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

[Tobias_Marco]

Assumption #1: There is some kind of god or goddess, possibly more than one.
Assumption #2: At least one of these beings sees the Human race as interesting and/or special enough to intervene in our lives.
Assumption #3: It is possible for us Humans to see 'the fingerprints of god's handy work'

One could say that god knocked the apple out of that tree that Sir Isaac Newton was sitting under.
Someone else may say that god must have been guiding me one day when I turned left instead of right and something really amazing happened.

 

[The Enquirer]

Even though I am a Christian, if I had to pick someone other than my obvious choice, I would have to say the Medici family during the renaissance. They pretty much ended the medieval period that was full of suffering due to their support of the arts and education.

The Medici? Aren't those the fellows who initiated the night of st. Bartholomew? In which thousands of protestants were slaughtered by their catholic brothers?
Not what I would call humanitarians. Though definitely influential.

I believe they were but to be fair the Bible is one of the more violent books out there. But to be fair, the family did end hundreds of years of little to no education and very little in the way of culture. So I'd say that they had a huge influence. Even if they did use it for things that ended in death.

 

[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.

 

[hooglese]

Phi. That shit is magical. It's everywhere and it's one number.

 

[xdiesp]

If you have trouble finding the ones sent by God, maybe you should look into the Devil's work. It can be brilliant and very telling.

 

[Knife]

The Medici? Aren't those the fellows who initiated the night of st. Bartholomew? In which thousands of protestants were slaughtered by their catholic brothers?
Not what I would call humanitarians. Though definitely influential.

I believe they were but to be fair the Bible is one of the more violent books out there. But to be fair, the family did end hundreds of years of little to no education and very little in the way of culture. So I'd say that they had a huge influence. Even if they did use it for things that ended in death.

Can't argue with the Medici being one of the most influential families in Europe at that time period. But I doubt they single handedly ended the medieval period. Their contribution was mostly financial. I say most of the credit goes to the people they supported. Still they deserve the credit for at least supporting such people.

 

[OldKingClancy]

Don't know if this has been brought up yet but Robert Johnson's talent.

To those of you who don't know, Johnson was a blues player in the 30s who, allegedly, sold his soul to the devil in order to play the guitar better than anyone.

He died when he was 27, his deal with the devil complete.

While this is most likely false I believe it to be true, it feels like it could've happened at some point, it's that air of possibility that makes this story stand out to me.

 

[Vigormortis]

The heat likely wouldn't have had time to effected him nor would the radiation. You know there where survivors form Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is completely possible to survive a nuclear blast. Like I said depending of the wight of the fridge it's completely possible. Your fridge? He would likely be dead, but they did flash to a little note on the side that said it was lead lined, so the one used was probably very heavy.

Yes, there would be a chance the lead lined fridge would have protected him from the initial radiation. However, the moment he opened the door and stepped out he would have been exposed to massive doses from the area around him. Likewise, the heat from the blast, given his proximity, would have likely cooked him inside the fridge. Though, even if it didn't, with how quickly he exited the fridge upon landing he would still have faced ambient temperatures in the hundreds of degrees.

And yes, there were some survivors from the blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But three things to consider:

1: most that did survive died shortly after from severe burns or radiation poisoning
2: the weapons used above Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likely far weaker than the one tested in the film
3: most of the survivors were either in well concealed locations or outside the primary blast radius

All of that is moot, though, when one considers the force required to 'launch' such a heavy fridge. Not to mention the force of the impact from the fridge traveling such a long distance; both horizontally and vertically. The chances of him coming out of it alive, let alone unscathed, are virtually nil. The overpressure alone might even crush the fridge.

The raft stunt, though, is entirely plausible. As long as the weight is distributed in such a manner that it prevents the raft from tumbling end over end, it can provide enough air resistance to act as a pseudo-parachute.

The landing would still hurt like hell, but still may be survivable. Certainly far more than being "nuked in a fridge".

 

[guitarsniper]

The cancellation of Firefly, obviously an act of Satan.

In all seriousness, though, a good amount of the crazy stuff I've seen video of really intense Qi Gong and yoga practitioners do.

