A (Possible) Theory on the scientific explanation for all "super"natural phenomena

[Providence]

First off, modern mathematics and physics have proved that the universe has no boundaries. A man with a telescope powerful enough would see the back of his head, and a bullet travelling fast enough from a gun would eventually come back and strike the same man (if there was nothing in the way, planets, stars, e.t.c)

 

So, to start off, let's imagine the one dimensional universe:

_____________ The line to the left is a one dimensional-universe (imagine the line had no width) A dot living on this can move only back and forth. In order for this universe to have NO BOUNDARIES, one must wrap it into a circle. In this way, the dot will move continuosly in a circle. The circle is a TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHAPE, yet a ONE-DIMENSIONAL universe is wrapped around it...continuing

 

 

Imagine a two dimension universe which is a plane "2-D rectangle with no height" A dot moving on it would invariably reach an edge...UNLESS...the plane is wrapped into a sphere. In this way, the dot will continue moving around, even if it moved north, south, east or west. The TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHAPE (plane) was wrapped around a THREE-DIMENSIONAL shape (sphere) Maybe you can see where I'm going with this.

 

Imagine a three dimensional universe, in which a man can move through X,Y,Z axes. However, there is an edge to this universe. Following the previous pattern, what Four Dimensional Shape can we wrap this sphere around, so that not only can you go forever left, right, forward, and backward, but also that you can move upwards and downwards continuosly too!? The human mind, I'm afraid, is not equipped with the necessary hardware to visualize this, nor is the brain, the heart, the lungs or anything. However, there may be something that is...

 

 

There are very few truly 2-D occurances in our universe. A paper is 3d and the drawing on the paper is 3d. However, take a shadow, for instance. If I shoot a beam of light at a person, the resulting shadow will be genuinely two dimensional. Now, if I shot light at a four dimensional object...would not the shadow be 3D. This, in my belief, can explain the phenomena of a ghost. Now, one may wonder, where is this 4D object that the ghost is a shadow of? Let's move on.

 

Since I cannot visualize the proportions of a 4D object, I will consider it as a sort of dimension that we are inside of. Or better yet, a dimension that is inside of us. Either one should suffice, since it really doesn't matter, as we can't really visualize this. Continuing...think about the "soul". Countless studies have rendered it unseeable, unhearable, untouchable...pretty much undetectable in most respects. Now, I am a faithful believer in God, but I believe that His word and the teachings of His Son directly intertwine with science, and that religion and science MUST compliment each other, with no exception. So...back to the "soul". I believe that the soul has been "infused" into each human, EACH ONE, both non-religious and religious. This soul is our only connection to the fourth dimension. Image it as a receptor and a broadcaster, continuosly relaying our thoughts to God and back again.

 

One of the many questions children ask is "how does God see everybody at once?" Many parents just say he is omniscient and omnipotent (of course in a child's terms), and I do not deny this. It could be possible that within the fourth dimension, one has complete "spectatorship" over everything. However, I do not believe God is restricted simply to the fourth dimension, He is not restricted to anything. What I do believe is that heaven is in this fourth dimension (and possibly Hell).

 

Back to ghosts...these ghosts could be the shadows of people in the fourth dimension. Much like a two dimensional shadow can make images like those shadow animals that one can make on a wall, a three dimensional shadow can be animated.

 

There are many supernatural phenomena, and I am certain they can all be explained with science. I belive that God lives in an even greater dimension, even in no dimensional at all, and he can flit between all the dimensions at will. I also believe that with this definition, "time" is NOT a dimension, and that it is just a sequence of events moving towards an END. The Earth and the universe are by most accounts billions of years old, and the Bible DOES NOT CONTRADICT THIS. THE ADDITION OF PEOPLE's ages cannot tell you the true age of the Earth, and Genesis does not give that impression if it is read closely.

 

I hope I didn't post this in the wrong place, and I hope that it is a sound theory.

[Klaynos]

My first comment, is just a quick one, that will be made by others if I don't make it.

 

I see no maths, therefore it's not predictive, therefore it's not a theory.

 

||Edit

 

My second point is that the opening premis is not correct, science has not shown that, a loop universe is a current likely situation but it is not proved... and astrophysicists seem to like to change their mind about it every few years...

