Religion

eomer

(3,845 posts)

38. It's an essential distinction for the OP's question.

Sat Jun 15, 2013, 12:51 PM

Jun 2013

If a "law" that is nothing more than a human attempt at description is violated then the description is flawed and needs to be rewritten.

The belief that the OP is talking about would be that there are laws that are part of nature but that there's something beyond nature that can suspend them. To make sense, such a belief would need to have a coherent definition of what it is to be beyond nature and yet still exist. Why would such an entity not be part of nature if it exists? Why would its ability to exert force not be part of the laws of nature?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the belief that the laws of physics were/can be suspended by a supernatural force... [View all] cleanhippie Jun 2013 OP

Not necessarily Turbineguy Jun 2013 #1

Yes, I'm referring to people of today. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #5

Nah. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #2

Why not? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #6

Such beliefs, rrneck Jun 2013 #9

I'm afraid that the temporary, willing suspension of disbelief � MrModerate Jun 2013 #37

I'm on a phone right now but rrneck Jun 2013 #39

Sure I believe in the scientific method . . . MrModerate Jun 2013 #44

Fiction vs. fictitious rrneck Jun 2013 #46

If you believe in fiction, you can do anything. immoderate Jun 2013 #3

Not if you make it part of your belief system that the natural laws of the universe... trotsky Jun 2013 #4

So any belief in any god would require one to willfully suspend durbin Jun 2013 #7

Well, yeah. Iggo Jun 2013 #30

No. rug Jun 2013 #8

+1 hrmjustin Jun 2013 #10

+2 okasha Jun 2013 #11

-3 Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #18

+4 rug Jun 2013 #19

shucks i was hoping for the fibonacci sequence. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #21

btw if you're grasping for a comeback.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #22

Gimme a sec rug Jun 2013 #23

take 2 Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #24

It's positively ethereal. rug Jun 2013 #25

luminiferous even. beautiful. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #26

That was cool. Thanks. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #29

+1.6 goldent Jun 2013 #28

Yep... MellowDem Jun 2013 #12

The notion that the laws of physics could be suspended by a supernatural force struggle4progress Jun 2013 #13

I view this as an exception. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #14

Three (maybe four) posters seem to say "no" to the question. durbin Jun 2013 #15

With those posters you mention, they are demonstrating their hatred of me. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #34

In what respect, Charlie? eomer Jun 2013 #16

the distinction isn't that stark. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #20

It's a distinction of definition, which is the starkest kind. eomer Jun 2013 #31

it's not a useful distinction and historically inaccurate to boot.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #33

It's an essential distinction for the OP's question. eomer Jun 2013 #38

Exactly...the very concept of the "supernatural" skepticscott Jun 2013 #36

i just wish folks were as eager to pay $10+ to.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #17

Not if believers can prove it actually happens. Deep13 Jun 2013 #27

a few thousand years and still counting durbin Jun 2013 #32

Right WovenGems Jun 2013 #35

Oh, there have been stories of miracles since then. Deep13 Jun 2013 #40

Seperation WovenGems Jun 2013 #41

Except the sociologist brings her own cultural constructs to whatever the project is. Deep13 Jun 2013 #42

Medieval WovenGems Jun 2013 #43

No, now is decidedly not medieval. Deep13 Jun 2013 #48

I'd say such a belief goldent Jun 2013 #45

The usual argument is that the really good miracles happened before the laws of physics were passed, dimbear Jun 2013 #47

Practically: yes. "Supernatural" anything is a rejection of science. Hume covered that. enki23 Jun 2013 #49