The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

nature cant come from god, but supernature can only come from nature

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 74660
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




there has to be a nature to be exceeded for there to be any supernature


I accept, and look forward to an interesting philosophical and scientific discussion.

I assume when Pro says "supernature", they mean "that which is supernatural." Pro's stance is that that which is supernatural originates in nature. My position will be there is nothing supernatural in the traditional sense, that which violates the physical "laws" of nature.

It is, no doubt, an interesting hypothesis that anything traditionally supernatural emerges from that which is, metaphysically and objectively, "natural", i.e. derives from the productive capacity of nature.

Since the terms have not been precisely defined, I shall assume they are subject to personal thoughts of definition with the limitation in regards to these definitions being properly semantically structured and not what one might consider "troll" definitions, i.e. acting as a critique of the topic via. the definition itself.

Thus, the definitions I shall be using (I presume these limitations will not withold with the proposition unless they accept, thus I shall be following them and to follow these is the proposition's choice as long as those are not, definitively or relatively, absurd) are:

Nature - the collective non-abstract phenomena of the material, physical world, esp. with regards to the universe.
Supernatural - violating physical laws of nature; beyond the productive capacity of nature.

Since Pro has presented a portion (or perhaps, the entirety) of their case in Round 1, I shall presume to do the same.

== The Existence of the Supernatural ==

The primary contention of the case for negation that I, as the opposition, shall present, regards the impossibility of the violation of the physical laws. When I mention "physical laws", I refer to those laws of nature that are both known to modern scientific study, and unknown, that is, yet undiscovered or perhaps that which will never be discovered prior to the extinction of the human species or its alternative evolution.

(1) The Biological Perspective

To be supernatural in violating the laws of biology and general physiology is absurd, since the fixed notions of biology are strong in their own defense. If evolution, in its forms of microevolution ["evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period"] and macroevolution ["major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time"], is true, then species cannot originate anything supernatural.

"Natural selection is the gradual process by which heritable biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment." [1]

Natural evolution (for selective breeding is irrelevant to this discussion), at both the microscopic level of the genome and macroscopic level of macroevolutionary and noticeable changes in large biological populations, is based on a (for lack of a better word) combination of random genetic and biological processes and natural selection [2]. Such changes in developmental traits and genetic "shifts" render it impossible for supernatural entities to originate out of natural selection in direct violation of physical laws.

As seen above, the microevolution that results in eventual macroscopic changes and noticeable trait differences is perfectly illustrated in the example of these finches, whose beaks are "designed" differently to have major adaptation for their individual environmental characteristics.

Thus, natural selection renders it impossible for supernatural entities to emerge from biological "units" that are composed of cell(s), and undergo processes of metabolism (life).

(2) The Metaphysical Perspective

Metaphysically, that which is "supernatural" is impossible *unless* it has objective being in a non-natural "alternative reality". General relativity allows for a formulation that IF there is something beyond the productive capacity of known natural processes, then for that entity to exist metaphysically and objectively it would have to be beyond a universe that obeys the physical laws as we know them, thus will have to be outside of natural processes. Thus, supernatural entities, IF (and only IF) they exist, cannot (metaphysically) emerge from natural entities. [3] This alternate "dimension" is hypothetical and probably non-existent, though a major breakthrough in relation with this would be a discovery of a tachyon, i.e. a particle faster than light, thus violating special relativity and, in extension, general relativity. [4]

In fact, it is scientifically impossible to distinguish what is "supernatural" from what is "natural.

Thus, the resolution is negated.


3. Hawking, S.W. (1988).
A Brief History of Time. p. 30. [Chapter 2: "Space and Time"].
Debate Round No. 1


sry i should have been more clear, supernature dosnt exist in reality


like superman exceeds man, but if superman existed in reality, he would be natural, and even then if i imagined superman after he flew away.. he would again be supernatural




Pro has simply and entirely conceded the crux of my argument. As Pro was non-specific, I assumed I would be able to prove that the supernatural is false, yet Pro has changed the rules amidst the debate. Thus, I presume this as concession.

Furthermore, Pro has *dropped* my contentions on metaphysical and biological impossibility of that which is supernatural emerging from nature.

I extend all my arguments. The resolution remains negated. I request Pro to confirm or deny their concession in the following round.
Debate Round No. 2


sure.. your religion is a nice excuse huh.. while religions dosnt exist..



I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in God, so I don't have a religion. And before you respond with "atheism=belief", atheism is, in fact, the *lack* of faith, as Christopher Hitchens says.

In addition, I thank Pro for their graceful concession. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


belief is faith

disbelief is belief

belief is theism

disbelief... can never be non belief

if i claim i am wearing a hat, you can believe me, disbelieve me, or accept you dont know. 3 positions.. it dosnt get more simple than that


This is implying that I *believe* in the non-existence of God. In fact, I don't. I just don't believe or have faith, as I'm an agnostic atheist. Once more, thanks to Pro for graceful concession.
Debate Round No. 4


thats the thing im gettting at. you are not an atheist, there are no atheists as far as i know

belief is theism, science is a belief system

i can at best believe what others tell me

there is no such thing as accepting you dont know and disbelieving.. they necessarily and obviusly contradict each other.. if you disbelieve, you are as much and agnostic as a theist


I am *neither* saying I don't know, *nor* saying I know that there isn't a God. Thus, it's like no belief in God, though it is, ultimately, a belief in the system.

Anyway, vote Con because of concession.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes after Con constructs an elaborate argument over supernatural nature, to which Pro rejects and explains that he did not intend to focus on supertanker because it is inexistent. Con provides better arguments than Pro, and wins due to concession.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro concedes the debate in his r2, and is also tripping on acid while arguing this topic