Board index ‹ Christianity

[No Username]

1. Insufficient evidence for theism, which makes atheism argument stronger.
2. See number 1. I have thought that the stronger case for theism is to have faith, but faith isn't reliable.

I'd be happy to see a substatiative case for theism that includes simply more than claiming we cant have morals without god.

[jimwalton]

The case for theism is extensive. Very briefly stated:

1. Causality. Science tells us nothing can self-generate. Science tells us the universe had a beginning. First causes are always personal causes (since nothing can be its own cause). The universe had to have had a powerful, timeless, eternal, personal cause. Science cannot fully explain the origins of the universe, while theism can. Theism has sufficiency of explanation.

2. Purpose. Everything we know of that appears designed to accomplish a purpose was indeed designed to have a purpose by an intelligent agent. Science tells us that many elements of the universe and life have a purpose and exhibit characteristics of design (such as the cell). Science attempts to explain such a universe and world; theism easily explains it. Theism has sufficiency of explanation.

3. The fine tuning of the universe. The universe exhibits many characteristics of precision tuning, so much so that the odds of such a universe and world occurring by an explosion (the Big Bang) and then by natural selection and genetic mutation are so abysmally remote as to be considered impossible. Science has to shrug its shoulders and conclude, "Weren't we the lucky ones!" Theism, however, has a personal and intelligent explanation.

4. We are personal beings. It makes more sense that we have a personal source (God) than an impersonal one (chemicals).

5. We are intelligent beings. It makes more sense that we have an intelligent source than a blind one (an explosion, natural selection and genetic mutation).

If we are going to infer the most reasonable conclusion, theism is going to be our direction. If we subscribe to sufficiency of explanation, theism is going to be our direction. If we go by Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the right one), then theism is the direction we'll go in.

These five will suffice for now. There are many more evidences that lead us to God rather than to naturalism.

If the atheistic argument is stronger, I'd love to see it. I'd be very happy to see a substantive case for atheism or naturalism. What is it you believe, and what supports that position?

> the stronger case for theism is to have faith, but faith isn't reliable.

Faith is based on evidence. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.

Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.

We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.

You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling.

[Boats on the Sea]

First up, "evidences" isn't a word. The word is "evidence." Using incorrect vocabulary doesn't nullify your argument, but it does weaken it, in a persuasive sense.

> The case for the existence of God is far stronger than the case against, making Christianity the rational conclusion if we are honestly inferring the most reasonable conclusion.

This misunderstands the burden of proof. There is no weighing of for and against, in the case of gods. Either we have sufficient evidence to warrant belief that a god exists, or we don't.

I am not aware of any credible evidence for any gods. Especially not the extremely specific Christian one. What evidence do you have that the Christian god exists?

I am similarly not aware of any credible evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. The Bible contains second-hand, at best, accounts written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses. And yes Paul and others claimed to interact with a risen Jesus. There are people alive today who claim to have interacted with ghosts, Elvis after his death, and extraterrestrials.

Let's use Elvis for an example. We can both agree he lived and died, yes? So, if people claim to have interacted with him after his death, what is more likely: that they were mistaken, or that Elvis somehow survived his own death?

I will, for the sake of argument, concede that the Jesus of the Bible is at least based on a historical rabbi, who was crucified. So he lived, and died. So, if people claimed to have interacted with him after his death, what is more likely: that they were mistaken, or that Jesus somehow survived his own death?

What demonstrable facts differentiate Elvis from Jesus?

If we can't get there, there is no point asking any further questions.

[jimwalton]

> First up, "evidences" isn't a word. The word is "evidence." Using incorrect vocabulary doesn't nullify your argument, but it does weaken it, in a persuasive sense.

There are some who disagree with you, as in "a collection of evidences" or "various types of evidences." (https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-p ... dence.html)

What if I were to say, "One of the evidences that Earth is round is..." Would that be improper or a solecism?

> This misunderstands the burden of proof. There is no weighing of for and against, in the case of gods. Either we have sufficient evidence to warrant belief that a god exists, or we don't.

