• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Very Strong Evidence Against the Existence of the Supernatural

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I would like to make a post regarding the existence of supernatural deities. When discussing the existence of God with theists, particularly Abrahamic monotheists, the point is often raised that it is not possible for me to "disprove" the existence of the God of the Bible or Qu'ran, etc. While this is true, it is still very easy to illustrate why belief in such entities is absurd due to the extreme unlikelihood of their existence. Let's use a simple illustration with Santa Claus. I would wager that most of us on this forum are in agreement that Santa Claus does not exist. But what is our evidence for the nonexistance of Santa Claus? For me, the answer is simple, but let's take a moment to provide some reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is highly improbable, essentially to the point of certainty: He violates the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for reindeer to fly, and it is also physically impossible for a single human being to visit every household in the world on a single night. Additionally, it is physically impossible for a single bag on a small sleigh to hold all of the presents (presumably millions, if not billions) that Santa will be providing to children around the world. At best, even a very large bag could hold only a few dozen small presents, yet those who affirm the existence of Santa Claus insist that a single bag could hold millions upon millions of wrapped presents. Finally, an obese man (or any adult human being) cannot descend a chimney. At best, he could get his lower calf down the chimney before being forced to retreat. Yet those who affirm the existence of Santa believe that Santa, in all of his extreme obesity, is able to descend a chimney that is likely only a foot or so in diameter. There are many other reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is extremely improbable, but, I think it is safe to state that I have provided enough that most reasonable people would concur that the evidence against Santa's existence is overwhelming.,
No, this only proves that Santa Claus has to be supernatural, since if he were a natural man with natural reindeer, none of these things could be true. Therefore, he has to be supernatural, unlike the rest of us. That's why we tell tales of him.

For the second portion of our illustration, I will be referring to the biblical god, with an emphasis on Jesus Christ in the New Testament. However, the same principles apply to Zeus, Allah, Horus, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., and the deities of any other religions which violate the laws of physics.
This is of course why they are considered gods in the first place. :)

To start, we know that it is biologically impossible for a virgin to give birth, yet the New Testament claims that Mary violated this simple law of biology by giving birth without receiving sperm.
Hence, why it's considered a miracle...

We know that it is physically impossible for water to be transformed into wine, since the chemical compositions of water and wine are distinct.
Are you saying there is no water in grapes?

Additionally, we know that it is physically impossible for a man (or any other organism larger than a small insect) to walk on the surface of water, yet the New Testament again claims that men were able to violate the laws of physics and walk on water.
I live in the Northern regions of America. We drive our cars on top of lakes to go fishing. I'm quite familiar with it, and if you're not careful you can slip and fall and hurt yourself, especially as you get older. If you are talking about liquid water, then we do that too in the summer, behind boats on skis.

Additionally, we know that a man cannot die, and be buried, and then physically come back to life days later. Yet believers in the biblical god hold to this as well, even though it is common knowledge that such an action is physically impossible, and that in any other context, a claim such as this would be dismissed without second thought.
Again, why it is considered supernatural. To call something supernatural means that it can't help naturally. This is not disproving the supernatural, but requiring it as a category of experience.

These are just a few examples. In short, any deity that is alleged to perform miracles cannot exist in the same way that Santa Claus cannot exist, because "miracles" by definition are violations of the laws of physics, and hence, are physically impossible.
Why do you suppose it's called supernatural then?

By the way, for those of you who swear that paranormal/supernatural events can take place, the James Randi foundation has a million dollar reward for you if you can demonstrate the existence of such a phenomenon. So far, no one has been able to claim this reward. It is doubtful that you will become the first.
This is a different criteria than your arguments above. This is shifting the goalposts from an argument of logic to some sort of testing of claims. But you cited the stories as evidence against the supernatural, whereas as you can see it simply necessitates the supernatural as an explanation. Of course you can't rise from the dead naturally, therefore it must have been a supernatural event. Right?

If you're going to use logic arguments that the supernatural isn't real because it violates the natural, I'm not sure how this exactly does. I think those who wrote the stories understood that already.
 
