A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...
- Thread starter Schadrach
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Then how am I supposed to answer, since I don't believe in the divine or other supernatural shit? Even the things that appear to be without explanation, or seem impossible, all have rational explanations. Even if we cannot find them, or perhaps we can't even physically comprehend them; they can all be explained.
What you want from us is to say "I don't understand X, therefore magic," which seems a lot like some sort of god of the gaps fallacy trap.
What you want from us is to say "I don't understand X, therefore magic," which seems a lot like some sort of god of the gaps fallacy trap.
Stole the words right out of my mouth.BathorysGraveland2 said:
To the OP:
You can't expect someone who doesn't believe in ANY kind of supernatural elements to come up with 'part of history most likely caused by or involving the supernatural'...
you do see the complete failure of logic in that premise, right?
The fact that I understand it or have a concept of it would instantly negate it from the influence of my concept of supernatural/divine. The idea or concept of an entity that is all powerful and yet is mediated with the limitations of influence or causation is a logical fallacy that cannot exist due to it's own defined nature.Schadrach said:
Now the concept of some lessor divine entity without the qualifier of all powerful would demote it from the definition of god and cease it's existence in the first place, or we would change our definition of god as that which is very but not all powerful, still such an entity is just a logical construct and only exists in conjecture and not in perceived reality.
And again with supernatural, existence in and of itself is a natural state of being, nothing exists without existing and even concepts like thought can be traced back to existing elements in the perceived reality.
I guess to answer your question the only thing that may be influenced by the supernatural is that which does not exist, which is just a concept.
shrekfan246 said:
No, this is clearly the answer [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/1629-Scientists-Rebuttal-to-ICP]
Clopping ponies, how do they work?
You have the shinning!
No, it really isn't the same question. The first question is "what do you believe that you don't believe?", the second one is "what would you believe if you didn't believe what you believe?". The first question has no reasonable answer. The second is more or less a random guess.lacktheknack said:
Yes, it is entirely needed. If you address a question specifically to "atheists and skeptics" then it is expected that they answer it as "atheists and skeptics".lacktheknack said:
It's more semantics than anything else really, natural is basically all that exists. If god came down to earth today and said "Hello, I'm god and here's proof of my godhood..." then most if not all skeptics would believe in his existance. But in that very moment god would stop being supernatural and start being natural.lacktheknack said:
But do you have... the whole story?Zachary Amaranth said:No, this is clearly the answer [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/1629-Scientists-Rebuttal-to-ICP]shrekfan246 said:
Well, when a male pony loves a female pony but she "friendzones" him...
[sub]Oh god, I can't believe I just typed out that sentence.[/sub]
[small]Pictured: shrekfan246, upon stumbling into the Gaming Discussion and Off-Topic forum front pages.[/small]
I seriously can not wrap my mind around why this is so hard for people.
"If you believed in the supernatural, what historical event would you think to be most influenced by it?"
"But I don't believe in the supernatural, how am I supposed to answer that?"
"I said 'IF' you were to believe. It's a hypothetical question."
"BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST YOUR QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE."
"That's not the point!"
"THERE IS NO GOD YOUR QUESTION IS STUPID."
I know it's a hypothetical question, and it's supposed to be difficult and put the recipient outside of their comfort zone, and having some prior knowledge of how hypothetical questions work, I know that it's natural for the human mind to try and avert the question rather than give a straight answer. Even knowing this, I still try and dodge the question when posed with a tough one. But this is just ridiculous.
Usually people are fairly reasonable and well maintained on this site, but as soon as someone brings up even the hypothetical possibility that things beyond scientific explanation could exist, people go berserk.
OT: Most luck-based circumstances in history, I suppose. I don't know the specifics, but I remember there being a battle in the American Revolution where the revolutionaries were really outnumbered, and something happened with the weather (fog, I think it was) disoriented the enemy well enough to even out the odds. Now, those might not be the exact circumstances, and for all I know it's simple legend, but I know there are times, even today, when people are phenomenally, inexplicably lucky. Things like that make me think that some force could be directly intervening.
Then again, I myself am a Christian, so I guess I am a brainwashed delinquent with no capacity for reason or potential for intellectual pursuit and I deserve to be shunned from society.
Maybe I need one of these...
"If you believed in the supernatural, what historical event would you think to be most influenced by it?"
"But I don't believe in the supernatural, how am I supposed to answer that?"
"I said 'IF' you were to believe. It's a hypothetical question."
"BUT IT DOESN'T EXIST YOUR QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE."
"That's not the point!"
"THERE IS NO GOD YOUR QUESTION IS STUPID."
