Sorry Atheists, But Gods Are Perfectly Possible!!

[Trolldor]

Anything is possible until it is demonstrably impossible. A god that exists outside of the universe and controls it? Definitely possible, just as it's likely that god takes the form of the left half of a Barbie doll's head that's been sent through a deep fryer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Mistermack, you need to show that going back in time is possible. AND that your "gods" aren't just propped up by technology. I'm no god because I can fly through the air, cast lightning bolts at people and make visions appear on my TV.

So that's a fail for you. Sowwy.

You need to read my post again. You haven't understood much of it.
I'm not your teacher, so do it for yourself. It's perfectly clear.
.

Won't bother.

[mistermack]

Definitely possible, just as it's likely that god takes the form of the left half of a Barbie doll's head that's been sent through a deep fryer.

Don't joke. If it came out with a vague resemblance to a beard and sandals, there would be people standing round praying to it.


I've just looked on Wikpedia, and the number estimates for galaxies are about 300,000,000,000. With an average of something like 200,000,000,000 stars in each. That's just NOW, it doesn't count the stars that have died or fallen into black holes. And they've only just started looking, but they've already detected nearly 500 extrasolar planets. I think the chances of our own being the only advanced life form in the universe are as close to zero as you can get.

If there was just ONE in each galaxy, that's about 300,000.000,000 advanced societies out there.
.

[charlou]

Not precisely. If a deity being existed that could alter the laws of nature at will, then that deity being would be "supernatural."

Why would such a being be supernatural? If such a being existed, the fact that it exists would render it, along with it's behaviours, natural. Just because other beings don't know about it, or can't explain it, does not make it supernatural. To think so is like agreeing with theists who believe that any gaps in our knowledge plausibly belong to a 'god'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not precisely. If a deity being existed that could alter the laws of nature at will, then that deity being would be "supernatural."

Why would such a being be supernatural? If such a being existed, the fact that it exists would render it, along with it's behaviours, natural. Just because other beings don't know about it, or can't explain it, does not make it supernatural. To think so is like agreeing with theists who believe that any gaps in our knowledge plausibly belong to a 'god'.

" If such a being existed, the fact that it exists would render it, along with it's behaviours, natural."

Why?

[num1cubfn]

The title to this thread could just as easily be: "Sorry Atheists, But Leprechauns Are Perfectly Possible!!"

And, no, I'm not talking about Animavore.

[charlou]

Not precisely. If a deity being existed that could alter the laws of nature at will, then that deity being would be "supernatural."

Why would such a being be supernatural? If such a being existed, the fact that it exists would render it, along with it's behaviours, natural. Just because other beings don't know about it, or can't explain it, does not make it supernatural. To think so is like agreeing with theists who believe that any gaps in our knowledge plausibly belong to a 'god'.

" If such a being existed, the fact that it exists would render it, along with it's behaviours, natural."

Why?

Because, as I said, everything that actually exists is natural, regardless if we know about it or can yet explain it. If it exists it must have properties or we are talking about nothing .. a nonentity .. and those properties demonstrably/measurably interacting with the properties of other existing things are evidence for its existence. We may not yet know about it or have seen evidence of it, but whether we can see or measure the properties of a particular existing thing is irrelevant in the question of whether it ought to be considered natural.

To me, outside its use in culture, the word supernatural is meaningless, and certainly with regard to anything which actually exists, whether we know about that existing thing or not.

[Trolldor]

Supernatural would be that which transcends the natural laws. Natural doesn't simply mean 'exist' it means 'exists within certain parameters'.

[charlou]

Supernatural would be that which transcends the natural laws. Natural doesn't simply mean 'exist' it means 'exists within certain parameters'.

Parameters determined or understood by us at any given time? I think you're missing my point.

[Randydeluxe]

My usual argument against any highly advanced beings having any contact with homo sapiens is threefold:

1. Highly advanced beings and homo sapiens would have to recognize one another in the first place.

2. Interstellar distances in general, and in particular in our neighborhood, are more gargantuan than almost anyone who has ever lived can fully appreciate.

3. The amount of energy needed to cross such distances is fantastic. Given access to such a quantity of energy, it is highly likely that a naturally-evolved race of intelligent life would consume it either a) getting high, or b) blowing themselves up.

Most of us are happy to agree that this universe is likely teeming with life. And it is clear that under this assumption, there will be life forms that have had billions more years (by our reckoning) to evolve high intelligence, industry, and a clear understanding of the nature of the universe. But the fact that we have not yet met any of them is a very strong indicator that we will not, or can not.

[Trolldor]

Supernatural would be that which transcends the natural laws. Natural doesn't simply mean 'exist' it means 'exists within certain parameters'.

Parameters determined or understood by us at any given time? I think you're missing my point.

Perhaps I should have made some attempt to define - I was speaking 'omnisciently'. Assuming that 'natural laws' encompassess everything we do and we do not know. If there is a being which transcends the natural laws of this universe (All of them not simply those we are familiar with) then it is Supernatural.

Or,
No being will ever qualify as 'supernatural' until it can be established that it can perform the impossible.

[charlou]

Or,
No being will ever qualify as 'supernatural' until it can be established that it can perform the impossible.

heh. Once something is 'performed' it is thus proven to be possible.

[JimC]

The critical thing is the motivation of the aliens with powers supported by advanced science. Sure, it is possible they could pose as gods to more primitive beings, but why would they?

Those that chose such an option would be shallow, needy and power hungry, and their nature would become apparent soon enough...

[Trolldor]

The whole point of being 'supernatural' is that 'possibility' has nothing to do with it. You aren't bound by laws.

So 'Impossible' refers to the limitations imposed by the natural laws of this universe. A supernatural being would be performing the 'impossible' because what it is doing ignores the limitations which explicitly and dogmatically prevent it from happening.


Goddamnit I sound like a fucking New Age Hippie.


Also, EDIT:

This is assuming that they're in our universe and breaking our rules.

[JimC]

This is assuming that they're in our universe and breaking our rules.

Arrest the bastards!