a main, independent clause and “the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew idiom that means the whole physical universe. There is no mention of pre-existing material, there are no warring gods and primordial dragons like in the creation myths around them. There is simply God and God creates the world.

Creation myths are not being argued, and the belief in there being a case for creatio ex nihilo may well be part of the folklore (mythology) you mention. Magical god mythologies are to be placed among the warring gods and primordial dragons mythologies, rather than assigned as "other than".

The story does not imply/does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of.

Therefore there is no necessity to assume or infer from the description that God created the universe from some previously non-existent material (re ex nihilo) or that the God-mind itself exists "outside" of the universe.

Phrasing it as creating it from a non-existent material is ripe to cause mistakes because it treats ‘nothing’ as a thing that exists when it is not. Ex nihilo means there was no material cause. There was nothing, then there was matter.

And logic requires that the thing creating the universe existed without (“outside of”) it.

We disagree.

“And God said” stands as a testament to the eventual discovery (science) that all things vibrate and have unique signatures (re planets as one example) and given that information we can conclude that this is how the God-mind “brings particles together” in order for them to present as the objects human beings can measure and observe (experience).

Genesis talks about God saying and God doing, so it’s not always “God said”, but this is also a huge jump.

In the beginning was the word. Gods saying is what makes things happen. God doing is the result of what is spoken.
The word represents the "speaking" and the speaking represents the source of the doing/something being done - (result of the action of speaking).

You are reading science back into an ancient text;

I am reading what science has so far uncovered and aligning it with an ancient text.

It doesn’t talk about all things vibrating and having unique frequency signatures.

No it doesn't. But it does give the source as to why those things are vibrating and having unique frequency signatures and what the cause of the vibrating is.

“God said” could simply be a metaphorical way to talk about God creating.

In which case it could simply be treated as a part of the mythology and belong with the magic gods, dragons and warring gods. (Department of Mythology).

However, aligning science with the idea of "God Speaking things into existence" is being done here - not as something which is simply treated as a metaphorical way to talk about God creating, but by taking a verified fact and aligning that with a known ancient passage to do with beginning events of the universe.

Sure, it would be unnecessary to assign the ancient biblical idea of God, as actually having a body with a mouth in which He speaks from/words come from, as if He were one of those magic gods of mythology who stood there and just made things happen by speaking them into existence.
Obviously I am not saying that as my thinking on this is that the universe itself is contained within The Creator Mind and thus it would be the thoughts of this entity which produces the vibrations which produce the forms and the material is simply of The Creator Mind itself, thus The Creator Mind must consist of material rather than being immaterial.

Immaterial therefore belongs in the mythological category along with those other subjects.

If The Cause is initially dressed up in the cloth of supernaturalism, every subsequent story is interpreted through that lens of supernaturalism.
This spills over into the real world where unexplained (as yet) phenomena are also dressed in the same cloth.

While some will assume it, others reach that belief as a rational conclusion from other arguments. Those people do not try to explain unexplained phenomena as “God did it” because that is a textbook fallacy known as God of the gaps.

That argument is wrought through the framework of materialism. I thought you also have it that the universe exists because “God did it”?
My argument is focused upon HOW God did it, aligned with what science has uncovered (re the unique vibrational frequency properties of objects)

Thus, supernaturalism is what is biblically referred to as creating “a false image” (of The Cause and everything thereafter) and where the practice of idol worship originates.

I’ve already stated how the premise leading to this conclusion is flawed, but, taking this statement alone, idol worship is never explained as making God supernatural when He isn’t.

Not my point. I am saying that dressing God up in something that God isn't, and worshiping that dressed-up version, is idol worship.
IF there is no such thing as "supernatural" THEN to worship the idea of a supernatural God, would be idol (false image) worship.

Contrary to that, if God is material vibrating at the finest incomprehensible frequency from which all other frequencies derive then one leaves no room for the possibility of false imagery, because no image/form can be found within said frequency and even that all forms which derive from said source-frequency vibrate at other frequencies these are not independent from the source frequency nor are to be seen as such.

