does a supernatural event occur at some point?

1. 0

   christiananrkistposted 9 years ago

   i asked this question in the Q&A section a while back and only got 1 response. given any worldview wouldnt a supernatural event had to have taken place at some point? most theist would obviously say a god/gods created everything. both theists and atheists for the most part dont disagree with the big bang theory. correct me if im misunderstanding the big bang, but isnt that also just a point in time? seems like either everything was created by something eternal or everything sprang up from nothing. Both in my opinion would be supernatural or other than natural occurrences.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No, the big bang was not a point in time as there WAS no time at the instant of it's happening. 
      
      Supernatural?  I suppose so as there were no natural laws, either, and so was by definition outside the natural world of laws.  It doesn't fit the idea of a supernatural world (universe), either, though...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         that concept has always confused me. how could there be no time? is time a physical thing? was the big bang a thing that banged, or nothing that banged? if its the first where did that thing come from? if its the latter, can you explain how nothing can bang? sorry to ask questions irrelevant to the discussion i originally posted. i know it wouldnt be a supernatural world, but does seem to be a supernatural event.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You're asking question that no one can answer with definitive answers.
            
            However, as I understand it, the big bang created the space/time continuum, including time itself.  It created all mass, and it created the natural laws of the universe.
            
            While there may have been a cause, there may not have been one; not everything needs a cause to produce an action.  Did it happen as a result of natural causes?  No one knows, but there is certainly no indication that a god was necessary to bring it about. 
            
            If you wish to define it as supernatural, have at it.  You might want to think about what that word means first, though - exactly what does "supernatural" mean, how does it affect the natural world?  Is it even there, as there has never been any indication that it exists?  Is it just a meaningless buzz word, created to mean "I don't know" or "It has to do with my God"?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               no offense, but if i said to most atheists i know, "You're asking question that no one can answer with definitive answers", i would get ripped apart. i feel like the questions i asked are legitimate questions. maybe that just my opinion. can you give an example in the natural world where something has gone into action without a cause? i cant think of one. even so, seems like such an unimaginable sized explosion would need a cause. im ok if people dont want to go with a creator caused it, but to say it can just happen seems unscientific and unnatural. supernatural -  being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena (from dictionary.com)

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  What happens without a cause?  Electrons move about the nucleus without a cause.  Subatomic particles pop into and out of existence without a cause.  A great deal happens without a cause, just nothing we are familiar with in our everyday lives.
                  
                  Listen to yourself:  A singularity (about which we know nothing) explodes into the universe (an action we know extremely little about) and natural laws including time (a concept outside any of our experience) and you want to say there has to be a cause because everything you're familiar with has one. 
                  
                  When you have spent a lifetime studying cosmology and physics, you might (might) have a reason to make such a statement.  Until then, you most definitely do not.  You can only go with what those who HAVE made that study say, and they all say there need be no cause for the big bang.  That you cannot imagine the big bang without a cause means exactly nothing as you have neither the experience nor knowledge to even consider it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     funny thing is you're the one turning this into a religious debate. why because i mentioned God? because i have christian in my name? i was simply stating what most theists believe as an example of supernatural. by the way you do the same thing. why do you say those things dont have a cause? because nothing familiar to you can possibly explain it? since nothing you know of could cause these things they must not have a cause, right? and how about religion? when you spent a life time studying all there is to know about a possible creation , every religion, and the possibility of supernatural events, then and only then can you assert there is no God. why do you say there isnt one? because you not familiar with anything supernatural happening in your own life? Now, where does this type of argument take us? nowhere. so , why don't we just get of the christians are ignorant because they believe in God horse. its old. do you seriously think i haven't heard all these statements before? i do thank you for the 2 examples you gave and for actually answering my questions though. Everything after was unnecessary and unhelpful. this is why i ask the questions i do. to possibly learn and get helpful insights. one more point. there is evidence for ID. and i am positive you have heard some. just because you accept it, or consider it reliable, doesn't make it not evidence. .

                     replyreport
         2. 80

            psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            We don't need to be able to explain it by the rules reality has now.  Because it had different rules then.  And even not being able to explain it at all does not make it magic.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               when you say rules, do you mean every natural law we know according to science? how could the laws of physics or thermodynamics for example change over time?

               replyreport
         3. 0

            Rad Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The theory is not that nothing banged. Much like a bomb all the material is said to have been compressed into the tinniest of spots and for reasons not yet understood decompressed. Time is not really constant and where high amounts of gravity exist time is slowed down, like in a black whole. The concept of something occurring without the time to do it is rather interesting.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               that is interesting. i guess i have to do more research on time. it doesn't seem like time itself can be slowed down to me. only how we perceive it. such as how we determine a 24 hour period. even the explosion of the tinniest thing there could ever be, still leaves in my mind the question, where did that come from?