Last edited:

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Good analysis. I might point out that one significant difference regarding Santa Claus is that most of those who propagate the myth of Santa Claus are usually willing to admit that the whole thing is just a made-up story. Some might even argue that the image of Santa Claus is hyped up in order to encourage the rampant consumerism which occurs around Christmas time.

Another difference is that Santa Claus is said to still "exist," that he delivers toys every year at Christmas, and that he currently has a workshop at the North Pole. The miracles attributed to Jesus were presented as a one-time deal that happened long ago, so no one can actually prove or disprove that they actually happened. But we can do (and have done) extensive surveys of the North Pole, and no structure of any kind has been found which would fit the description of "Santa's Workshop."

Good points. Regarding your first paragraph, I agree that most people propagating the existence of Santa Claus do not actually believe in him, however, there are millions of believers in Santa Claus around the world. Most of them are children, but, nevertheless, they are examples of people who have a genuine, and deeply held, belief that Santa Claus exists in a literal sense.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Sigh. Yet another thread by someone who wants to read scripture literally and superficially.

If you don't take the biblical miracles literally, then good for you. This thread is not directed toward those who are somewhat religious, but reject the miracles of the bible. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of fundamentalists around the world who actually believe that the miracles took place.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Problem is we don't know all the physics of the universe yet. Did you know science can only detect about 5% of the matter in the universe (the other 95% being undetectable (dark matter)). You might want to hold up on publishing your 'very strong evidence' until you understand more than a sliver of the universe.

True, but we have a good enough grasp on physics to know, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for reindeer to fly, for fat men to fit down chimneys, or for water to be turned into wine, or for a human to walk on water etc.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
@Hubert Farnsworth
First off on Santa. I very much believe Santa Claus exists and can prove it because kids all over the world gets gifts. How I explain it to my kids and now to you. Santa is a spirit that inspires people. Santa is not a man in a red suit that flies around the world but a spirit that inspires others. This spirit makes people want to dress in Red Suits, give gifts to children and write stories and sing songs. It is a happy spirit that inspires people that share the believe in Santa to do things for others especially kids. If nobody had the spirit of Santa none of this would happen. Does anybody celebrate the pumpkin king (from charlie brown or Nightmare before christmas)? Does anybody celebrate Jack Frost. Santa has a spirit of his own and will exist long after the religion that supports him is gone.

First off not all christian religions believe in the virgin birth and second virgin birth does not mean sperm was not involved only that it was not injected through the vagina. Water to wine, all of guests where already drunk, they fill vases that have been used for wine for probably months. They had some of the old wine there. The only person that tasted the wine was the man responsible if there was no more wine. He said it was the best wine he ever tasted placebo effect works very well. Several magicians today walk on water all the time, perhaps he did it the same way. Jesus never claimed he walked on water those that observed did. People come back to life from supposedly being dead all the time. It is far fewer today than in Jesus's time manly because our technology is better but it still happens google it. Stop picking on Santa.

1. This "spiritual" Santa that you are describing is a mental phenomenon, which does not exist outside of the confines of the human brain.

2. "Magicians" that walk on water are not actually walking on water; they have props.

3. I know of no recorded account of anyone coming back from the dead in modern society. If you are referring to "near death experiences" that is a different subject. But, someone coming back from being dead and buried for days is unheard of.

4. Why should I stop picking on Santa? He doesn't exist so there's no way I'm hurting his feelings.;)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I would like to make a post regarding the existence of supernatural deities. When discussing the existence of God with theists, particularly Abrahamic monotheists, the point is often raised that it is not possible for me to "disprove" the existence of the God of the Bible or Qu'ran, etc. While this is true, it is still very easy to illustrate why belief in such entities is absurd due to the extreme unlikelihood of their existence. Let's use a simple illustration with Santa Claus. I would wager that most of us on this forum are in agreement that Santa Claus does not exist. But what is our evidence for the nonexistance of Santa Claus?