They are not to be mistaken/substituted for being "God" as they are products of The creator mind, not The Creator Mind vibrating at its own unique frequency.

This is not to say that one cannot "detect" said vibration within any form and in the recognition agree with that being the case. That in itself would not constitute idol worship unless the form alone is given precedence over the mind animating said form. Unless the form itself became the presentation of God, rather than the mind within the form, animating said form.

(This also applies to Jesus - to the story of and how one is supposed to respond - not to the image of the man but to the mind animating and speaking through the man.)

To worship the man/image of the man is idol worship and also places such imagery alongside all the other mythologem entities aforementioned.

The answer is consistency. For example a supernaturalist arguing for kalam points to science "seeming to point that way" and yet the same supernaturalist when cornered, makes the claim that "There are some truths science cannot touch. Including the truth of science." effectively picking and choosing how science is used re method of "verifying" beliefs

While some supernaturalists do this, most do not and especially not the trained thinkers.

It is the "trained thinkers" I am specifically pointing out as being influenced by the very training they have been/are trained on.

The Kalam is argued for philosophical reasons and scientific confirmations are added but secondary. The same supernaturalist, from the get go, not “when cornered”, also philosophically argues for how science logically cannot touch some truths including the truth of science. This isn’t picking and choosing, but following logic and evidence where it leads.

Yet the Kalam (and Craig's particular interpretation of the Kalam) are not even taking into account what science has uncovered re frequency and vibration perhaps for the same reason you are not doing so either. Because "ancient writing did not specifically mention such things in relation to said ancient creation-stories" - which clearly is a case of "picking and choosing".

IF the Kalam did incorporate those aspects mentioned, THEN Craigs (and your) interpretation that God is supernatural would have to be adjusted – the information such personalities have been “trained” on, would be agreed to be/have been incomplete.

[The Tanager]

Creation myths are not being argued, and the belief in there being a case for creatio ex nihilo may well be part of the folklore (mythology) you mention. Magical god mythologies are to be placed among the warring gods and primordial dragons mythologies, rather than assigned as "other than".

You are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, to make sure it’s clear, “myth” is not a synonym for false or anything like that. Second, I’m not saying creatio ex nihilo was part of those other myths; they often have pre-existing matter or individuals other than God before God fashions that stuff into the world. Genesis is “other than” in that it doesn’t have that stuff. It’s just God and then God creates the heavens and the earth (i.e., the physical universe).

The story does not imply/does not say that first God created the substance from which the universe was then made of.

I agree. It doesn’t say God made stuff and then made the universe out of that stuff. It doesn’t say God took stuff already present (either matter or his own stuff) and made the universe out of that. It says in the beginning God made everything that exists.

Phrasing it as creating it from a non-existent material is ripe to cause mistakes because it treats ‘nothing’ as a thing that exists when it is not. Ex nihilo means there was no material cause. There was nothing, then there was matter.

And logic requires that the thing creating the universe existed without (“outside of”) it.

We disagree.

It would be very helpful to say where and to show why.

I am reading what science has so far uncovered and aligning it with an ancient text.

Science has not uncovered that “God said” refers to how all things vibrate and have unique signatures.

Obviously I am not saying that as my thinking on this is that the universe itself is contained within The Creator Mind and thus it would be the thoughts of this entity which produces the vibrations which produce the forms and the material is simply of The Creator Mind itself, thus The Creator Mind must consist of material rather than being immaterial.

Immaterial therefore belongs in the mythological category along with those other subjects.

Sure, if you can establish the earlier ‘ifs’ like the universe is contained within The Creator Mind and the material is The Creator Mind itself as being actual.

That argument is wrought through the framework of materialism. I thought you also have it that the universe exists because “God did it”?
My argument is focused upon HOW God did it, aligned with what science has uncovered (re the unique vibrational frequency properties of objects)

I do believe the universe exists because God did it, but I believe that because of rational arguments, not just because science hasn’t been able to explain that bit yet and so I put the religious cloth over that naked body.

