A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

[Jux]

I'm gonna add that bacon might be due to divine intervention. How else could it taste so good?

 

[rutger5000]

Atheist here.
It's a tricky question, as I don't know what you mean with super natural. I do not believe that human intelligence is capable of providing verifiable explanation for all events and things in the universe. To some that is the definition of the super natural, "That what can't be explained". If you want me to go with that then I consider the universe to be super natural.
If you're referring to magic and miracles, then I can't help you any further. It's not that I can't imagine events places or people that might be called super natural, it's just that I'm not aware of any proper and reliable documentation of such a person, event or thing. As a result I don't believe in any of those, and can't classify it as having been in human history.

 

[rutger5000]

It flabbergasts me that so many people still believe in God and all the associated myths and holy books in modern, industrialized countries. You read things like the bible and you see something that was obviously the product of its time, that contradicts itself, that puts forth ideas that most today would find reprehensible, and yet people still believe. I remember reading about the ritual killing of twins by the Kikuyu people of Kenya and thinking "it must suck to live in a place where superstitious belief rules your life and can lead to the death of infants". Of course even in the US many people believe things just as out there.
The trends all point to religion dying out, especially in the developed world, so there is hope that many generations from now no one will believe these harmful myths and base their lives on them.

I don't share your optimism. Some religious organizations have existed for a very long time, and are still very powerful. I don't think that those organizations are willing to fade into obscurity. And I fear they'll resource to extreme and dangerous methods to prevent it.

 

[saruman31]

That people sponsored Uwe Boll's kickstarter is almost certainly the work of Satan.

This forum needs a like button. There is no supernatural event in history.

 

[chuckdm]

Pretty much anything purely based on chance, as it's impossible to disprove that there isn't an overriding conciousness controlling it.

That being said, the inability to disprove =/= proof.

Well, as noted, the inability to disprove != proof. If it was, nobody would literally ever be found not guilty of murder because, surprise, you can pick a random person who was home alone for the event and boom, unable to disprove they did it, so they must've done it.

That said, let's take a harder look at your first part, man.

What about being hit by lightning? Seems to be mentioned here a few times.

Well, first of all, lightning isn't a mystery. If we had sensors placed every 5 feet under the surface of the earth that could detect when a positive electrical change was building, we could detect with 95% accuracy where a lightning strike would hit. This is because we already understand EXACTLY how electricity works, and lightning is nothing more than massive electrical shorts between positive current built up in the ground, and negative current built up in the clouds.

That said, we can already predict LIKELY targets more than 50% of the time according to another rule of electricity: it always travels the path of least resistance. In plain English, if the dude who got struck 7 times is standing in a flat field of grass, he is a shorter path than anything in that field by an entire 5+ feet. (Assuming he isn't a midget for simplicity's sake.) He's also made up of more than 70% water, like all of us, so he's a better conductor for those 5 feet than either the ground OR the air around him.

So no, even the odds of being struck by lightning, which may SEEM like random chance, are based on hard, scientific rules and can be calculated to near-certainty. The only reason they aren't a 100% certainty is because we don't have a positive-charge-detection-sensor-network under every square inch of dirt on earth, i.e. lack of sufficient data to draw a 100% certain scientific conclusion. Given that information, we would never, ever fail to predict them.

In any case, lightning is not divine wrath from a god, but rather a large electrical short that often hits humans because we're just great conductors for electricity. Accordingly, it follows scientific laws - just like everything else, even though we may not KNOW all the laws yet - and it does not require religion to explain.

That said, this is the logical trap religious people fall into. They start from the assumption that there ARE such things that DO exist, and then set themselves upon trying to prove it (in OT's case, crowd-sourcing the actual effort, heh.) But this is wrong from the start. Science does not have all the answers, but science WILL have them all EVENTUALLY. Religion provides "all" of the "answers" now, so people who are unwilling to not truly have valid knowledge forgo science because they'd rather have WRONG answers now than RIGHT answers later. They then spend their lives trying to prove they are RIGHT, but they can't, because they're wrong anyway.

OT: To play along, here's my unexplained event that may or may not have anything to do with a divine being that I'm nevertheless 100% certain does not exist. The fact that religion exists in the first place. It is unexplainable how the masses would be willing to all engage, at the same time, in belief in an outright fairy tale, and spend nearly 4,000 years never calling each-other out on their lunacy. THAT is some sort of anti-miracle.

 

[Shadow5]

In asking a hypothetical there is a requirement to, at least initially, confine yourself to the paradigm it is being posited from.

It is true that all events can appear to be equally inspired by or devoid of divinity.

If I confine myself to the boundaries of the hypothetical's paradigm I would say: Every time a person with a neurophisically 'normal' mind becomes truly mad and deranged.

But I have to limit myself rather severely to come to this conclusion

 

[Schadrach]

They start from the assumption that there ARE such things that DO exist, and then set themselves upon trying to prove it (in OT's case, crowd-sourcing the actual effort, heh.)