 

[bliebblob]

How about the existence of our universe? As far as I know we know absolutely nothing about what is outside the universe, or what was there before our universe. Sure there are theories about there just being a bunch more universes and stuff, but then what is outside and in between those?

The way I see it there are two options: either there will always be a bigger "thing" around the last biggest "thing" we found, or it actually will stop at some level. Both are unimaginable (at least to my brain anyway) so it's not hard to think of it as a supernatural phenomenon.

 

[Eddie the head]

Yes, there would be a chance the lead lined fridge would have protected him from the initial radiation. However, the moment he opened the door and stepped out he would have been exposed to massive doses from the area around him. Likewise, the heat from the blast, given his proximity, would have likely cooked him inside the fridge. Though, even if it didn't, with how quickly he exited the fridge upon landing he would still have faced ambient temperatures in the hundreds of degrees.

Umm well no that's just not how Thermodynamics work. Most of the heat would have gone into the house an not effected fridge anyway. For radiation just look down for why that's irreverent.

And yes, there were some survivors from the blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But three things to consider:

1: most that did survive died shortly after from severe burns or radiation poisoning
2: the weapons used above Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likely far weaker than the one tested in the film
3: most of the survivors were either in well concealed locations or outside the primary blast radius

Well 1 is just not true, Akiko Takakura survived the blast in a bank lobby and I think she just died in 2008.

For 2, the tests going on at that time where all sub 50 kiloton. "Apple 2" was likely the nuke going off at the point and it was 29 kilotons, fat man was 21. So no they where not "far weaker."

For 3 Akiko Takakura was 300 meters away. Furthermore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Schiffer

It's also said that after the surrender of Japan, the American army doctors explained to him that his body would begin to deteriorate because of the radiation; yet to the doctors' amazement, Fr. Schiffer's body appeared to contain no elevated radiation or ill-effects from the bomb.In fact, he lived for another 33 years in good health, and was present at the Eucharistic Congress held in Philadelphia in 1976. At that time, all eight members of the Jesuit community from Hiroshima were still alive.

All of that is moot, though, when one considers the force required to 'launch' such a heavy fridge. Not to mention the force of the impact from the fridge traveling such a long distance; both horizontally and vertically. The chances of him coming out of it alive, let alone unscathed, are virtually nil. The overpressure alone might even crush the fridge.

The raft stunt, though, is entirely plausible. As long as the weight is distributed in such a manner that it prevents the raft from tumbling end over end, it can provide enough air resistance to act as a pseudo-parachute.

The landing would still hurt like hell, but still may be survivable. Certainly far more than being "nuked in a fridge".

That's simple, that wouldn't have happened that way. The fridge would have gone with the shock wave, not be blown ahead. It likely would have tumbled not flew. That part is movie magic, but that would be irreverent to the point that it is possible to survive a nuke in a fridge.

Here is a video(form this veary sight) explaining the math and such.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reel-physics/6780-Indiana-Jones-4-Crystal-Skull-Nuking-the-Fridge

 

[Therarchos]

This discussion reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote:

?There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.?

It is a shame that the prevalence of atheism and scepticism seems to completely remove most peoples sense of anything miraculous in our existence.

I find love miraculous. Even with all our knowledge of the chemical process and the biological reactions I still find it miraculous that so different people as family friends and lovers can spark such a reaction in a person. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote (paraphrased) in voyage of the Dawn treader: That's just what it's made out of. It is not what it IS.

 

[MeisterKleister]

If you were forced to choose some person, place, thing, or event throughout all of human history as "most likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence (christian or otherwise)", what would it be?

No, you aren't allowed to choose "nothing, because I don't believe in that shit" as the whole point is to see what people end up picking when forced to actually choose, and that isn't an answer, it's a refusal to answer.

I'm sure this has been addressed already, but I'd still like to give my own take on the OP:

Your question reveals some profound misunderstandings (this is not meant to be taken as an offense).

Being an 'atheist' simply means that one does not believe in a god or gods, nothing more. It does not preclude any other supernatural beliefs.
In other words, one can be an atheist and still believe in things like miracles, ghosts, spirits, the afterlife and rebirth.