It's not a misunderstanding of the burden of proof, but rather seeing theism in the category of abductive reasoning, where we are dealing in plausibility: inference to the best explanation. What explanation best fits the facts? In the case for and against theism, we are weighing for and against, determining by weight of logic and evidence what best explains the data at hand. We are considering plausibilities and weighing evidences for the best explanatory solution. Abductive reasoning differs from inductive reasoning because we are using many different classes of phenomena or observation to arrive at best explanation.

> I am not aware of any credible evidence for any gods.

Then I am concerned that you haven't read widely on any viewpoint except the one you already endorse.

> What evidence do you have that the Christian god exists?

I'll presume, then, that you are somewhat familiar with the case for theism in general. Let me know if I'm mistaken about this.

If we admit the possibility of a god, we must weigh the various perspectives on what sort of deity he/she/it is and what how he/she/it has made himself known.

If we weigh the five most prominent religious perspectives in the world (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Pantheism, and secularism), we can evaluate their relative strengths and weaknesses and their conformity to reality and truth. Obviously I have done that and concluded that Christianity wins the day.

• Islam's perception of the transcendence of Allah makes God impossible to know, which ends up being a self-contradiction. There is no relational aspect and no certainty of salvation. Relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power, and enforcement. It's a non-workable system.
• Hindus believe in the relativity of truth and deny the reality of the world. That's a big problem. They deny the reality of evil and the personality of God. None of this is realistic to the world we see.
• Pantheism is ultimately self-contradictory, because in pantheism there is no subject-object relationship, and therefore human relationships are impossible. It's not a tenable position.
• Naturalism lacks sufficient explanation for everything we see in the universe and the world.

The case for Christianity in specific is briefly (and incompletely):

• The Bible says God is a God of order, and the universe is orderly (in agreement with Islam and Judaism). It has more sufficient explanation than naturalism, which claims that this order came from an explosion.
• The Bible says God is a God of power, and what caused the universe to "Bang" would have to be a powerful entity. (in agreement with Islam and Judaism). Naturalism has no explanation at present for the causal mechanism of the Bang.
• The Bible says God is timeless, and what caused the universe to "bang" would have to be outside of time since as far as we know time didn’t exist then. (in agreement with Islam and Judaism). Again, naturalism has insufficient explanation.
• The Bible says God is personal. Since humans are personal, we have a case. (in agreement with Judaism; contrary to Islam & Hinduism). Naturalism has an insufficient explanation as to how human personality came about through impersonal chemicals and chemical reactions.
• Beauty. In naturalism we might expect chaos, disorder, and "rawness." Christianity explains the beauty we see.
• We are made in the image of God. (A) Who we are as people points to the existence of God; (B) Man as a rational being: intellect and will points to an intelligent and volitional (purposeful) source; (C) The abnormality of man in his current condition as a result of sin. Christianity explains why we see man's nobility and his cruelty.
• The Trinity is the foundation of particularity and subject/object relationships, without which creation is impossible and there is no foundation for knowledge or personality.
• The Bible points to a divine revealer (in contrast to Islam and Hinduism). We can only know God if He communicates who He is and what He is like. (A) Evidence of authenticity of Scriptures argues for the God of the Scriptures
• The Resurrection of Jesus

Those are some of them.

> I am similarly not aware of any credible evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.

The posts aren't allowed to be long enough for me to answer all these questions thoroughly. Have you read books (or anything) about the evidence for the resurrection? There are several strands of evidence. Briefly:

• The tomb was empty. The site was known to both supporters and detractors, friends and enemies. If the tomb were not empty, it would have been impossible for a movement like Christianity to explode as it did in the very same city in such a short time. No ancient source denies the tomb was empty.
• The criteria of embarrassment. First of all, claiming such a thing as physical resurrection to begin with. Second, to claim that women were the first to see him (this is the last thing a fiction writer of the era would claim).
• Jesus's disciples were convinced he rose from the dead. We have multiple ancient sources of this fact.
• The disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.
• N.T. Wright says, "Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."

