@Harakaat
Therefore the supernatural exists?
Like I said about God, it may well be impossible to prove the existence of these things with either science or logic
I'd argue it's far more reasonable to posit that perhaps our understanding of nature is not yet sufficient to account for these phenomena.
Don't necessarily disagree with that.
It depends, however, on what you're talking about. You seem to allude to the concept of irreducible complexity -- even though it's pseudoscientific and not at all supported by the evidence, which suggests au contraire that the process of evolution is not at all "intelligently" guided.
No, I'm not. Intelligent design is not the same as IC, which is simply a hypothesis advanced by IDers. And I'd say that the concept itself is not intrinsically pseudo-scientific: it's entirely possible that instances of IC exist, but we simply haven't discovered them yet, but I don't subscribe to the hypothesis myself. At the same time, it's possible that life was intelligently designed, but that no instances of IC exist.
The problem I have with that kind of reasoning is that it is inductive in a situation where I think induction isn't all that reliable, and raises the question of why the entity on which it is contingent should be exempt from being itself contingent.
Well, again we get into the territory of the 'God as an explanation,' but the first cause, i.e., God, the source of all that exists, is taken to be the necessary being/first cause, without which an infinite regress of causes occurs, resulting in a logical absurdity. It is of course entirely possible that another first cause or necessarily existent phenomenon is the basis of existence, which is nothing like a god, e.g., a fluctuating quantum state, but as far as the believer is concerned, that cause and origin is God.
Have you read Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing?
No, I've only seen the lecture. Nevertheless, it's quite a fascinating idea, and not too far from some mystical understandings of the universe. In fact, an eccentric mystic by the name of Alan Watts challenged the traditional axiom of
ex nihilo nihil fit with a similar idea a few decades back; that you can't have nothing without something and vice versa. But of course, he was hardly the first person to conceive of this idea, it's no doubt an ancient one. Existence is a panoply of contrasts. This has been understood by schools of thought as disparate as those of the ancient Chinese to the ancient Hebrews.
But even if the sum total of energy/matter in the universe is 0, that still doesn't account at all for the order and physical laws which the universe depends upon.
I'd be interested in hearing what God is to you.
I've given a tentative definition elsewhere in this thread and don't really feel like explaining it further at this point. I'd have to think about it more first, aside from the fact that I tend towards negation rather than affirmation.
Topic: The God Issue