Sorry Atheists, But Gods Are Perfectly Possible!!

[mistermack]

Randydeluxe, I have to agree with all of that. Although I'm not sure number 1 would be that much of a problem.
The bit about the size of the Universe preventing interaction is what most people don't fully get, unless they really study the distances involved.
With the sheer number of alien life forms that have to be out there, at least one would surely have made contact by now, if there was a way of "teleporting" over vast distances like in the movies. So there must be no possible way of doing it.

The only other alternative is that we are being swamped with alien messages right now, but they come in a medium that works faster than light, that we can't detect.
Aha, maybe that's what number 1 means.
.

[mistermack]

Lots of replys have made the perfectly valid point that super-advanced aliens would not be gods. That's fair enough, of course I think the same. BUT :

We are nearly all atheists here. How would the rest of the world react to an incredibly advanced alien? If they just arrived here, and did no harm, I can GUARANTEE that large numbers of people would worship them as gods.
How could it be otherwise? They already worship gods that don't exist, what could possibly stop them worshipping "gods" that do actually exist?

It's all very well having us atheists standing around theorising that they are not "actually" supernatural, but most of the world doesn't think that way.

We as a species have never had to deal with a superior intelligence, we've always been number one. I am proposing that the majority of the world would react to vastly superior aliens by MAKING them into gods, and worshipping them.

The instinct is there, you can't deny it.
.

[RuleBritannia]

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.

It's completely illogical to say that there are set laws that everything natural has to obey, yet there are certain supernatural things that can break them all. If an entity is found that can break our current understanding of the natural laws, then it is the laws themselves that we got wrong, it's not the case that the entity is magic.

[Trolldor]

LAWL.

Assuming that 'natural laws' encompassess everything we do and we do not know.

So my definition is valid.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Because, as I said, everything that actually exists is natural, regardless if we know about it or can yet explain it.

And how do we know this? Or is it just an assumption that there can be nothing else?

[num1cubfn]

Because, as I said, everything that actually exists is natural, regardless if we know about it or can yet explain it.

And how do we know this? Or is it just an assumption that there can be nothing else?

Since this seems to boil down to a question of definition, I'll link a couple definitions from Mirriam-Webster. Unfortunately, different definitions seem to support each viewpoint.

If it existed, it WOULD be natural
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person
12 b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe
13 b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint
13 c : having a form or appearance found in nature (this one is rather tautological)

If it existed, it wouldn't neccesarily be natural
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble…brother…ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow
11 b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
15 : of an off-white or beige color

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Unfortunately, different definitions seem to support each viewpoint.

And that's why I don't like an automatic assumption of one position or the other.

[RuleBritannia]

It has nothing to do with the definitions of natural and supernatural, that's all sematics.

The question is: If an entity was discovered that could break (our current understanding of) the laws of science, would that mean, a) our laws of science are wrong and need to be changed to account for this new phenomenon; or, b) this new phenomenon exists outside the laws of science and is in a new class of existing things.

[Trolldor]

Our understanding is irrelevant, as I keep saying.

To be Supernatural it has to break the laws of nature. Not the known laws of nature, THE laws of nature.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Our understanding is irrelevant, as I keep saying.

To be Supernatural it has to break the laws of nature. Not the known laws of nature, THE laws of nature.

Which is impossible, of course. Of course.

[mistermack]

Our understanding is irrelevant, as I keep saying.

To be Supernatural it has to break the laws of nature. Not the known laws of nature, THE laws of nature.

Which is impossible, of course. Of course.

Ziller, we agree on something!!!!
Ever since charlou posted, we've been dancing around the word 'supernatural'.
If you take the view that anything that exists, or happens, is natural, then nothing supernatural can ever happen, or exist. It's just the definition you choose of the word, nothing more.
Nothing can ever break THE laws of nature, because if it could, it wouldn't be a LAW.
According to Charlou's definition, if the christian god DOES exist, it's natural, not supernatural.
In the end, you're just taking your pick of two meanings of a word.
If you choose different meanings, you can never agree. But nobody can be right or wrong, because it's purely a matter of opinion what the word means.
.

[charlou]

If an entity is found that can break our current understanding of the natural laws, then it is the laws themselves that we got wrong, it's not the case that the entity is magic.

Ayep.

[Trolldor]

Demonstrate that a natural law can not be broken.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Our understanding is irrelevant, as I keep saying.

To be Supernatural it has to break the laws of nature. Not the known laws of nature, THE laws of nature.

Which is impossible, of course. Of course.

Ziller, we agree on something!!!!

Actually, no. But you'll have to figure out what that means.

[mistermack]

Actually, no. But you'll have to figure out what that means.

Thank god for that!! I don't need to know why, it's a load off my mind anyway.
.