> The Bible contains second-hand, at best, accounts written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses.

What is your evidence that they are second-hand accounts at best? I say that Matthew and John's accounts are not, and that some of Mark's Gospel are not.

> written decades after the fact by non-eyewitnesses.

Are you claiming we can't get reliable information about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? After all, that was decades ago. What about Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter (who is still alive)? Decades isn't much.

The only biographies we have of Alexander the Great were written several centuries after his death. Should we toss them?

I recently read a biography of Abraham Lincoln. Are you thinking I should have bothered, since that was 160 years ago, and how could anyone from our era give reliable information about it?

I read "At Dawn We Slept," one author's account of the events leading up to the Pearl Harbor invasion. It is copyrighted 1981, 40 years after Pearl Harbor! Should I not trust it?

> So, if people claimed to have interacted with him after his death, what is more likely: that they were mistaken, or that Jesus somehow survived his own death?

This is where we have to examine the evidence and the claims. The claim is not that he survived his own death, but that he came back from it. It's a ludicrous claim scientifically, theologically (nothing in Judaism claims that such a thing is possible or was expected), and historically. It's also not something you want to claim to win converts in the very city where he was executed a mere 7 weeks earlier. And yet they do.

> What demonstrable facts differentiate Elvis from Jesus?

It depends what you regard as "demonstrable facts." Clarify that for me, and we can talk.

[No Username]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I still do not understand how you have made a stronger case, and there are a few things I dont agree with.

Seems wrong when you say the universe had to have a powerfull timeless eternal personal cause. What even is a timeless cause? What are you basing this on aside from the god narrative?

Science cannot fully explain the origins of the universe, ok sure. We have a lot of data in big bang cosmology, arguably more than the pages of your chosen holy text. Are you claiming big bang cosmology is all wrong, or partially wrong? If so, that claim needs to be backed up by more that saying religion explains it, because last I looked, no holy texts mention any details that big bang cosmology has revealed.

Furthermore, theism does not easily explain it. Maybe to you since you already accept it and dont question it, but when you say theism explains it easily, that is basically saying god did it, which adds even more complexity. So please advise how he created the universe, hiw this god was created, and how you get from that to your chosen deity, Jesus. Why not Vishnu or Thor?

Oh, intelligent design? No, I dont think I will touch this once since it has been, by court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (as well as numerous others without religious bias) viewed as not science.

You are adding purpose to things not there. It's a very human thing to do and of course this is what religion capitalizes on. You get to make up purpose just as much as I do you just happen to claim greater authority with god on your side.

Fine tuning eh? Again with the psuedo science. You are quick to dismiss some science (natural selection in particular) but attempt to cherry pick concepts and use them to suit your views. That's a problem because that is not how science works. Look, I know it's not you personally doing this, religion has been using the same tired arguments for years.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you simply using the agument from incredulity?

Sure, makes more sense to your beliefs, but that doesnt mean it reflects the reality of reality.

Occams razor? Ok, that would be the simplest solution is the most likely, and here you are adding god, making more complexity.

I believe that naturalism or atheism is more honest by examining evidence with less bias. It also examines religions for what they are, because since you are religious you have no outsider test for your faith, you are likely not open to changing your mind. I feel I would be changing my religious views if there was consensus on god, and which religion is correct. That consensus should be like how there is consensus for how wifi works, how insulin works, or other such things strongly supported, and repeatable.

Faith. You know faith has 2 meanings, right? You simply defined faith as trust and confidence, convienetly and suspiciously ignoring the definition I was referring to: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

If you used that faith to defend your views, instead of the psuedo science and trying to redefine faith that you have done here, I would actually have more respect for your views, but as they are here, I see them as a corruption, and think you are not o ly being dishonest with me, but also yourself.

Happy New Year all the same!