For me, the answer is simple, but let's take a moment to provide some reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is highly improbable, essentially to the point of certainty: He violates the laws of physics. It is physically impossible for reindeer to fly, and it is also physically impossible for a single human being to visit every household in the world on a single night. Additionally, it is physically impossible for a single bag on a small sleigh to hold all of the presents (presumably millions, if not billions) that Santa will be providing to children around the world. At best, even a very large bag could hold only a few dozen small presents, yet those who affirm the existence of Santa Claus insist that a single bag could hold millions upon millions of wrapped presents. Finally, an obese man (or any adult human being) cannot descend a chimney. At best, he could get his lower calf down the chimney before being forced to retreat. Yet those who affirm the existence of Santa believe that Santa, in all of his extreme obesity, is able to descend a chimney that is likely only a foot or so in diameter.

There are many other reasons that the existence of Santa Claus is extremely improbable, but, I think it is safe to state that I have provided enough that most reasonable people would concur that the evidence against Santa's existence is overwhelming.,

For the second portion of our illustration, I will be referring to the biblical god, with an emphasis on Jesus Christ in the New Testament. However, the same principles apply to Zeus, Allah, Horus, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., and the deities of any other religions which violate the laws of physics.

To start, we know that it is biologically impossible for a virgin to give birth, yet the New Testament claims that Mary violated this simple law of biology by giving birth without receiving sperm. We know that it is physically impossible for water to be transformed into wine, since the chemical compositions of water and wine are distinct. Yet, the New Testament claims that Jesus was able to perform this transformation, even though it violates the laws of physics and chemistry (and hence is physically impossible). Additionally, we know that it is physically impossible for a man (or any other organism larger than a small insect) to walk on the surface of water, yet the New Testament again claims that men were able to violate the laws of physics and walk on water. Additionally, we know that a man cannot die, and be buried, and then physically come back to life days later. Yet believers in the biblical god hold to this as well, even though it is common knowledge that such an action is physically impossible, and that in any other context, a claim such as this would be dismissed without second thought. These are just a few examples. In short, any deity that is alleged to perform miracles cannot exist in the same way that Santa Claus cannot exist, because "miracles" by definition are violations of the laws of physics, and hence, are physically impossible.

By the way, for those of you who swear that paranormal/supernatural events can take place, the James Randi foundation has a million dollar reward for you if you can demonstrate the existence of such a phenomenon. So far, no one has been able to claim this reward. It is doubtful that you will become the first.

Where your argument breaks down:

1) if only one being somewhere in the universe has had a numinous encounter, ever, materialism is void

2) Santa Claus is a fictional character--only about a dozen major religions have text that speak of God, these texts can be reviewed for historical accuracy, tests within and prophecy

3) the existence of this forum is excellent evidence that a God exists!
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
Where your argument breaks down:

1) if only one being somewhere in the universe has had a numinous encounter, ever, materialism is void

2) Santa Claus is a fictional character--only about a dozen major religions have text that speak of God, these texts can be reviewed for historical accuracy, tests within and prophecy

3) the existence of this forum is excellent evidence that a God exists!

1) Define a "numinous" encounter. Many natural phenomena have been perceived to be supernatural prior to science being able to provide an explanation. For example, the ancients believed lightning was the work of a supernatural deity but now we understand that it is a natural phenomenon. So, any phenomenon claimed to be "numinous" may very well be a natural phenomenon. There is no way to prove that a phenomenon is supernatural, but there are many ways to prove that a phenomenon once thought to be supernatural is actually natural.

2) I'm glad we both can agree that Santa Claus is fictional--we know this because he violates the laws of physics. The same can be said of any deity that violates the laws of physics, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

3) What prophecy are you talking about? If you want to discuss biblical prophesies, let's start with the failed prophecy of Jesus' return during the disciples' lifetimes in Matthew 16:27-28: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

4) How is the existence of this forum evidence that a deity exists? I fail to make any logical connection.....
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
True, but we have a good enough grasp on physics to know, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for reindeer to fly, for fat men to fit down chimneys, or for water to be turned into wine, or for a human to walk on water etc.
I actually do believe water can be turned into wine by forces and abilities not currently understood by science.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
In short, any deity that is alleged to perform miracles cannot exist in the same way that Santa Claus cannot exist, because "miracles" by definition are violations of the laws of physics, and hence, are physically impossible.