Not my point. I am saying that dressing God up in something that God isn't, and worshiping that dressed-up version, is idol worship.
IF there is no such thing as "supernatural" THEN to worship the idea of a supernatural God, would be idol (false image) worship.

Sure, but now you need to establish the truth of the ‘if’.

Contrary to that, if God is material vibrating at the finest incomprehensible frequency from which all other frequencies derive then one leaves no room for the possibility of false imagery,...

Okay. Are you saying that is a good test of truth? That no possibility of ‘false imagery’ is a reason to think “God is material” is true? If not, then what is the relevance of this point? Or is it just a difference you noted between the two views?

It is the "trained thinkers" I am specifically pointing out as being influenced by the very training they have been/are trained on.

But if the training is based on truth, that’s a good thing. And pointing to scientific confirmation of the premises of the Kalam (while also noting the philosophical support) and saying that there are some questions science can’t answer by its very own definition is not “picking and choosing” the use of science for one’s beliefs.

Yet the Kalam (and Craig's particular interpretation of the Kalam) are not even taking into account what science has uncovered re frequency and vibration perhaps for the same reason you are not doing so either. Because "ancient writing did not specifically mention such things in relation to said ancient creation-stories" - which clearly is a case of "picking and choosing".

Why do you think they aren’t taking that into account? Why do you think it is rejected because ancient writing didn’t mention it? What premise of the Kalam should this change?

IF the Kalam did incorporate those aspects mentioned, THEN Craigs (and your) interpretation that God is supernatural would have to be adjusted – the information such personalities have been “trained” on, would be agreed to be/have been incomplete.

Science talks of the frequency of things, but how does that affect what it means to be ‘supernatural’? You haven’t established that God is material through the observations of vibration and frequency.

[Difflugia]

The biblical (or wider philosophical) case for creatio ex nihilo isn’t dependent on Genesis 1:1 alone, but I still think this is what that verse is teaching. Genesis 1:1 is a main, independent clause and “the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew idiom that means the whole physical universe. There is no mention of pre-existing material, there are no warring gods and primordial dragons like in the creation myths around them. There is simply God and God creates the world.

There are a number of scholars that think this particular view of Genesis 1:1 is a translation error. Instead of, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," it should read something like, "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the Earth," or, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the Earth." Instead of God creating a heavens and Earth that were formless and void, the Earth was already formless and void when God began His creation. Here is Robert Alter's translation of Genesis 1:1-3:

When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

The Anchor Bible volume by Speiser contains a similar translation along with this note:

The first word of Genesis, and hence the first word in the Hebrew Bible as a unit, is vocalized as b^erẹ̄'šīt. Grammatically, this is evidently in the construct state, that is, the first of two connected forms which jointly yield a possessive compound. Thus the sense of this particular initial term is, or should be, "At the beginning of ... ," or "When," and not "In/At the beginning"; the absolute form with adverbial connotation would be bārẹ̄'šīt. As the text is now vocalized, therefore, the Hebrew Bible starts out with a dependent clause.

Jeremiah 26:1 also begins with בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית and offers an interesting comparison (emphasis mine):

In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from Yahweh, saying,

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #483]

You are misunderstanding what I’m saying. First, to make sure it’s clear, “myth” is not a synonym for false or anything like that.

I am fine with the idea that “myth” is not a synonym for false or anything like that and we can agree that not all mythology is true. Sorting one from the other is a task.

Second, I’m not saying creatio ex nihilo was part of those other myths; they often have pre-existing matter or individuals other than God before God fashions that stuff into the world. Genesis is “other than” in that it doesn’t have that stuff. It’s just God and then God creates the heavens and the earth (i.e., the physical universe).

Therein (the training you mentioned). The idea for the myth re ex nihilo derives from the detail-lacking creation story in "Genesis". Since Genesis omitts detail, are we justified in inventing the idea of ex nihilo and declaring it logical and reasonable belief?

Science has not uncovered that “God said” refers to how all things vibrate and have unique signatures.

Not what I am saying. I am saying that the science already shown to be true, points and supports a particular way of looking at things.

