Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Whatever, enjoy your conversation then. Utter nonsense. I do not think I have ever done that or do that. Too funny again. I'm sorry, did you forget so soon how I use the terms God and god? Another nonsense question.The super natural, if it exists, exists regardless of any evidence that it does not exist.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Why do you insist on talking in ambiguous riddles and then getting all haughty when any attempt to pin you down to a position is made?Why not just answer the question — Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way?Just a yes or no will do. If you feel the need to explain your answer then do. But please make it clear and unambiguous what that answer is first. You used them like this: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329Now it seems a little hypocritical for you to be berating Buz for suggesting that the origins of the universe require a supernatural explanation when you yourself are advocating the supernatural as a viable explanation for the existence of certain myths and stories. What is the difference? As does Buz’s supernatural explanation for the origins of the universe.
As does Kermit the Frog. Message 174
So what?

Again, you misrepresent what I have said.I have NEVER said that the supernatural was an explanation of anything. God(s) and god(s) are creations of humans. They may or may not reflect some actual critter but they are simply caricatures, human attempts to describe something else at best. The evidence of those Gods or gods are the stories and those stories can be used to make a reasoned, logical estimation of how likely or unlikely such a critter might be and if by some chance, one of those caricatures turned out to actually reflect a real critter, what position one should take in regard to that critter.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not? You said: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329How can the myths and stories be evidence of gods/Gods unless you are advocating a causal relationship between the two?

Then go back and find where I defined how I use the terms GOD, God and god.

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not?You said: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329How can the myths and stories be evidence of gods/Gods unless you are advocating a causal relationship between the two? The evasion continues.Why? Why are you telling me to look-up your personal definitions when you could just explicitly tell us whether or not you consider there to be a causal relationship between the existence of the supernatural and myths and stories pertaining to such?Why do you feel the need to talk in ambiguous riddles rather than state a position?How is Buz's (much derided) advocacy of the supernatural in relation to the origin of the universe any different to your advocacy of the supernatural with regard to myths and stories?You are being hypocritical and contradictory.

I have told you, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times.God(s) and god(s) are the creation of human minds and may or may not reflect any actual critter. Because I cannot do more than I have. I simply don't know how to make my position much clearer. I for one do not deride the idea that the super-natural is the origin of the Universe, and in fact I have told you that I believe GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen.I deride Buz's explanation of how it happened because it does not stand up to examination.Let me try yet again.GOD is I believe, that which created all that is, seen and unseen. It is a personal belief. It is not reasonable, rational or logical. But it is what I believe.God(s) and god(s) are human creations. They may or may not be representations or caricatures of something that actually exists, perhaps even of GOD.God(s) and god(s) may be examined reasonably and logically, rationally based on the information contained in the stories, fables, tales. Those stories, fables, tales are evidence of the beliefs of the authors, editors, redactors and may or may not reflect reality.When the story says that an individual met a god, I need to make a judgment about how likely I think that tale is. It is a personal judgment made on a case by case basis.The tales of God(s) and god(s) can also be used to make decisions about how one should behave if the God(s) or god(s) happen to turn out to be true.I hope that helps you.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Do you consider the supernatural to be evidenced in any way? Or not? An explicit and non-evasory answer to that question would help a great deal. But nor does your own explanation for the existence of myths and stories pertaining to the supernatural: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Message 329.How is that conclusion more evidenced than Buz's conclusion?Be specific.

Do the stories exist?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

Because it appears that the math, which, as I understand what was alleged, is supportive to the multiple universe hypothesis which BB science ascribes to.

---

You have some major confusion in your thinking/understanding as well as an obvious lack of any mathematics.
a) The BB theory says nothing about other universes. It is quite possible for other spacetimes to exist outside this one, just as it is actually quite possible that THIS spacetime is infinite in extent. Those that know the comic-book version, like yourself, believe the comic-book reports of an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity. The BB theory has no such assumption inbuilt.

quote:

---

My response related to the claim that the laws of physics observed in our universe may not apply to other universes.

---

Quite so. Why should they?

quote:

---

The problem still remains that more universes imply an outside of our universe and that there is a between universes.

---

No, that is simply a misunderstanding of basic physics. Your mind deals with 3-D visual information and you think that this extrapolates to the whole universe. A rather parochial and very limited viewpoint I'm afraid, that completely fails with even the basics of modern physics, let alone the more speculative areas of cosmology. I'm afraid you need a few years of study to even understand the questions, let alone pontificate about the implications.

quote:

---

Imo, applying unknown laws of physics to explain that problem is even more absurd than explaining the supernatural hypothesis. There is a lot more sensible evidence for the a higher level of intelligence than that of humans than for the multiple uiverse claim.

---

Again that is simply an appeal to your own ignorance. I could explain the Everett MWI interpretation of Quantum Physics but you don't appear to have the basic tools to understand it. Common-sense seems to be your only metric, and given that such 'common sense' is based on observation of an extremely limited subset of conditions then it is not going to be much use when describing things outside your perceptual experience.

quote:

---

If anything has failed, it's the multiple universe hypothesis; not the supernatural.

---

But, again, you don't understand the multiverse hypotheses (there are several, not one) so saying it has failed is just blowing smoke.

