How unlikely are God and/or other "supernatural" things?

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Please note a post has been removed for discussion across Mod team

[SteveH]

Why do you think that?

Igave my own answer to that, but the mods appear to have deleted it. I can't say I blame them: it was rather rude. I'm not apologising, though.
[Edit] I see that NS confirms that it was removed.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Jesus existed, but much of what was claimed for him was either untrue or greatly exaggerated.

Which has nothing to do with the idea that a god being unlikely is a meaningless idea.

[Stranger]

When last I checked only particles could do that.......not universes.

You didn't mention the universe - but actually, it's the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle and the energy of the universe may well be zero. However, I digress.

The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.

And yet we have two things that are supernatural. Appearance of everything out of nothing or the eternal.

Even if they were the only possibilities, why would you class either as "supernatural"? What do you even mean by it? For that matter, even if there was a god, surely it would be the most natural thing in existence?

[Roses]

Which has nothing to do with the idea that a god being unlikely is a meaningless idea.

I was replying to a post in which Jesus was mentioned, which has now been removed!

[Nearly Sane]

I was replying to a post in which Jesus was mentioned, which has now been removed!

No, The post removed was nothing about Jesus

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You didn't mention the universe - but actually, it's the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle and the energy of the universe may well be zero. However, I digress.

The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.

Even if they were the only possibilities, why would you class either as "supernatural"? What do you even mean by it? For that matter, even if there was a god, surely it would be the most natural thing in existence?

The universe, even described without recourse to involving God is doing one of two supernatural things since both cannot be explained in natural terms namely universes are not seen popping out of nothing something which could not be demonstrated anyway.....see previous criticism of Hume and there is no way to stand outside an eternal universe to check that is true.

Looks like game over for you.

[Stranger]

The universe, even described without recourse to involving God is doing one of two supernatural things since both cannot be explained in natural terms namely universes are not seen popping out of nothing something which could not be demonstrated anyway.....see previous criticism of Hume and there is no way to stand outside an eternal universe to check that is true.

Since when has not being able to observe or demonstrate something, somehow made it "supernatural" or not explainable in natural terms?

Looks like game over for you.

 

[Roses]

Just because science can't explain it all at present, it may be able to do so in the future. Things that we take for granted today would have seemed 'supernatural' to people living a few hundred years ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

No doubt others have spotted it already, but Vlad has just jumped from "no naturalistic explanation available" to "supernatural" with no connecting argument of any kind, just as Norse people did for Thor.

It's a stunt he's tried before too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since when has not being able to observe or demonstrate something, somehow made it "supernatural" or not explainable in natural terms?

 

Again what is natural about a universe popping out of nothing.?
What is investigatable or observable about a universe existing for ever?

In other words what is repeatable about either?

You are just expressing a faith position that somewhere, over the rainbow a scientific solution will be found. Even if you had the apparatus for it when and where could you make the observation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because science can't explain it all at present, it may be able to do so in the future. Things that we take for granted today would have seemed 'supernatural' to people living a few hundred years ago.

But this concerns the universe of which we are part. What you say merely covers parts of the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No doubt others have spotted it already, but Vlad has just jumped from "no naturalistic explanation available" to "supernatural" with no connecting argument of any kind, just as Norse people did for Thor.

It's a stunt he's tried before too.

Unfortunately the Norse people were trying to explain parts of the universe which in a discussion about the whole universe is, I'm afraid, non secateur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

She's a cruel mistress the burden of proof, and shifting it will break even the sturdiest of backs.

Ah well. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

...as indeed is the straw man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She's a cruel mistress the burden of proof, and shifting it will break even the sturdiest of backs.

Ah well.

This morning you described God as very unlikely.......how unlikely? Show your working out please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.

Apparently both Russell the Godfather of New atheism and Dawkins take the same tack as you concerning the impertinence of being asked about how or whether the universe had an origin.

I'm thinking this is because the universe in either case has to do something pretty unnatural. Hence their big fat neon"Don't go there"

[Stranger]

Again what is natural about a universe popping out of nothing.?
What is investigatable or observable about a universe existing for ever?

In other words what is repeatable about either?

And again, what has any of this to do with the distinction between natural and "supernatural" (whatever you think that is)?

You are just expressing a faith position that somewhere, over the rainbow a scientific solution will be found.

No, I'm not, I don't know if a scientific explanation will emerge or not.

[Roses]

But this concerns the universe of which we are part. What you say merely covers parts of the universe.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

[Stranger]

Apparently both Russell the Godfather of New atheism and Dawkins take the same tack as you concerning the impertinence of being asked about how or whether the universe had an origin.

I'm thinking this is because the universe in either case has to do something pretty unnatural. Hence their big fat neon"Don't go there"

We don't know what we don't know. Making shit up because we don't know something is irrational. Not knowing something doesn't mean that it is either unknowable or magic.

And as I said, postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain it. In your view, why does your god exist? Why not another god, or no god at all?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't know what we don't know.

Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here......and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.

[Nearly Sane]

Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here......and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.

No we don't know that either of those are possible nevermind that they are the only 2 possibilities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we don't know that either of those are possible nevermind that they are the only 2 possibilities.

Show your working out.

[Stranger]

Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here...

We don't know that, and even if we did, it has bugger all to do with the "supernatural" or the likelihood of any god(s).

...and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.

Eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We don't know that, and even if we did, it has bugger all to do with the "supernatural" or the likelihood of any god(s).

Eh?

Sorry I meant to say that if we accept that the universe popped into existence or that it has been around forever in some form we can no longer BAULK at those capabilities assigned to anything else.