Immaterial therefore belongs in the mythological category along with those other subjects.

Sure, if you can establish the earlier ‘ifs’ like the universe is contained within The Creator Mind and the material is The Creator Mind itself as being actual.

Both our positions on the matter, have that burden to bear.
I am simply pointing to viable alternatives which explain the details left out (even to the point of Craig's interpretation of the Kalam and perhaps even the Kalam too.) re seeking a more direct "path of least resistance".

I do believe the universe exists because God did it, but I believe that because of rational arguments, not just because science hasn’t been able to explain that bit yet and so I put the religious cloth over that naked body.

We each have our way of doing things.

I agree with the interpretation of the vibration (sound) and frequency (also sound) that it belongs with the idea of God (as the creator) speaking objects into existence and that this is accomplished due to the material already existing through which such vibration and frequency "awakes" and "becomes".

if God is material vibrating at the finest incomprehensible frequency from which all other frequencies derive then one leaves no room for the possibility of false imagery,...

Okay. Are you saying that is a good test of truth? That no possibility of ‘false imagery’ is a reason to think “God is material” is true?

I am saying that without the possibility of false imagery, one cannot be tempted into thinking what is dressed up as "God" is - in fact - a true representation.

It is the "trained thinkers" I am specifically pointing out as being influenced by the very training they have been/are trained on.

But if the training is based on truth, that’s a good thing.

To say it the same way you do, "sure, but now you need to establish the truth of the ‘if’".

And pointing to scientific confirmation of the premises of the Kalam (while also noting the philosophical support) and saying that there are some questions science can’t answer by its very own definition is not “picking and choosing” the use of science for one’s beliefs.

I agree. What puzzles me therefore, is why you appear to resist including the science offered re the vibration frequency/God spoke aspect, since there is an alignment therein, and I don't think your reasoning is good enough because it is arguing from a position of lack of detail.

Why do you think they aren’t taking that into account?

Because you don't seem to want to do so.

Why do you think it is rejected because ancient writing didn’t mention it?

Because you appear to be arguing for the one and not also for the other.

What premise of the Kalam should this change?

Perhaps none. But it may be the case that it is Craigs interpretation which is at fault, rather than the Kalam Primary.

IF the Kalam did incorporate those aspects mentioned, THEN Craigs (and your) interpretation that God is supernatural would have to be adjusted – the information such personalities have been “trained” on, would be agreed to be/have been incomplete.

Science talks of the frequency of things, but how does that affect what it means to be ‘supernatural’?

What does it mean to be "supernatural"?

You haven’t established that God is material through the observations of vibration and frequency.

Have you established that God is immaterial?

Have we established anything other than we disagree on what The Mind is made of?

[William]

The biblical (or wider philosophical) case for creatio ex nihilo isn’t dependent on Genesis 1:1 alone, but I still think this is what that verse is teaching. Genesis 1:1 is a main, independent clause and “the heavens and the earth” is a Hebrew idiom that means the whole physical universe. There is no mention of pre-existing material, there are no warring gods and primordial dragons like in the creation myths around them. There is simply God and God creates the world.

There are a number of scholars that think this particular view of Genesis 1:1 is a translation error. Instead of, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," it should read something like, "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the Earth," or, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the Earth." Instead of God creating a heavens and Earth that were formless and void, the Earth was already formless and void when God began His creation. Here is Robert Alter's translation of Genesis 1:1-3:

When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.

The Anchor Bible volume by Speiser contains a similar translation along with this note:

The first word of Genesis, and hence the first word in the Hebrew Bible as a unit, is vocalized as b^erẹ̄'šīt. Grammatically, this is evidently in the construct state, that is, the first of two connected forms which jointly yield a possessive compound. Thus the sense of this particular initial term is, or should be, "At the beginning of ... ," or "When," and not "In/At the beginning"; the absolute form with adverbial connotation would be bārẹ̄'šīt. As the text is now vocalized, therefore, the Hebrew Bible starts out with a dependent clause.