 

Also Space doesn't have to act like a piece of paper...

[frgregory]

Just in the same way that science does not need divine explanations (God-of-the-gaps) so theology does not need scientific wriggle room. Put another way, let's not divinise creation and (for those considering the matter) let's not naturalise the deity.

 

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is the natural and and there is God (or not depending on one's point of view). I have seen some arguments for the existence of God based on the necessity of a Transcendent Observer to sustain existence over non-existence. That's theology though, not cosmology or quantum theory .... and, as someone here is bound to remind us pretty quickly ... this is a science forum.

 

(Yes, I am a believer myself ... a priest in the Orthodox Church).

[lucaspa]

First off, modern mathematics and physics have proved that the universe has no boundaries. A man with a telescope powerful enough would see the back of his head, and a bullet travelling fast enough from a gun would eventually come back and strike the same man (if there was nothing in the way, planets, stars, e.t.c)

 

Uh, not really. That still means the universe has boundaries; it just means the universe is "closed".

 

The idea that ghosts are in the "fourth dimension" doesn't work, because WE are in the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is time. We live in a 4-dimensional spacetime. Three dimensions of space and one of time.

 

Just in the same way that science does not need divine explanations (God-of-the-gaps) so theology does not need scientific wriggle room.

 

I would say that theology doesn't need god-of-the-gaps either! See quote at end of post.

 

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as the supernatural. There is the natural and and there is God (or not depending on one's point of view).

 

You seem to be separating God from the "natural". That is, where there is 'natural' there is not God. That's god-of-the-gaps. Strictly speaking as science, we cannot say that natural = without God.

 

I have seen some arguments for the existence of God based on the necessity of a Transcendent Observer to sustain existence over non-existence.

 

Yeah. That idea fell apart when it was discovered that the quantum possibilities collapsed whether they were observed or not. Sorry, but Schroedinger's Cat does not stay both dead and alive. At some point -- without observation -- it is either dead OR alive, but not both.

 

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

[frgregory]

Lucaspa

 

I agree with the whole of your post but I think you have misunderstood mine about "supernature." I DISTINGUISH (but do not separate) God and Creation. This is an ontological matter ... God is Uncreated ... everything else is created. Supernature blurs this distinction and as a non-pantheist I think that the term is at best misleading and at worst wrongheaded.

[lucaspa]

I DISTINGUISH (but do not separate) God and Creation. This is an ontological matter ... God is Uncreated ... everything else is created. Supernature blurs this distinction and as a non-pantheist I think that the term is at best misleading and at worst wrongheaded.

 

1. It is standard theology to separate God and Creation. Creation is the result of action by God.

2. I don't see how "supernatural" blurs the distinction. Instead it makes the distinction if done properly. Creation is "nature", God is "supernature". I might see your point if you were thinking of things like ghosts in the category "supernature".

3. If you do not use "supernatural" to distinguish God from Creation, what term do you use? I would think that eliminating "supernatural" would lead to pantheism or panentheism. After all, if everything is "natural", then God is part of Creation, not distinguished from it.

[frgregory]

This is only now a semantic problem. "Supernatural" (at least as far as people tend to use the term in the UK) is all about ghosts, the paranormal etc. etc.) I don't see that we need such a euphemistic term anyway. God is God. Creation is creation, nature - nature. Tautology rules!

[Phi for All]

Here at SFN, we make the distinction that God is, by His own choice, unobservable, which places Him outside natural causality. While this distinguishes Him from other supernatural phenomena, for the purposes of science God is just as unmeasurable as ghosts and unicorns.

 

We can easily adopt the distinction between "supernatural" and "paranormal" and I think for this and future purposes we should do just that. After all, if someone proves ghosts exist, they become normal. If God shows Himself it completely destroys the idea of faith without proof.

[frgregory]

From the perspective of Orthodox Christianity (as in "Greek Orthodox etc. uppercase "O") there is much to agree on here but one or two clarifications are in order I think ...

 

From our point of view, faith etc., God certainly of His own will and choice but also of out his own hypertranscendent NATURE (as consistent with that sovereign voluntarism) is absolutely unobservable and not subject to any natural causation. He is indeed unmeasurable, uncontainable, ineffable and all the other apophatic terms!)