Honestly, I was just trying to stir some hopefully amusing discussion around a hypothetical that involved having to effectively pick the subjectively least unreasonable answer from a field of answers that are all, by definition, unreasonable. You'll note in comparison that I didn't have a problem answering a couple of the alternative unreasonable questions presented earlier in the thread as examples of why the question was so wrong (like the duck-fucking question or the one asking for your favorite breed of cat without using a breed of cat that actually exists [who didn't like my answer of a breed of cat from a piece of fiction that was a shapeshifter and thus is the best cat because it is all cats]).

It would be like asking this crowd what their favorite astrological sign was, and instead of getting a discussion about the aesthetics of the actual constellations, or the underlying symbolism, or even the personality traits associated with the signs and their respective valuation, you just get people arguing that since astrology isn't actually of any real value that means we can't discuss the question at all, even hypothetically.

The fact that religion exists in the first place. It is unexplainable how the masses would be willing to all engage, at the same time, in belief in an outright fairy tale, and spend nearly 4,000 years never calling each-other out on their lunacy. THAT is some sort of anti-miracle.

It makes you wonder if we have some underlying neurological disposition for it, doesn't it?

Did anyone notice that the OP's user name is from the bible and is synonymous with extreme devotion to God?

From Wikipedia:
"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are men recorded in the book of Daniel Chapters 1?3, known for their exclusive devotion to God. In particular, they are known for being saved by divine intervention from the Babylonian execution of being burned alive in a fiery furnace."

I actually chose the screen name when I needed a name for an MMO character (back in EQ) and more or less picked it at random from a list of Biblical and mythological names.

 

[rob_simple]

I'm not sure I really understand the question, purely because of all the people getting their panties in a bunch, but I'm going with Rasputin.

Even though the 'magic' powers he used to fix the kid's illness have since been debunked, the myths surrounding his death are still pretty spooky.

 

[EvilRoy]

They start from the assumption that there ARE such things that DO exist, and then set themselves upon trying to prove it (in OT's case, crowd-sourcing the actual effort, heh.)

Honestly, I was just trying to stir some hopefully amusing discussion around a hypothetical that involved having to effectively pick the subjectively least unreasonable answer from a field of answers that are all, by definition, unreasonable. You'll note in comparison that I didn't have a problem answering a couple of the alternative unreasonable questions presented earlier in the thread as examples of why the question was so wrong (like the duck-fucking question or the one asking for your favorite breed of cat without using a breed of cat that actually exists [who didn't like my answer of a breed of cat from a piece of fiction that was a shapeshifter and thus is the best cat because it is all cats]).

It would be like asking this crowd what their favorite astrological sign was, and instead of getting a discussion about the aesthetics of the actual constellations, or the underlying symbolism, or even the personality traits associated with the signs and their respective valuation, you just get people arguing that since astrology isn't actually of any real value that means we can't discuss the question at all, even hypothetically.

I think the main problem was probably in how you asked the question. Rather than saying "...due to divine influence" the better question to ask might have been "...that you completely can't explain and science did it is not an answer."

Personally I can think of all kinds of shit I've seen that I can't explain. A solid half of it scared me so bad the piss backed up in my kidneys and shot out my side. But I could never say "that was the work of the divine" partially because if I have to believe in a god I would rather he be somewhat just and loving, but mostly because I'm certain there is a provable scientific reason for it to occur.

 

[Lightknight]

Human history? Look, I was raised in a Christian household and have done a lot of work in theology/apologetics for a number of religions and I can't point to any event in human history where divine intervention is somehow "likely". None of it has a particularly miraculous appearance to it. The best I can do is debate how the existence of the universe demands a supernatural event to have taken place. Either the universe has to have always existed eternally (turtles all the way down) or it magically came into existence from nothing. So, a massive amount of matter and energy either had no cause in a largely causal universe or it was created in a universe where the conservation of it is law. Both, strictly speaking, are supernatural, definitionally. That's the very best I can do and that in no way falls within human history unless you're including factors that led up to us.

Perhaps abiogensis may be considered a divine action where organic matter arises from inorganic material? The reproduction of that organic matter and the continued feeding of it from its inception until now. The successful transition between asexual life to sexual life (think about the odds of two mutations occuring in the same time between compatible organisms in which one was able to transmit gentic material and the other was able to recieve and combine the genetic material in a way that produced offspring).

There's a lot of math-based things to make the existence of Earth and all the factors that support life as highly unlikely and I suppose you could go there if you ignored the seemingly infinite number of stars and possible planet combinations surrounding who knows how many of them?

I know the formation of the eye (a hugely complex organ that would have been useless the moment before the final evolution that actually transmitted data to a brain that knew how to recieve it and interpret it) and the shape of the coloring on a peacock kept Darwin up at nights sometimes.

But these are just topics that science doesn't have an answer for (yet?) and perhaps can never have an answer for. When all scientific discoveries are based on the observation of our Universe it makes it particularly difficult to try and discover what happened at n-1 where n= the start of the universe.