On the other hand, a skeptic (in the philosophical sense) is someone who withholds belief until sufficient evidence has been provided. In other words, a skeptic will not make any claims or form believes based on little to no evidence.
The supernatural is by definition outside of scientific investigation and therefore cannot be proven. Because if it could be proven, that is, if it was in the realm of science, it would by definition become part of nature and not be supernatural anymore.

So whether you like it or not, my answer is nothing, because skepticism - by its very nature - precludes the supernatural and the divine.
In other words, if I were to answer your question with something other than 'nothing', I wouldn't be a skeptic.

 

[Simple Bluff]

My favourite theorem in Probability and Statistics (and by extension, all of Applied Maths) is the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem"]Central Limit Theorem[/a] (CLT). Not unlike many other things in Maths, the CLT is unfathomably deep yet surprisingly intuitive. Let's see how well I can explain, for those who are interested...

Spoiler: Within lies madness.

Because I'm boring, I'm gonna start by putting it into formal terms: the CLT states that no matter what "distribution" a "population" has, the "mean" of the "sample" of said population will always have a "normal distribution" (there's some slight nuances I'm neglecting - they're inconsequential to non Maths geeks).

Well, that's a lot of technical jargon that means nothing to nobody. But hopefully it will become clear with an example. For future reference, the "mean" is simply the average, like you would've learned in school (Ex. the mean/average of 1,2,3 is 2. The mean/average of 5, 12, 13 is (5+12+13)/3 = 10).

Consider a city populated by thousands of people. Let's say we wanted to figure out the mean(/average!) height of everyone in the city, for funsies. This means that for our experiment, the heights of every single person in the city is our "population." Now... we could just measure EVERY single person and calculate the average from that, but that'd be one hell of a task! The golden rule of Applied Maths is to be as lazy efficient as possible. So, we decide to take... say, 100 people (at random!) and calculate their mean height. This is our "sample."

"But what the hell's the point in that, you moron?" you sagely inquire. Well... not much. Not yet. But let's take another sample from 100 people (at random!). And another. And maybe a few more after that.

"Are you taking the piss?" you prudently probe. No, for you see, once we get enough samples (surprisingly few is required), we'll be able to accurately measure the mean height of the population - and be able to tell (within reason) the nature of any samples taken afterwards! This is because you'll notice the distribution of the values you found from the sample will approximately form a [a href="http://people.hofstra.edu/Cong_Liu/PSY40/NormalDistributionSD.jpg"]Normal Distribution[/a].

These "normal" things are pretty damn difficult to describe if you've no experience in Statistics, but let's just say it's nature's instruction manual. If you had the (relatively straightforward) statistical know-how, you'd be able to predict A LOT about samples of independent entities (ie - each value in the population does not rely on another value). For example; we could use a normal distribution to determine how many people (within reason) in the entire city fall between 6' and 6'3 - all from our tiny samples we took. Or we could tell the likelihood of getting (say) five 6'6 people in our next sample. And we could make many more predictions just like those.

"So? What's the big deal? I had to sit through a crappy maths lecture for this? You're the biggest retard ever." you wisely remark. Well, the thing you have to understand is that this could apply to ANY population of independent values, not just heights or something equally as trivial. Any population in the universe. Blood pressure. Measurement errors. Shoe sizes. Everything.

All described by a curve. And a straightforward one at that.

If you followed that then congratulations - you're a lot smarter than I am!

To be honest, it's not quite as romantic as I made it sound at the end there. The requirement that the population be made up of independent random variables is a pretty big hurdle - in reality, very few things are truly independent.

But that's still amazing isn't it? That every independent statistic in nature falls into this pattern - so elegantly? And the weirdest thing about all of this - in my opinion - is how simple it is. This isn't some forbidden arcane knowledge, they teach this stuff in (near) introductory stats courses. Feckless nineteen year olds are taught this.

It humbles me to think that this simple bell shaped curve - this beautiful, elegant curve - can describe so much of our natural world. It's so neat and intuitive... sometimes I feel it was planned that way. That nature has her own consciousnesses to sustain herself in such an intuitive way.

I hope that answers the OP's question. I almost forgot where I was going with all that.

Oh, and [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect"]something else to consider[/a].