 

The distinction between "supernatural" and "paranormal" is useful, thank you.

 

This, however, is slightly more problematic from our point of view ... we do not claim proof but there are more subtle but vital nuances.

 

If God shows Himself it completely destroys the idea of faith without proof.

 

The Judaeo-Christian tradition (OT and OT/NT) is quite happy to affirm that God shows himself whilst in His own nature never being observable remains unmeasurable etc. The self manifestation of God (theophanies) is always allusive and not a knock down experience or proof in the usual empirical sense. In the Bush Unburning he appears to Moses (alone). His divine radiance is manifest to Peter, James and John (alone) at the Transfiguration of Christ. The Risen Lord appears to those chosen and called but not to everyone.

 

Clearly, these theophanies lie outside natural causation as well. If they did not they would be repeatable, universal and falsifiable according to the usual methods of empirical testing. However, they are claimed to be objective manifestations of God NOT as to his nature (for that would be emanationist / pantheistic) but as to his energies ... accommodated to the creature but having a Source transcendent to the creature. Of course the alleged effects of such theophanies in the lives of the believers IS measurable even if God is denied as their true Source.

 

For Orthodox Christians, this distinction between the apophatic, utterly transcendent, Unknowable, Unmeasurable, Unobservable nature and the selective theophanic manifestation of His energies is an abolutely vital aspect of our religious schema. The distinction was rarely if ever accepted in the west (by either Roman Catholic or Protestant traditions). It is one thing that distinguishes eastern and western Christianity to this day.

 

I explain this not to argue for any change here on these boards ... I am merely concerned to clarify the issues from our point of view ... for which I thank you for reading!

[lucaspa]

Here at SFN, we make the distinction that God is, by His own choice, unobservable, which places Him outside natural causality. While this distinguishes Him from other supernatural phenomena, for the purposes of science God is just as unmeasurable as ghosts and unicorns.

 

Then SFN needs to change its opinion. The problem is not with God, but science. Science, by its methodology, simply cannot detect God WITHIN "natural causality". This is called Methodological Naturalism and arises from how we do science. Science detects causality by comparing experiments where we know the entity is present to those where we know the entity is absent.

 

For instance, we explore the causal agents for the production of water by looking at hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark. So, we set up chambers (experiments) where we have:

1. Hydrogen alone

2. Oxygen alone

3. Oxygen and hydrogen

4. A vacuum but an electrical spark.

5. Hydrogen + spark

6. Oxygen + spark

7. Hydrogen + oxygen + spark

 

What we get from all this is that hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark are the material agents/causes necessary for water formation. BUT, is God also necessary. How can we test for that? We would have to have 2 chambers: one where we knew God was present and one where we knew God was absent. We can't do that.

 

So, are the causal agents for water formation hydrogen + oxygen + spark + God? We don't know and can't find out. Not God's problem, but science's.

 

Science is limited to looking at only material causes and is completely clueless as to whether, or not, there are other than material causes.

 

God gets into science by the backdoor in that people propose a material cause by which God works. Such as causing a material world-wide Flood to cause geology. Or directly manufacturing irreducibly complex structures. We then test the material cause. Notice we don't test God.

 

So, if you hypothesize, like Darwin quoted in the Fontispiece to Origin of Species, that all "natural" causes depend on God having them take place, then God is indispensable but undetectable.

 

BTW, the original formulation of unicorn can be, and has been, falsified. Remember, unicorns were material, horse-sized animals that lived in Europe. Well, we've searched all of Europe and no material horse-sized animals that are unicorns. Unicorns falsified. The problem is that, due to Methodological Materialism, science can't do the same search for God.

 

If God shows Himself it completely destroys the idea of faith without proof.

 

For people who claim God has shown Himself or communicated, then they don't have your idea of "faith without proof", do they? Would you say the Hebrews watching the Parting of the Red Sea had "faith without proof"? Or Doubting Thomas? Or even Saul of Tarsus with his experience on the road to Damascus?

 

The difference, Phil, is that God has not shown Himself to YOU. Therefore, you would have to have "faith without proof" -- altho if you trusted that the accounts were accurate you would have "faith with evidence".

 

From our point of view, faith etc., God certainly of His own will and choice but also of out his own hypertranscendent NATURE (as consistent with that sovereign voluntarism) is absolutely unobservable and not subject to any natural causation.