[jimwalton]

> I still do not understand how you have made a stronger case

I have the stronger case because you have not expressed a case. I'm left to assume you have none, and therefore mine is stronger by default if not by weight. I at least have a case.

> there are a few things I dont agree with.

I would expect there are many things I said that you don't agree with. It neither makes them incorrect or weak, just not in your wheelhouse.

> Seems wrong when you say the universe had to have a powerfull timeless eternal personal cause. What even is a timeless cause? What are you basing this on aside from the god narrative?

Scientists speculate that before the Big Bang, time did not exist. According to Kalam's cosmological argument, if the universe had no beginning, we would have no present. Only if the past is finite can there be a present, so the sufficient cause to effect the Big Bang must have been timeless.

Stephen Hawking, in his lecture on the Beginning of Time, says that all the matter of the universe would have been on top of itself and the density would have been infinite. Physics breaks down at the singularity. Hawking, in an interview with Neil degrasse Tyson, likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.

Therefore, whatever caused the Big Bang must have been timeless.

> We have a lot of data in big bang cosmology, arguably more than the pages of your chosen holy text.

Of course science says more about Big Bang cosmology than the Bible. The question at hand is not which book says more.

> Are you claiming big bang cosmology is all wrong, or partially wrong?

Not at all. I'm all about the Big Bang. I'm just inferring the most reasonable conclusion that the causal mechanism for it was more reasonably God, who did exist and was powerful and timeless, than nature, which didn't exist and can't self-generate out of non-existence.

> theism does not easily explain it.

But it does. The existence of an omnipotent, eternal, orderly, function personal being easily explains the beginning of the universe out of a singularity. With His great power and wisdom He "created." What we end up with is something orderly, functional, and personal. There is a sufficiency of explanation at hand here.

> which adds even more complexity.

It actually adds simplicity (though not non-complexity). There is straight line of logic and science, assuming God exists, from God to creation.

> please advise how he created the universe,

He created by His powerful word and wisdom, but His power over nature and its processes. It's quite straightforward.

> hiw this god was created

There must be something that's eternal. Something has to have always existed. Since scientists tell us that nature, natural laws, and physics didn't always exist (and certainly not chemistry or biology), then some other entity is eternal. If this entity is separate from nature, powerful, timeless, and personal (since only personal causes can be first causes), then God is a reasonable direction for a explanation.

> how you get from that to your chosen deity, Jesus.

If there is a God, then we have to weigh the logic and concordance with reality of the various explanations for who this God is and what He is like. The biblical God, by my assessment of evidences, accords better with reality, history, and humanity than Allah, Thor, Vishnu or Krishna. An examination of comparative religions has brought me to this conclusion.

> Oh, intelligent design? No, I dont think I will touch this once since it has been, by court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (as well as numerous others without religious bias) viewed as not science.

No, I'm not talking about the movement "Intelligent Design." I'm talking about the elements and characteristics of the universe that reflect that the universe shows signs of having been devised, arranged, and purposed. I'm not arguing for the current position known as "Intelligent Design." I'm not on that boat.

> You are adding purpose to things not there.

?????? I've only attributed purpose to that which exists and is really there. I don't know what you mean by this criticism.

> Fine tuning eh? Again with the psuedo science.

There's nothing pseudo-science about fine-tuning. See, you're so quick to deprecate, but I wonder if you've thought all this through (or if you even have a competing position that's stronger. I have yet to see one.)

• Brandon Carr and Martin Rees: "The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets, and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation….several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants." For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed. The same goes for the weak and strong nuclear forces; if either had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life even remotely similar to the sort we have, could probably not have developed.
• Stephen Hawking: The existence of life also seems to depend very delicately on the rate at which the universe is expanding. Hawking says that "reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 10^12 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 10^10 K would have resulted in the Universe starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 deg"—much too warm for comfort. Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at *just the rate required* to avoid collapse. At an earlier time, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable. John Polkinghorne adds: "We know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10^-43 sec. after the big bang) would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10^60."
• Paul Davies: "The fact that these relations are necessary for our existence is one of the most fascinating discoveries of modern science."