I know it's a hypothetical question, and it's supposed to be difficult and put the recipient outside of their comfort zone, and having some prior knowledge of how hypothetical questions work, I know that it's natural for the human mind to try and avert the question rather than give a straight answer. Even knowing this, I still try and dodge the question when posed with a tough one. But this is just ridiculous.
Usually people are fairly reasonable and well maintained on this site, but as soon as someone brings up even the hypothetical possibility that things beyond scientific explanation could exist, people go berserk.
OT: Most luck-based circumstances in history, I suppose. I don't know the specifics, but I remember there being a battle in the American Revolution where the revolutionaries were really outnumbered, and something happened with the weather (fog, I think it was) disoriented the enemy well enough to even out the odds. Now, those might not be the exact circumstances, and for all I know it's simple legend, but I know there are times, even today, when people are phenomenally, inexplicably lucky. Things like that make me think that some force could be directly intervening.
Then again, I myself am a Christian, so I guess I am a brainwashed delinquent with no capacity for reason or potential for intellectual pursuit and I deserve to be shunned from society.
Maybe I need one of these...
This'll do for me as well I suppose. Too tired to think for myself apparently. However, this answer deserves repeating so here I am... repeating it.Elfgore said:
I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. I welcome it. As long as we can have an intelligent discourse, even if we can't see eye to eye.
The responses here is why I vehemently hate talking to people nowadays.
Everyone nowadays has to be completely correct, and everyone who disagrees with them is just a stupid idiot who isn't worth anything but disdain. They are so inflexible, talking to a brick wall would give you more leeway.
You believe in science, string theory and the possibility of the multiverse, but things beyond your understanding or willingness to accept is obviously stupid.
You believe in the bible, but you ignore what's written there and say what's fact and what's fable.
All of you need to relax because this ire you have for each other could be better used to ACTUALLY making the world a better place, not just stamping out what you think is tiresome.
And I'm going to actually answer those skeptics who have to bash what other people believe in to be superior. I might not believe in it, but fuck me if I'm better than someone else to completely trash how they live.
How are you supposed to answer if you don't believe in it?
Be fucking creative. Open your mind. You remember those creative writing assignments in school? Remember your english teacher saying 'Suppose you were the President or Monarch of Some country and you had to amend a law "... You never were, but I'm sure you pretended.
You can do the same thing now. Your disbelief won't be affected. You'll still know with every fiber of your being that this is all there is to life and there's nothing else. And hey, you could have a little fun just thinking creatively for a while instead of using every single chance to break out your soapbox and bash, bash, bash!
To the OP, Tsutomu Yamaguchi. Something was looking out for this man. Something. Two atomic bombs. Seriously? And he died just three years ago in 2010. Comprehend that.
The responses here is why I vehemently hate talking to people nowadays.
Everyone nowadays has to be completely correct, and everyone who disagrees with them is just a stupid idiot who isn't worth anything but disdain. They are so inflexible, talking to a brick wall would give you more leeway.
You believe in science, string theory and the possibility of the multiverse, but things beyond your understanding or willingness to accept is obviously stupid.
You believe in the bible, but you ignore what's written there and say what's fact and what's fable.
All of you need to relax because this ire you have for each other could be better used to ACTUALLY making the world a better place, not just stamping out what you think is tiresome.
And I'm going to actually answer those skeptics who have to bash what other people believe in to be superior. I might not believe in it, but fuck me if I'm better than someone else to completely trash how they live.
How are you supposed to answer if you don't believe in it?
Be fucking creative. Open your mind. You remember those creative writing assignments in school? Remember your english teacher saying 'Suppose you were the President or Monarch of Some country and you had to amend a law "... You never were, but I'm sure you pretended.
You can do the same thing now. Your disbelief won't be affected. You'll still know with every fiber of your being that this is all there is to life and there's nothing else. And hey, you could have a little fun just thinking creatively for a while instead of using every single chance to break out your soapbox and bash, bash, bash!
To the OP, Tsutomu Yamaguchi. Something was looking out for this man. Something. Two atomic bombs. Seriously? And he died just three years ago in 2010. Comprehend that.
But this wasn't the original question.Dfskelleton said:
The original question was along the lines of:
"What historical event would you think to be most influenced by the supernatural?"
To the religious person it sounds like:
"If you believed in the supernatural, what historical event would you think to be most influenced by the supernatural?"
To the atheist and skeptics it sounds like:
"If you didn't believe in the supernatural, what historical event would you think to be most influenced by the supernatural?"
Hence the different responses.
The fact that i can put an even number of socks into the washinh machine, literally count them in, run the cycle without leaving the room, empty the washing machine, and find it has presented me with an odd number of socks! Where the f#>$ do the other ones go?!