But an actual event in human history? Perhaps human evolution in which we gained the ability to reason intelligently. To construct social events and convey those thoughts amongst eachother in perfect detail thanks to that reasoning. So the construct of linguistics or something very early like that. Everything else when you look at specifics seems easily explainable. There are some very unlikely situations where people triumphed against all odds, like 300 (in which they all died but ultimately defeated a vast empire in the process), but unlikely doesn't necessarily mean divine.

I find that atheists are generally more honest as agnostics (as per Dawkin's scale which places both Theists and Atheists at faith-based levels) and that agnostics may be persuaded on the side of Deism. I find that the step from Deism towards any faith in particular can only be made by faith and not reasoning. So I can show how Deism is a valid possibility and perhaps even a liklihood, but not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or any other such faith in particular. I can say that Christianity would be the betting man's religion if an individual wanted the best odds of getting to heaven or having a positive spiritual outcome should any faith turn out to be true. But the validity in general has no proof to be seen.

 

[MailOrderClone]

Definitely the pizza bagel. Putting all of the taste of a pizza on a convenient, munchable bagel. Truly this is a feat that no man could accomplish without divine interference.

 

[Glongpre]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

Yeah, and what if we are in fact, more related to house-cats than apes.

In both points, evidence suggests otherwise.

The big bang is a theory therefore it is very possible that if there is an origin of the universe it could be something different or like I said, there is no origin. But sure, the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe in scientific circles is the big bang. Probably, idk.

 

[sumanoskae]

The term "Supernatural" is a contradiction. The word is meant to imply something that does not exist in nature, but since nature encompasses literally everything, if it exists, it's natural.

If by "Supernatural" you mean "The result of an intelligent creator", then I would say the big bang, if only because we know so little about it. That being said, a benign and omnipotent creator is still impossible.

Supernatural is not a contradiction. A zoo is supernatural. What is supernatural is completely relative. Words don't exist for no reason. You guys are not as profound as you think you are.

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

So a Zoo is beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature?

If you define nature as any phenomenon not relating to humans, then you would submit that any hypothetical species that resembled humans would be "Natural", no matter how much the two had in common, which would be an arbitrary distinction.What makes you think language is infallible?

And what do you mean "What is supernatural is completely relative"? It's a word with a specific definition, how is it relative?

By the way, you said "You guys", as if you were referring to multiple people. So, you either made a simple mistake, or you've placed me inside of a category of people you've judged to have arrogantly assumed themselves profound, which is itself an arrogant assumption.

"You guys" is more than 50% of the responders who try to go all meta on the topic and shouldn't even be replying in the first place because the OP says don't reply if you don't have any scenarios to add.

Supernatural means outside of nature, not science. For a wild animal, that's a zoo. Earth could be a zoo. If you met a zookeeper one day and tried to explain that experience, people would say that it was supernatural. No call to get uppity there.

Of course what is supernatural is relative to the observer. By definition that is the case. The word probably predates modern science, if not the word, the concept.

You'll recall that I did answer the question, after I explained the issues with the term "supernatural". Besides, you didn't say we shouldn't be replying, (Which I would judge to be the elimination of potentially valuable perspectives) you said I believed myself to be profound. It's erroneous and patronizing to assume that my argument stems from arrogance, regardless of what other similar posters have said.

I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms; supernatural describes a phenomenon that doesn't exist in nature (As in, arising from the natural world) or that can't be explained via science.

And as I said, to assert that humans are supernatural makes no sense to me, it's an arbitrary distinction. Neither humans nor human creation are unnatural because humans are not unnatural; our behavior can be explained and attributed to evolution and psychology, we are not complicated.

In fact, were humans to transcend their nature, that too would be a result of their nature.

You're describing nature as a subjective thing, as in the nature of a human or the nature of a wolf, but this terminology is unfit for the question posed in the form. When the OP asked for a supernatural example, I'm fairly sure they didn't mean a simple inhuman one.

When an anomaly occurs in nature it is just that, an anomaly. It isn't unnatural for a human to born disfigured, it's simply abnormal. The genetic possibility still exists, it's still natural not "supernatural".

This is why the concept of the supernatural has no use in subjective terminology; when something occurs that is out of the ordinary, we do not dismiss it as beyond our understanding of nature, (Or rather, we shouldn't) we expand our understanding of nature.

Supernatural is most often used to describe phenomenon which are known to not exist, this should be indicative of the irony of using the term to describe a real event.

 

[DazBurger]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

Yeah, and what if we are in fact, more related to house-cats than apes.

In both points, evidence suggests otherwise.

The big bang is a theory therefore it is very possible that if there is an origin of the universe it could be something different or like I said, there is no origin. But sure, the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe in scientific circles is the big bang. Probably, idk.

Evidence suggests that the universe is expanding from a single point, at a gradually decreasing speed.

What will happen when it stops, who knows? Maybe it just stop? Maybe it pulls together again, to return to a single point.. Or maybe the universe as we know is, burst. And then again.. To what, from what and where...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I am rooting for the multiverse theory.
If there really is an unlimited number of universes, there is bound to be exactly like ours.. But a few hundred years behind.
I take great joy in imagining Space/time-tourists, messing with historical figures.