               replyreport
   2. 80

      psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      No, there are world views where the supernatural simply does not exist.  From that point of view everything coming from "nothing" (or however all this stuff got here) does not need to do so with the help of ghosts or pixies or psychic whatsits or Gods. Not knowing exactly how it happened just means we don't know exactly how it happened.  No need to fill the gaps with stuff outside the domain of stuff and energy.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Good point.  Ignorance is never a reason to simply make up an answer.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            im not making up answers. i simply explore EVERY option, and choose to believe what i think is the best answer. its having a theory and going with it. some of the best discoveries in our world was because some one came up with a theory.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               And that is a reasonable method of finding truth, right up to the point where the "best" answer is chosen.  Without evidence of being true or real, no answer can be the best possible.  If NO answer has evidence then no answer is best.
               
               This is in direct confrontation with ID; that answer has zero evidence to back it.  Instead, ignorance of what happened is used to proclaim that it is the only thing possible.  An obvious fallacy when arguing from ignorance.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Argument from Ignorance has claimed people much greater than moronic Intelligent Design proponents, as well. Both Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein come to mind, as the former stated that the only way gravity was possible was because of God's will, and the latter proposed a Cosmological Constant because he didn't want to believe the universe was expanding (and, by extension, had a beginning).

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     One has to wonder about the political ramifications of Newton's declaration - did he know better but wish to live outside a jail cell?  We'll likely never know.
                     
                     Einstein - sounds rather like proposing dark matter because we want to believe the universe is expanding.  Science does this all the time, then looks for proof one way or the other.  That's why I say it is a reasonable method of discovery.
                     
                     Unfortunately, "proof" of ID is that the myth is present in the minds of proponents.  That and our ignorance of the details of the big bang...

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Rad Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     It's become human nature to claim God done it when one doesn't understand something. That was Newton's error. But it wasn't Einstein's, that's why Einstein got gravity correct and Newton had it wrong.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Is it possible that thousands of years ago, when language was in it's infancy, that "goddunnit" meant "I don't know"?  That it slowly changed to "Do what I tell you or else" with changes in the power structure of the tribe?

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Rad Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Everyone wants to be a know-it-all, so when people are asked questions like "Where did those stars come from?" they could always answer with Goddonit.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              And doing so sounds so much better than "I don't know".  "Goddunnit" makes you an expert, after all, while "I dunno" makes you an idiot, even if both mean the same.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 we're still on this subject? do you think others don't do similar things. i have heard my share of made up statements as to why God couldn't exist. screaming God of the gaps is so easy. giving reasons why God couldn't exist is another thing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 96

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    No, different subject.  This one concerns why people invented religion and gods to begin with and is a little tongue-in-cheek.  Somewhat comedic, or was intended to be.
                                    
                                    There ARE no reasons a god cannot exist, or at least none I've ever seen.  Some people take that statement to mean a god exists, or that it is reasonable to assume that one does, but it does not.  It says there are no reasons a god cannot exist, nothing more.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       same subject actually since the original post was only about supernatural in general an not religion. so we are still on the religion thing. when statements like " Ignorance is never a reason to simply make up an answer." , " ignorance of what happened is used to proclaim that it is the only thing possible." prior to the goddonnit comment, i dont take it as tongue and cheek. these are the kind of statements i was talking about that go nowhere. this is indirect name calling and proves or disproves nothing. your arguments would be a lot more compelling if you gave examples or showed where or how im wrong in my thinking, rather than just claiming god of gaps or ignorance.

                                       report
                                       1. 96

                                          wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Go back to the second post of the thread; you will find the answer to the OP there.
                                          
                                          Then re-read the goddunnit statement, in the series it was posted.  It references Newton and Einstein, not you.
                                          
                                          As I made no arguments, it's hard to see them as compelling with or without examples.  Should you wish to present you thinking on the supernatural and just where it impinges on reality, I would be glad to make an argument about it.  Probably a simple "evidence, please", but an argument of some kind.  So far I haven't seen your argument or even thinking, just questions and requests for information about the big bang.  Questions that, for the most part, have no answers at this time.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             you're right. i didn't make any claims or arguments. i did just ask questions. which is why i don't understand the god of the gaps statements and the ignorance accusations. im just trying to get some information. hence the questions.  i also understand you haven't made any arguments either. i don't consider statements like those arguments or helpful. i do thank you again though for providing me with those 2 examples, as they have helped me in my research.

                                             report
      2. 0

         christiananrkistposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         in what world view or explanation has everything gotten here from natural causes?

         replyreport