On a serious note however I don't feel this question can be properly answered as a skeptic or an atheist. The basic of that belief system is that all puzzles have rational solutions, even when they are not apparent. As such you believe that there is a 0% chance of any event being caused by supernatural forces. Now you can accept the possibility that you are yourself fallible, that you are mistaken in your belief and as such accept the possibility that such forces exist. However, what you cannot do, working within your belief system, is somehow rank unexplained events in terms of likiliness to be caused by supernatural forces, when a basis of that belief system is that said chance is always 0.
Its like asking someone "If you woke up one morning and found you had turned into a squirrel, would you be more likely to have turned into a red or grey squirrel?" To any sane person the chance of either event occuring is 0, so you can't rank one as more likely than the other.
On a serious note however I don't feel this question can be properly answered as a skeptic or an atheist. The basic of that belief system is that all puzzles have rational solutions, even when they are not apparent. As such you believe that there is a 0% chance of any event being caused by supernatural forces. Now you can accept the possibility that you are yourself fallible, that you are mistaken in your belief and as such accept the possibility that such forces exist. However, what you cannot do, working within your belief system, is somehow rank unexplained events in terms of likiliness to be caused by supernatural forces, when a basis of that belief system is that said chance is always 0.
Its like asking someone "If you woke up one morning and found you had turned into a squirrel, would you be more likely to have turned into a red or grey squirrel?" To any sane person the chance of either event occuring is 0, so you can't rank one as more likely than the other.
So you have no imagination is what you're saying? Damn dude, how do you even get up in the morning? Just pretend for God's... er, for... um, for math's sake? Yeah, let's go with that.Vegosiux said:
For me, Alexander the Great. It isn't statistically possible to never lose a single battle. That just isn't fair to probability or anyone else with aspirations of being a strategist.
My answer is nothing. That is the whole thing. There is nothing that I find remotely likely to have been caused by supernatural [Which does not just mean "Not normal". Read the dictionary, please:
There are phenomenon we have no answer to at this time, but nothing that seems likely to be caused by supernatural interference. There is knowledge we do not have, but nothing pointing to any form of divine intervention.
The question is also not a hypothetical.
And I choose nothing. All events are equally likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence, as all events are certainly not the result of supernatural or divine influence.
To answer a hypothetical question of what is most likely of divine influence were I to have some level of belief in the divine, I would have to say the existence of consciousness.
The beginning of the universe makes no sense when you talk about divines and such. It basically comes down to just adding a middle man.
"What made the Universe?"
"The big bang"
"What made the big bang?"
"Unknown"
"Obviously God made the big bang"
"What made God?"
There is no answer for this. You can either answer that god has always existed, in which case why could the singularity that caused the big bang not have always existed, or you don't know, and we're back where we started.
∇.B = 0
∇xE = -∂B/∂t
∇xB = µ.J + µ.ε.∂E/∂t
Or something like that at any rate =P
] or divine influence. Nothing.
There are phenomenon we have no answer to at this time, but nothing that seems likely to be caused by supernatural interference. There is knowledge we do not have, but nothing pointing to any form of divine intervention.
The question is also not a hypothetical.
The only hypothetical part of that is the "If you were forced to choose" part. Its a question that needs to be reworded into a hypothetical, but as is the only hypothetical part is that I'm being forced to choose.
And I choose nothing. All events are equally likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence, as all events are certainly not the result of supernatural or divine influence.
To answer a hypothetical question of what is most likely of divine influence were I to have some level of belief in the divine, I would have to say the existence of consciousness.
The beginning of the universe makes no sense when you talk about divines and such. It basically comes down to just adding a middle man.
"What made the Universe?"
"The big bang"
"What made the big bang?"
"Unknown"
"Obviously God made the big bang"
"What made God?"
There is no answer for this. You can either answer that god has always existed, in which case why could the singularity that caused the big bang not have always existed, or you don't know, and we're back where we started.
∇.E = ϱ/εZachary Amaranth said:
∇.B = 0
∇xE = -∂B/∂t
∇xB = µ.J + µ.ε.∂E/∂t
Or something like that at any rate =P
Evolution of human intelligence. That or the sheer number of lifeforms able to survive on the planet when 99% of the other planets in the universe are lifeless rocks lacking even oxygen or a strong gravity field.
No silly, not the shining, the shinning. The totally different identical power set possessed by Bart Simpson, with the added ability to avoiding copyright infringement.shrekfan246 said:
OT: How's this for a rewording that won't (read: probably still will) give those thread derailers something to argue against instead of just answering the damn question. "Which object or phenomena do you think will take the longest to find an adequate explanation of?" This question ducks the whole "my belief system prevents me from having an imagination" argument everyone and their mother seems to be using while also yielding responses that are in line with what the initial post was seeking.
My response: Well, given that the creation of the universe has been thoroughly explained:
TLDR: Existence of, and transport to, alternate dimensions.