Thanks, Bikerman, for responding in depth. This site is a classic example of length secularist science goes to in order to circumvent intelligent design and the ultra-high intelligent creator who planned and desigened it all.What I see in a read of this sight is, like a kid trying to explain his way out of the missing cookies in the cookie jar goes to great lenght to concoct up a believable aliby as to why cookies are missing in lieu of simply stating concisely why the cookies are missing.When secular science can't come up with a logical and sensible reason for alibis to explain away intelligent design and the supernatural it's MO is to make their explanation so complicated, and mystical that even they (as is the case in this site) must talk in terms of probabilities, multiple possibilities, unrealistic dimensions, concocted up math, negative gravity effecting energy popping up from nothing and nonsense (I say nonsense because they as much as admit so) like that.Yet they have the audacity to call multiverses and string theories when, in fact, there's no model or ability to predict from these alleged theories. Man, if a creationist dares alude to anything , I say anything, smacking of a higher intelligente capable of designing and creating complex things five or six members are right there to object.I don't care if you have 4D, 10D or 11D layers, bubbles or whatever multiverses, like 3D, there is a separation known as a between. I'll never be convinced that I must toss out of my thinking all logic and reason so as to become scientific. I call that mysticism, magic, delusional and impossible.I maintain that the supernatural has far less evidence of failure than these alleged theories which scientists argue, debate and for the most part have little understanding of themselves. Richard Feynman as much as admitted that he doesn't fully understand a lot of what he believes himself, including string theory.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

What the heck does this have to do with intelligent design and a creator? Unless it's now ID dogma that God couldn't have made anything that's complicated and difficult to understand ...

Yup cause if an Buz, who doesn't have any education in math or science beyond high school (if that), can't understand it, then it's obviously wrong.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

String theory and N-branes don't explain the supernatural. Mental illness, which has a far higher incidence in any population than accounts of any supposed supernatural doings, explains the "supernatural."To reiterate - people don't see aliens because of 10 spacial dimensions, they see aliens because they're hallucinating.

quote:

---

When secular science can't come up with a logical and sensible reason for alibis to explain away intelligent design and the supernatural it's MO is to make their explanation so complicated, and mystical that even they (as is the case in this site) must talk in terms of probabilities, multiple possibilities, unrealistic dimensions, concocted up math, negative gravity effecting energy popping up from nothing and nonsense (I say nonsense because they as much as admit so) like that.

---

Again this demonstrates that you don't understand the basics.
a) Science doesn't deal with the supernatural unless it is manifest in some way which can be tested. Those reported phenomena which can be tested have been tested and found to be illusion, invention or imagination.
b) What you seem to want is an explanation of physics which YOU can understand, without being prepared to do the bare minimum necessary - ie learn some basic maths. Why do you think the universe should be simply explicable to someone who's only experience is on a small planet in a tiny corner of an unremarkable galaxy and who's brain was evolved to yell at apes about food and predators? Anything is complicated to those who are ignorant. The answer you seem to adopt is to wail that it cannot be so, because you don't understand it. Kids do the same thing quite a lot. The brighter ones learn that the problem is theirs, not the explanation's.

quote:

---

Yet they have the audacity to call multiverses and string theories when, in fact, there's no model or ability to predict from these alleged theories.

---

There is both - a model (actually several) and quite a few predictions to be tested. Again the problem is that you won't understand either if you insist that it is translated into a language best suited to jabber about the parochial experiences of an evolved ape.

quote:

---

I don't care if you have 4D, 10D or 11D layers, bubbles or whatever multiverses, like 3D, there is a separation known as a between. I'll never be convinced that I must toss out of my thinking all logic and reason so as to become scientific. I call that mysticism, magic, delusional and impossible.

---

And thus speaks the ignoramus through history. What thinking and logic? You display very little of either. You don't care. Those 3 words sum it up. You don't really want to learn because you are frightened that:
a) You are not capable of understanding
b) It might shake your current worldviewIt isn't new - we see the same attitude in all recorded history, from the persecution of Socrates in Plato's account of the trial, through the imposed ignorance of the medieval Church, and, today, in the blind refusal to accept basic science from the creationists.

quote:

---

maintain that the supernatural has far less evidence of failure than these alleged theories which scientists argue, debate and for the most part have little understanding of themselves. Richard Feynman as much as admitted that he doesn't fully understand a lot of what he believes himself, including string theory.

---

Yes, of course you 'maintain' - that is all you can do. Feynman was talking about quantum physics when he said he didn't 'understand' and he was conveying to his audience that the laws of Quantum Physics are not amenable to 'common sense'. They are incredibly accurate and have never been shown to be in error - even to one place in 10^8, and Feynman knew this - having been responsible for a major part of QED himself. He was simply trying to explain to an audience of non-scientists that they shouldn't worry if what he said contradicted their parochial common-sense notions because that is how it is - take it or leave it. In fact, if you like Feynman quotes then he says exactly what I am saying:

quote:

---

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

---

In fact if you want to know a lot more than you do now, I recommend you sit attentively through the following Feynman lectures:
The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos
You still won't understand the physics but at least you might learn to ask sensible questions about it.