Jeremiah 26:1 also begins with בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית and offers an interesting comparison (emphasis mine):

In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, came this word from Yahweh, saying,

"The Zohar contains discussions of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of ego to darkness and "true self" to "the light of God" and elaborates upon the Genesis creation account."

"Impact of the Zohar
As the major work of kabbalistic literature, the Zohar has influenced Jews and non-Jews alike. It set the stage for a proliferation of subsequent kabbalistic texts, such as the 16th-century writings of Rabbi Isaac Luria. The Zohar also was embraced by certain Christian scholars who saw parallels in its cosmological system to aspects of Christian theology, such as the Holy Trinity. The development of Hasidism, which distilled kabbalistic ideas into psychological concepts that could be applied to religious life, was another way in which the Zohar’s influence was felt.

And today, with new translations and scholarship making the Zohar accessible to more and more readers, the text has found new life among spiritual seekers globally."

"Shevirah - Shattering the Vessels
At the beginning of time, God’s presence filled the universe. When God decided to bring this world into being, to make room for creation, He first drew in His breath, contracting Himself. From that contraction darkness was created. And when God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3), the light that came into being filled the darkness, and ten holy vessels came forth, each filled with primordial light.
In this way God sent forth those ten vessels, like a fleet of ships, each carrying its cargo of light. Had they all arrived intact, the world would have been perfect. But the vessels were too fragile to contain such a powerful, divine light. They broke open, split asunder, and all the holy sparks were scattered like sand, like seeds, like stars. Those sparks fell everywhere, but more fell on the Holy Land than anywhere else.
That is why we were created — to gather the sparks, no matter where they are hidden. God created the world so that the descendents of Jacob could raise up the holy sparks. That is why there have been so many exiles — to release the holy sparks from the servitude of captivity. In this way the Jewish people will sift all the holy sparks from the four corners of the earth.
And when enough holy sparks have been gathered, the broken vessels will be restored, and tikkun olam, the repair of the world, awaited so long, will finally be complete. Therefore it should be the aim of everyone to raise these sparks from wherever they are imprisoned and to elevate them to holiness by the power of their soul.
Howard Schwartz, Tree of Souls, p. 122"

[The Tanager]

There are a number of scholars that think this particular view of Genesis 1:1 is a translation error. Instead of, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," it should read something like, "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the Earth," or, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the Earth." Instead of God creating a heavens and Earth that were formless and void, the Earth was already formless and void when God began His creation.

Yes, many interpret it as a subordinate circumstantial clause that modifies verse 2 rather than an independent clause or sentence. I think Claus Westermann has made a good case against that. He makes five points against the view.

One, while some people think that since bereshith (“in the beginning”) lacks a definite article, it can’t denote an absolute beginning, but there is no evidence of this principle. He also points to Isaiah 46:10 where the word mereshith (“from the beginning”) lacks a definite article but does seem to denote an absolute beginning. He also says the Masoretic text added vowel points to indicate it should be understood as an absolute beginning and the Septuagint indicates an absolute beginning as well in its translation. Later new testament texts seem to interpret it that way as well.

Two, the syntax doesn’t prove it is a subordinate clause. Elsewhere in Genesis, when the author wants to express a circumstantial idea he says something like “when God did this”. Genesis 5:1, for example, which says beyowm bero elohim adam (“in the day that God created man”).

Three, some argue that it would have been theologically impossible for primitive Hebrew authors to express creation out of nothing, but that begs the question. We must exegete the verse in the context of Genesis and other ancient creation narratives.

Four, in doing this exegesis, we see that Genesis is without parallel with those narratives. He says the usual form is “when X was not yet, then God did Y”. The first clause gives the state of affairs before God’s action, then the second gives God’s activity in making something out of that state. This seems to be used in Jer 26:1. This is used in Gen 2:5-7. It is also used in Gen 1:2-3. But before this the author puts verse 1. So, it’s an independent statement, not a subordinate clause that is placed ahead of the typical formula in ancient creation stories (and later writings like Jeremiah).

Five, it would be out of harmony with the style of the Genesis author to arrange the first 3 verses into one complete sentence.

