So often, I read the comments of some who prefer to take the high road in discussions or debates about theology. As one who prefers not to argue for or against the Theos ideology, I do find sometimes a statement that cannot go without critiqued. In this instance, the phrase: "Law Of Nature" is in question.
The idea of not violating the Laws Of Nature is kind of funny, when mentioned next to the concepts of Creator and creation, as if somehow they are two ominous things.
The Laws Of Nature are said to be those conditions that sustain the Natural World. That Natural world is called the observable or visible world. From many discussions, the Natural World is made of countless "Unnatural" items. Items which cannot be observed, are not visible in the optic view (meaning without mechanics).
So, by stating it is a violation of the Laws of Nature to believe in unseen things is completely ridiculous, since most of the universe is intangible, unobservable, unseen. It is further understood that the unseen is what makes the seen even possible.
Are the Laws Of Nature really laws or constructs of the lack of practical Faith?
Faith is depicted as a line between point a and b.
a) The stuff of hope (consider, wonder, desire, meditate on)
b) The stuff of evidence (tangible, visible, solidified)
-- of things unseen.
So, by applying practical faith, are believing truly violating the Laws Of Nature? What Laws Exactly? Are they bending the Rules or Breaking them? If Yes, how --precisely-- are they doing so ( exemplification requested).
By the statement itself, wouldn't ALL science be a violation or breaking of the Natural Order, Natural Laws? (exemplified by the likes of cloning, gene splicing, hybrid farming, x-ray machines, subatomic particle accelerators, combustible engines, industrialization, etc) --as these mechanics change or alter the natural order, natural state of the tangible AND intangible universe?!
But, they are visible with other means and have clear measurable and consistent effects with the natural world.
You are presenting a false conclusion based on false pretenses. You're done here, no need to go further.
What other means apart from synthetic a priori (aka technology) if you please.
It is not a false conclusion, because it isn't yet a conclude, it was a question. And there is no false pretense due to the aforementioned as a question.
As for the unseen being the stuff the seen is made of, you might wanna have a gander in that microscope again, because it clearly shows the unseen IS what makes up everything seen.
Example: Look up into the sky. You cannot observe water vapor. It is unseen. Under certain conditions, that unseen vapor will "condense" to form clouds. Those clouds will become saturated and further speed up the electrified field in them, to form rain clouds, lightning and thunder. It becomes tangible at the condensation stage and even more tangible when the thunder is heard, the lightning seen and the rain falls and we get wet.
The evidence of things unseen (the vapor) are those events mentioned.
Second, the condition was the argument of 'believers' violating the Laws Of Nature, by saying they can manifest the unseen. What are those Laws in question or the details of those Lawless violations? Science has never provided practical evidence to debunk this claim, yet has rigorously disputed it and crowed, "VIOLATION!"
I ask: What Laws Of Nature Are Being Violated By The Believing, since 95% of the universe is unseen, intangible? Kindly answer THIS question. Thanks.
Then, you just contradicted yourself.
But, it is there nonetheless and can be detected and measured. You really are grasping at straws.
Hilarious, yet another false conclusion based on false pretenses.
When you make stuff up that has no bearing on reality whatsoever, you can't expect others to answer your silly questions unless all you expect are silly answers.
Then, you just contradicted yourself
But, it is there nonetheless and can be detected and measured. You really are grasping at straws. 
Measuring those things is NOT in question, now is it, no? So much for straw man. Can you ever answer a question?
Science says, 95% of the universe is intangible aka unobservable, how is that made up?
I am inclined to believe 100% of the universe is tangible/visible through practical application of faith, not mechanics, because all the unseen stuff ( which you claim to be measuring with synthetic a priori) is what makes up the observable.
So, again, I ask: What Laws Of Nature Are Believers Violating by Believing In The Unseen, if by your own admission, 95% of the universe is not observable/is unseen?
Also, What Are Those "Other Methods" you mentioned ?
Everything that is observed is of the natural world, yet you said they were "Unnatural items" and then went on to say to look in a microscope "because it clearly shows the unseen IS what makes up everything seen."
If you can measure it, then it exists. Duh.
Because, you made it up. Where does "science" make that claim.
That's pure baloney. Faith had us believe the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
So, now you put YOUR words in my mouth? Where did I make such a ridiculous admission?
Believers don't violate the laws of nature by simply believing, it is what they claim to believe that violates those laws.
How can what they "claim" be a violation of Natural Laws?
If it is a valid violation, then science is guilty tenfold of violating the Laws of Nature. Hands down, ten to one are the claims of science about nature then all religions combined. In fact nearly ALL religions share the same, single "claim" and opinion of Nature and how it came to be. Only science has hundreds or thousands of theories and false "evidence" of their "unquestionable" claims.
PS, My regard to the "unnatural" is that which is not observable. Call it super natural if you prefer.
My goodness, do I have to hold your hand through and exercise of simple logic?
Making claims of gods and demons, hell and heaven and all the other supernatural claims of existence made by religions would violate the laws of nature. They simply cannot exist if the laws of nature are valid.
That simply makes no sense whatsoever, science is a method of discovering and understanding those laws. How can it violate anything?
Hilarious. So, you never use anything science provides for you? Like a computer and internet connection, for just a couple of examples? Hypocrisy knows no bounds with you.
There is no excess and profit in nature.
Anything after that can be said to be breaking the laws of nature. Good luck.
What an excellent and stimulating post. Contains basic constructs of scientific thought and wisdom.
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
Is Natural Selection in Evolution the result of happenstance?Are the Laws of Nature directed in an arbitrary way?Was the Big Bang a random accident?Was Hydrogen created out of Nothing?Were the first copied pairs of DNA...
by Debra Allen8 years ago
I was chatting with a firend of mine and he was telling me that there can be no such things as UFO and visitor's from other worlds because of the Laws of Nature He also said the Einstien's Theory of Relativity...
by paarsurrey6 years ago
Laws of nature and Universe: Neither man can create them nor finish them; man can only discover them and make use of them for his own benefit.
by Alexander A. Villarasa13 months ago
The Pantheists among us believe that Nature and "GOD" are the same thing, thus the natural world that we are now discerning and discovering was created by Nature itself ... a self creating entity so to speak....
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
Unlike the song with the same title, my question is not a rhetorical one.If we are to believe the naturalist's view, then miracles are absolutely non-existent, because from their philosophical perspective,...
by Charles James4 years ago
This is a question I have yet to see thoroughly answered, here. It is an open question to Atheist, Theist, Agnostic, Gnostic -even Scientist, Philosopher or Other. In your opinion, what constitutes or is [would...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.