 

I think the issue isn't whether God is subject ot natural causation, but whether natural causation is due to God. I will stick to my claim that God is unobservable due to limitations of science, not choice by God (altho there may be an element of that, too).

 

For Orthodox Christians, this distinction between the apophatic, utterly transcendent, Unknowable, Unmeasurable, Unobservable nature and the selective theophanic manifestation of His energies is an abolutely vital aspect of our religious schema. The distinction was rarely if ever accepted in the west (by either Roman Catholic or Protestant traditions).

 

Can you break this down to more everyday English, please? What specifically is "apophatic" and "theophanic manifestation"? How exactly is there a distinction between Orthodox and Catholic and Protestantism? Thank you.

[frgregory]

Dear Lucaspa

 

APOPHATIC refers to the unkowability of God's nature or being, (I DON'T mean what he is like, his character, his actions, his attributes). I mean God-in-Himself ... his substantive inner reality or essence. So he is IN ... INvisiible, INcomprehensible, INeffable etc...

 

THEOPHANIC refers to God in his Love revealing Himself, coming amongst us in Christ, sending down upon us the Holy Spirit ... relating to us, guiding us, transforming us from one degree of glory to the next ... in short God-usward ... his energies.

 

Like a Black Hole ... you can't see inside but you can measure the effects on the environment in an exterior manner.

[Phi for All]

Then SFN needs to change its opinion.

It's not an opinion, it's a mechanism by which we agree to abide so we can have talks about religion on a science forum. Trust me, without it every thread in the old Philosophy & Religion sub-forum ended up in flames.

The problem is not with God, but science.

False Dilemma. Who said there was a problem with God?

Science, by its methodology, simply cannot detect God WITHIN "natural causality". This is called Methodological Naturalism and arises from how we do science. Science detects causality by comparing experiments where we know the entity is present to those where we know the entity is absent.

Sounds familiar. I think that's pretty much what I said earlier.

So, are the causal agents for water formation hydrogen + oxygen + spark + God? We don't know and can't find out. Not God's problem, but science's.

Again, there wasn't a problem to begin with. God can't be tested or predicted by science. Why should it be either's fault?

Science is limited to looking at only material causes and is completely clueless as to whether, or not, there are other than material causes.

Well, yeah, exactly. So why should SFN change a mechanism that might lead to the resurrection of the P&R forum?

 

God gets into science by the backdoor in that people propose a material cause by which God works. Such as causing a material world-wide Flood to cause geology. Or directly manufacturing irreducibly complex structures. We then test the material cause. Notice we don't test God.

 

So, if you hypothesize, like Darwin quoted in the Fontispiece to Origin of Species, that all "natural" causes depend on God having them take place, then God is indispensable but undetectable.

BTW, the original formulation of unicorn can be, and has been, falsified. Remember, unicorns were material, horse-sized animals that lived in Europe. Well, we've searched all of Europe and no material horse-sized animals that are unicorns. Unicorns falsified. The problem is that, due to Methodological Materialism, science can't do the same search for God.

 

For people who claim God has shown Himself or communicated, then they don't have your idea of "faith without proof", do they? Would you say the Hebrews watching the Parting of the Red Sea had "faith without proof"? Or Doubting Thomas? Or even Saul of Tarsus with his experience on the road to Damascus?

Individual experiences that are not repeatable can't be observed or tested. You can't make any predictions. Again, this falls within the definitions of the distinction I made earlier.

The difference, Phil, is that God has not shown Himself to YOU. Therefore, you would have to have "faith without proof" -- altho if you trusted that the accounts were accurate you would have "faith with evidence".

I'm not Phil. And I don't see where even my personal account of observing God would qualify as scientific evidence.

I think the issue isn't whether God is subject ot natural causation, but whether natural causation is due to God. I will stick to my claim that God is unobservable due to limitations of science, not choice by God (altho there may be an element of that, too).

This allows people like creationists to attempt to use science against itself. Intelligent Design adherents love to point to the limitations of science. Again, for our purposes here, we have to agree on certain mechanisms or every thread devolves into meaninglessness. Perhaps if we were a religion forum it could be different but we're not and don't want to be.