[The Tanager]

The idea for the myth re ex nihilo derives from the detail-lacking creation story in "Genesis". Since Genesis omitts detail, are we justified in inventing the idea of ex nihilo and declaring it logical and reasonable belief?

I’ve given more of the case in responding to Difflugia above.

Not what I am saying. I am saying that the science already shown to be true, points and supports a particular way of looking at things.

I’m fine with how science talks of the frequency of material things. That fits with God being material and, by speech, affected those frequencies and it fits with that being a metaphor. Science doesn’t support one over the other.

Sure, if you can establish the earlier ‘ifs’ like the universe is contained within The Creator Mind and the material is The Creator Mind itself as being actual.

Both our positions on the matter, have that burden to bear.
I am simply pointing to viable alternatives which explain the details left out (even to the point of Craig's interpretation of the Kalam and perhaps even the Kalam too.) re seeking a more direct "path of least resistance".

Yes, but this was your position, so you have the burden to bear for that. I agree your alternative isn’t illogical and, therefore, untrue. But what details are you saying the Kalam leaves out?

We each have our way of doing things.

I agree with the interpretation of the vibration (sound) and frequency (also sound) that it belongs with the idea of God (as the creator) speaking objects into existence and that this is accomplished due to the material already existing through which such vibration and frequency "awakes" and "becomes".

There are more and less rational ways to do things. What you describe is logically possible. Logically impossible would rule something out, but just being logically possible is not a reason to believe it is actually the case. I’m not saying you are only saying that, but someone may read you as doing that in this quote.

I am saying that without the possibility of false imagery, one cannot be tempted into thinking what is dressed up as "God" is - in fact - a true representation.

I think I’m missing your point here. On your view, people do dress up Mind falsely as well.

To say it the same way you do, "sure, but now you need to establish the truth of the ‘if’".

Contextually, the “training” here results in one making sound philosophical arguments, showing how science agrees with the reasonableness of the premises, and applying logic to the definition of science. So, I’m saying that these are better reasons to believe something than picking and choosing to use science only when it backs up the conclusion you want. Are you disagreeing with that?

Because you don't seem to want to do so.

Because you appear to be arguing for the one and not also for the other.

Why do you think that? What evidence am I not taking into account? I haven’t denied the frequency stuff and I have shared how it fits in “God said” being a metaphor.

Perhaps none. But it may be the case that it is Craigs interpretation which is at fault, rather than the Kalam Primary.

Okay, but which ones do you think might need to change because of the frequency stuff (or some other scientific data)?

Science talks of the frequency of things, but how does that affect what it means to be ‘supernatural’?

What does it mean to be "supernatural"?

Outside of nature, non-natural, these things are not under the laws of nature.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #488]

What does it mean to be "supernatural"?

Outside of nature, non-natural, these things are not under the laws of nature.

So essentially, "anything a mind can experience" except for the physical universe".

My question is why is the physical universe/supernaturalism(take you pick) made out to be the exception to the rule?
What is it that makes the mind "different" to nature/the nature of nature?

We know that we cannot slice open a brain and grab the mind from it, pin it down and dissect it, but why should we therefore cast it into the pile of supernaturalism alongside ghosts and dragons and angels and demons and gods?

What makes any actual God - actually real?

Either refer to everything as "natural" or "super-duper" as we will, but by what knowledge do we have the right to assume it is one or the other?

I said to the Waterfall just minutes ago ..."First one must answer (and all must agree) as to what "we" are/refers to (exactly).

1. Are "we" some kind of supernatural "thing" ("mind") and our bodies and experiences in the universe of "things" are "natural" in comparison?

2. Are "we" simply brain-simulations which are used solely for the purpose of the bodies desire to survive for as long as it can and eventually both the simulation and the body which created the simulation "die"?

Are "we"...something else yet to be looked into? Perhaps a hybrid of (1) and (2)?"

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #489]

Yes, material and immaterial are the only logically possible categories (even when something fits in both). I'm not sure how that is one being the exception to the rule. This is just the logic of antonymical(?) categories. I think humans are a hybrid of the two.