I don't know why you call it pseudo-science. There are things like...

• the cosmic microwave background radiation
• the mass of protons, neutrons, and electrons
• the speed of light
• electron charge
• Planck's constant
• the electrical permittivity of a vacuum.
• the ratio of protons to neutrons
• the strong nuclear force
• Earth's orbit around the sun
• the size, density, mass, and distance of our sun from Earth
• The Earth's gravity
• the properties of the carbon atom
• the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity
• the measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium
• the cosmological constant

Pseudo-science????

There are about 60 of these tight parameters required for life in the universe. These boundary conditions of our universe and the laws of its evolution are of a very special kind which alone could lead to the evolution of intelligent life and in fact make it probable. It provides a good inductive argument for the existence of God. The basic idea is that, if there is a God, such fine-tuning is not at all surprising or improbable. If it's all by natural circumstance following an explosion, it is exceeding improbable that all 60 would line up perfectly and be fine-tuned for life.

> You are quick to dismiss some science (natural selection in particular)

I haven't dismissed ANY science.

> I believe that naturalism or atheism is more honest by examining evidence with less bias.

Let's see your evidence. Let's see your case. I'm genuinely curious.

> because since you are religious you have no outsider test for your faith

Of course we do. Christianity is both historical and evidentiary.

> Faith. You know faith has 2 meanings, right?

Faith actually has 4 or 5 meanings.

• Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." This is the commonplace use of the word apart from any religious significance, such as when a person has faith in a chair to support his weight or has faith in his employee to do a job well.
• Faith is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This is the definition unbelievers often use to ridicule believers, insisting that they, unlike religious people, trust only in that which is demonstrable. This is not the biblical definition of faith.
• Faith is "belief in, trust in, and loyalty to God." This is an explicitly religious definition, in many ways similar to the theological definition of faith as involving knowledge, assent, and trust. Faith here is pictured as going beyond belief in certain facts to include commitment to and dependence on God.
• Faith is "a system of religious beliefs." This is what is meant when one speaks of "the Protestant faith" or "the Jewish faith." What is largely in view here is a set of doctrines. The Bible uses the word in this way in passages such as Jude 3.

I use faith, as I believe Hebrews 11.1 does, in the first sense: confidence based on evidence. In the Bible, faith is evidentiary (choice #1 above).

> If you used that faith to defend your views, instead of the psuedo science and trying to redefine faith that you have done here, I would actually have more respect for your views

I have used neither faith nor pseudo-science, but rather the evidence: logical, scientific, and historical.

So, if your case is stronger than mine, if you don't follow Christianity because their case is not strong enough, and if you follow real science (as do I), let's see your case for "naturalism or atheism" that is not only more honest, but stronger and more substantial.

Happy New Year to you, too. May you have a good one.

[33 AD]

Notice that I didn’t say, “some smart people are not Christians, therefore Christianity is not true,” or anything along those lines. Rather, I’m pointing out an implication of your claim that if one looks at all the evidence, there is no rational, cogent reason to be a non-Christian: since the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are not Christians, they must overwhelmingly fail to look rationally at all the evidence and form a cogent philosophical worldview.

Since philosophers spend their entire careers trying to formulate cogent, rational worldviews, this is a very strange implication indeed. But it must be one or the other: either (1) professional philosophers overwhelmingly fail to be rational and cogent about the evidence for Christianity, or (2) there are rational and cogent reasons to reject Christianity after assessing the evidence. This says nothing about whether Christianity is in fact correct, mind you.

[jimwalton]

> Notice that I didn’t say, “some smart people are not Christians, therefore Christianity is not true,” or anything along those lines.

Correct, you did not. You did say, however, that "if it’s your belief that rationally considering the evidence should reliably lead one to Christianity, why are so few professional philosophers Christians?", implying that most smart people don't subscribe to Christianity.