 

[Simple Bluff]

The supernatural is by definition outside of scientific investigation and therefore cannot be proven. Because if it could be proven, that is, if it was in the realm of science, it would automatically become part of nature and not be supernatural anymore.

What about things that are true but [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]can't be proven[/a]? What about things that CAN be proven, but [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox"]make no goddamn sense[/a]? It's hard to be skeptic in the face of these things, sometimes. Or it is for me, at least.

EDIT: Fixed links.

 

[zane224]

Scented Febreeze. How can something specifically made to destroy smells have its own smell?

 

[MeisterKleister]

The supernatural is by definition outside of scientific investigation and therefore cannot be proven. Because if it could be proven, that is, if it was in the realm of science, it would automatically become part of nature and not be supernatural anymore.

What about things that are true but [a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]can't be proven[/a]? What about things that CAN be proven, but [a href = "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox"]make no goddamn sense[/a]? It's hard to be skeptic in the face of these things, sometimes. Or it is for me, at least.

Your links don't work, though I can see them, when I quote you.

We are talking about existential claims in the physical world, not about mathematics. This an important distinction.
Anyway, I am of the opinion that withholding one's belief until sufficient evidence is provided always is the best course of action. What qualifies as "sufficient" depends on the strangeness of the claim.

Truths that "cannot be proven" are indistinguishable from falsehoods that cannot be proven.
Also, in your first link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems] it says right in the second sentence "[t]he theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, ..."

Keep in mind that people used to think that the Earth being round and rotating didn't make any sense. What you personally think makes sense or doesn't has no bearing on what's actually true.

Note that not believing something, does not mean that I claim that it is false or that I believe it is false. It just means that I am unconvinced.

Claiming that something is supernatural, because there is no natural explanation, is always wrong, because it's a fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance].
If there is no explanation, then that's all there is to it: there is no explanation.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
-Carl Sagan

Edit: made some tweaks

 

[Johnny Impact]

Origin of life itself.

Maybe he makes the whole universe, maybe it's already there and he just kicks a little divine spark into the primordial soup to get things going. Then he sits back to watch his children play. That would be a god I could get behind.

 

[Therarchos]

This discussion reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote:

?There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.?

It is a shame that the prevalence of atheism and scepticism seems to completely remove most peoples sense of anything miraculous in our existence.

I find love miraculous. Even with all our knowledge of the chemical process and the biological reactions I still find it miraculous that so different people as family friends and lovers can spark such a reaction in a person. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote (paraphrased) in voyage of the Dawn treader: That's just what it's made out of. It is not what it IS.

It's a shame some people think that finding something marvelous and wonderful can only happen if you don't understand it and say God did it.

That was exactly what I didn't say. But when I look at a lot of the replies in this discussion that is actually what is said. The in ability to even just in a hypothetical question to say that anything is marvellous and wonderful enough to be divine I think is sad beyond measure. This is not me saying that you can't do that as an atheist. I just find it depressing that apparently our quest to find out how everything works seems to make a lot of people unable to marvel at it. Hence the C.S. Lewis quote. Even when everything is measured it is still marvellous and wonderful.

 

[MagunBFP]

It's a shame some people think that finding something marvelous and wonderful can only happen if you don't understand it and say God did it.

That was exactly what I didn't say. But when I look at a lot of the replies in this discussion that is actually what is said. The in ability to even just in a hypothetical question to say that anything is marvellous and wonderful enough to be divine I think is sad beyond measure. This is not me saying that you can't do that as an atheist. I just find it depressing that apparently our quest to find out how everything works seems to make a lot of people unable to marvel at it. Hence the C.S. Lewis quote. Even when everything is measured it is still marvellous and wonderful.

Who says that for something to be marvellous or wonderful it has to be the work of the divine? I go down to the beach near my home most mornings for the sunrise, I know the colours in the sky are a result of light refracting and reflecting through the atmosphere and the sunrising is simply a result of the Earth's rotation, but damn if it doesn't look awesome. Doesn't really have anything to do with the divine though.

Trying to find out how the world works doesn't usually result in a lack of wonder, if anything those people making the discoveries are usually driven to see just how far the rabbit hole of wonder goes.