In other words, because we don't know how someone could've done something, it means that it could not have been done.

If you don't take the biblical miracles literally, then good for you. This thread is not directed toward those who are somewhat religious, but reject the miracles of the bible. The fact of the matter is that there are millions of fundamentalists around the world who actually believe that the miracles took place.

In other words, people who believe miracles took place are required to also believe that people who didn't know how the miracles took place made precise observations about the events according to scientific standards in a controlled test environment.

True, but we have a good enough grasp on physics to know, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is impossible for reindeer to fly, for fat men to fit down chimneys, or for water to be turned into wine, or for a human to walk on water etc.

In other words, even though the events of the Bible are supposed to have taken place once 2000 years ago, we should compare those claims to claims made about Santa that are predicted to take place every year in well-defined locations and during well-defined periods of time.

Does that sound about right?
 

Baroodi

Active Member
the well controlled universe in finely-tuned harmony tells me there is someone holding all this, it cannot be happened haphazardly, this controller is ALLAH (GOD). no one can find a cpmlex machine like a computer and then say it created itself. it is simple and straight forward.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I would wager that most of us on this forum are in agreement that Santa Claus does not exist.
Nope. I recognize Winter Odin as "Santa Claus" The differences are numerous, so not many of your arguments against SC work, though.

For the second portion of our illustration, I will be referring to the biblical god, with an emphasis on Jesus Christ in the New Testament. However, the same principles apply to Zeus, Allah, Horus, Krishna, Vishnu, etc., and the deities of any other religions which violate the laws of physics.
The Gods don't violate the laws of physics, though. I'll only address relevant things (and to keep it easy, I'll stick to my God of Thor.)

Or not; none of your counter-claims are relevant.

By the way, for those of you who swear that paranormal/supernatural events can take place, the James Randi foundation has a million dollar reward for you
Not since 2015.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
the well controlled universe in finely-tuned harmony tells me there is someone holding all this, it cannot be happened haphazardly, this controller is ALLAH (GOD). no one can find a cpmlex machine like a computer and then say it created itself. it is simple and straight forward.

All these phenomena tell us is that the universe has properties; big deal. Your argument is just an appeal to ignorance, please try again. Learning some science would help.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
the well controlled universe in finely-tuned harmony tells me there is someone holding all this, it cannot be happened haphazardly, this controller is ALLAH (GOD). no one can find a cpmlex machine like a computer and then say it created itself. it is simple and straight forward.

Who created Allah then? Certainly Allah would be at least as complex as the universe he supposedly created, yet you have no answer as to where he came from. Invoking a first cause only raises further questions.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
the well controlled universe in finely-tuned harmony tells me there is someone holding all this, it cannot be happened haphazardly, this controller is ALLAH (GOD). no one can find a cpmlex machine like a computer and then say it created itself. it is simple and straight forward.
All you are doing is projecting your personal belief in god on the universe...that's not evidence for the existence of God, nor evidence for god creating the universe.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Nope but my spirit can be known to have an effect on humans in a similar way alcohol does which is why alcohol is called spirits. I believe people see spirits as well as claim they are effected by spirits if they drink large amounts of alcohol. Yet another coincidence?
This is an example of a claim which seems to say more than it actually does, because it is just slightly disingenuous. The "spirit" alcohol has an effect on people when -- and only when -- it is imbibed. In a similar way, the spirit you claim can be known to have an effect on other humans happens only when you have some means of conveying that "spirit" to them -- through conversation, touch or other sensory contact, etc. Just try it on somebody who has no idea who you are, where you are, and that you are doing it. I promise you, it will be totally without effect.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I do not believe in the supernatural either, but that does not mean I don't believe in the spiritual. I think that spirituality and nature are intertwined. Abrahamism represents the origin of the idea of the "supernatural", as in some kind of spiritual being being in reign of nature, which I do think is.
Neither do I believe in supernatural. But I wonder often about this notion of "the spiritual." Could you try, do you think, to tell me how "spiritual" differs from a combination of ideation (a creative process) and emotion (an evaluative process)?
 
Top