> Rather, I’m pointing out an implication of your claim that if one looks at all the evidence, there is no rational, cogent reason to be a non-Christian: since the overwhelming majority of professional philosophers are not Christians, they must overwhelmingly fail to look rationally at all the evidence and form a cogent philosophical worldview.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I did before. My response is that Christianity is not just a matter of intelligence (lest it be a religion only for the intellectually elite). What I was mostly saying is that I rarely run into dialogue with those people here on the site. Instead I seem to get a majority of people who have not thought through the issues.

I have run into many intellectuals who have both bias and blind spots. Some have a presuppositional set that doesn't allow for metaphysical realities and so closes off legitimate consideration of those areas. Some have an emotional antagonism to Christianity through some hurt or offense somewhere in their life, and they play it out through their philosophy and science. Some have legitimately thought it through and have come to different conclusions than I.

[Vesture El]

So what's your source for there being an empty tomb at all?

> Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.

I'd agree that starting with the presupposition the supernatural is impossible doesn't get us anywhere. Can you demonstrate that the supernatural is possible?

[jimwalton]

> So what's your source for there being an empty tomb at all?

• Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) record for us that Christianity was perceived by some pockets of the Roman Empire to be a movement to be oppressed, yet not a single ancient writer (Roman or Jewish) discredits or denies that the tomb was empty. No ancient writer refutes the claims of the disciples and Paul that the tomb was empty.
• Neither the Romans nor the Jews ever produced a body to refute the claim.
• History. Christianity could not have and would not have flourished in Jerusalem 7 weeks after the crucifixion if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Claims to the resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb were not verifiably empty, and Christianity would have fizzled quickly if there were any evidence contrary to that claim.

> Can you demonstrate that the supernatural is possible?

• There is no evidence that nature is all there is. There is no science that can assure us that the natural world is the sum total of all reality.
• Certainly there are realities that are non-material. Time is one of them. The laws of nature are another. Memories may be another.
• Evidence of thoughts and feelings betray that we are not just material objects. Our thoughts and feelings are immaterial, but very much real.
• Evidence of our sense of self (and perception of self, not just in thought, but as an entity) gives evidence that we have a conception of an immaterial reality.
• Even language itself is effective only if endowed with meaning, and meaning is non-material. Language therefore demands a non-material source, since it's impossible that the meaning of language has a material source. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes.
• People through the millennia have experienced the supernatural. And in case you're ready to say that experiences are unreliable as evidence, remember that how we process reality is through our experiences. Experiences can only be regarded as illegitimate if they can be proved to contain illegitimate features, such as lies, mental illness, or falsifiability.

As Alvin Plantinga writes, "What’s the problem with special divine action (miracles)? Why should anyone object to it? Why can’t the causal continuum be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers? Why are miracles necessarily incompatible with modern science? They are only incompatible if it can be proved that nature is a closed continuum of cause and effect, and closed to intervention or interference on the part of beings outside that continuum, including God himself."

According to Newton and classical mechanics, natural laws describe how the world works when, or provided that the world is, a closed (isolated) system, subject to no outside causal influence. In classical physics, the great conservation laws deduced from Newton’s laws are stated for closed or isolated systems. Sears and Zemanski’s standard text for University Physics: "This is the principle of conservation of linear momentum: When no resultant external force acts on a system, the total momentum of the system remains constant in magnitude and direction" (italics theirs). They add that "the internal energy of an isolated system remains constant. This is the most general statement of the principle of conservation of energy.

John Mackie (no friend of theism), says, "What we want to do here is to contrast the order of nature with a possible divine or supernatural intervention. The laws of nature, we must say, describe the ways in which the world—including, of course, human beings—works when left to itself, when not interfered with."

These principles of natural laws and physics apply to isolated or closed systems. But there is nothing in science that can affirm that the supernatural is impossible or even unreasonable.

With evidence that there are non-material realities, evidence that many people (even sane and educated) have experienced supernatural reality, and given that science has no case to rule out the supernatural, we have to admit it is possible.