Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

Genghiz Cohen

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for the queston DeVore.

I think in order to put an end to Christianity for me, you would have to do a lot of ground work. However I'll keep this specific to the Resurrection.

You would most certainly have to narrow any possible gap where God could have possibly have come into the process of the formation of the universe. Why the formation of the universe counts in relation to the question of the Resurrection is precisely because you would have to destroy any notion that the Creation was a supernatural event, but rather was the result of it having happened of it's own accord. Basically one would have to explain step by step in an entirely logical process that there wasn't a hope of God having been involved in the creation of the universe, and that there is no means whatsoever that a higher power could have been involved at all.

But we don't even know what causes gravity!!

johnnyskeleton

Jakkass wrote: »

I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural.

I would argue that it is perfectly natural and from observations of our and other solar systems it is quite reasonable to extrapolate that our would was created from the bits of a larger mass which exploded and which formed together through gravity.

Jakkass wrote: »

Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it.

I would say that the constant reshaping of the universe is entirely probable, almost to be a virtual certainty. The universe is contracting now, and in billions of years time will form a critical mass and expand again. Thus it was written thus it shall always be.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

Let's use occam's razor for the moment, and instead of assuming something grossly improbable, miraculous and supernatural happened, that something fairly ordinary happened - one or more people lied about a man dying and coming back to life.

Jakkass wrote: »

Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

Quite apart from the fact that I think the world coming into existence was fairly probable, I don't think that any spurious possibility can prevent something from being disproved. There is no reasonable explanation for the resurrection other than it didn't happen or it didn't happen as they say it did.

More fundamentally, if these things can't be explained, why do you feel the need to invent something to explain them. Such things, being as they are far beyond the ken of man, prove that god (if it does exist) is also beyond the ken of man, and that the image of god and the whole bible story is either a myth or a lie.

Jakkass wrote: »

Miracles are the result of God, not the result of my work or the work of any other man.

Ok, either miracles are observable by man and therefore can be identified and studied, or else they can't be observed by man and so therefore can be proved not to exist (to the most basic standard of proof).

Jakkass wrote: »

Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him.

But you could hire atheists to carry out the experiments with impunity, knowing full well that there is no risk that they will be smitten during the experiment (and thus making a saving on the widows and orphan's pension scheme). As an aside, God telling people not to test him is yet more proof that it is all made up by humans.

Jakkass wrote: »

You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

So you're taking the football home with you then?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd like to know how you would have us demonstrate a miracle to you anyway. I think just as Jesus rejected to show signs to the Pharisees saying that they were "an evil and perverse generation", He would just as easily refuse to perform miracles to us because we are perhaps more evil and perverse than the Pharisees ever were. At least they were Jews who believed themselves to be righteous and who believed they had served the Lord.

Let's not get it backwards - I'm not asking you to demonstrate miracles, I know that they don't exist. The absence of miracles proves, at least on a prima facie basis, that they don't exist. But if you want to prove that they exist, you need to bring that to the table. If Jesus didn't demonstrate his miracles, the presumption is that he couldn't.

johnnyskeleton

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But we don't even know what causes gravity!!

Common sense causes gravity. Down is down, everyone knows that. Physics is simple really*







*Some people claim that gravity is caused by the attraction between sub atomic particles.

Genghiz Cohen

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Common sense causes gravity. Down is down, everyone knows that. Physics is simple really*

*Some people claim that gravity is caused by the attraction between sub atomic particles.

But what causes that attraction?
/Gets thread moved to Physics

Mickeroo

Jakkass wrote: »

I have enough to indicate for it. However you are correct that I do not have absolute proof. Nobody does. Do you wonder why people call it belief? We have to deal with probabilities. God may or may not exist, from this point we have to provide reasons for why we believe in God, or why we don't believe in God (even if a lot of atheists are reluctant to do this, they must too be questioned). I hope you get where I am coming from, feel free to ask any more questions if you don't.

I think i get where you're coming from to a point, but saying atheists are reluctant to provide reasons they dont believe in god is hardly true.

Jakkass wrote: »

I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it. I would argue that something of a similar fashion had in the case of Jesus Christ. Whether or not you believe that God was behind the creation or not is actually irrelevant for now, the facts are something grossly improbable did transpire.

Now, just to clarify further, wouldn't you be an outright hypocrite if you said that something as improbable as the world coming into existence could happen, but the Ressurection of Jesus Christ couldn't?

Seems to me like a class A case of it.

I'd like to see your reasoning on it though.

You see this is where your logic is lacking.

To say the creation of the world was supernatural is a complete contradiction, the fact that it happened, that i'm standing on it and looking at it is irrefutable proof that it happened, making it far less improbable than the ressurection. Also theres is an unfathomable amount of planets in our galaxy alone, this shows you how often it happened, then look at the amount of galaxies in the universe. These are not presumptions or hypotheses i'm talking about, we know they are there.

The creation of the universe is not improbable, it definitley happened, the odds are meaningless, human minds can't grasp it because we haven't evolved in an environment where all this was apparent to us.

Before the big bang is where the gap exists, some people fill that gap with god. I can admit we dont,and probably will never know what was there before the big bang, but does it really matter?? Theres nothing to make me thing that this "god" has been actively involved in the universe since the big bang. **** happens, miracles don't.

Theres a difference between improbable and impossible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I argue that the Creation of the world is an act of the supernatural. Something which was grossly improbable having come into fruition despite the odds being entirely against it.

You keep using the words unlikely and improbable interchangeably with supernatural but they're not the same thing. The creation of the universe is unlikely but the supernatural is physically impossible. The chances of it happening are not billions to one like the chances of life involving. The chances of the resurrection are exactly zero. That's what makes it supernatural

Flamed Diving

That interview was embarrassing to watch. The questions being put to Dawkins (from Kenny, the audience and the UCD fella) were so ****ing dumb, I could understand why he was getting so frustrated.

philologos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would argue that it is perfectly natural and from observations of our and other solar systems it is quite reasonable to extrapolate that our would was created from the bits of a larger mass which exploded and which formed together through gravity.

Yes, but you would need to substantiate that argument. From my reasoning of it, natural would imply "frequently observable" to me. The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural, or outside the sphere of observation. To deem something natural, we can only go on what is inside the universe. However if we are going to get behind the causation of the Big Bang in any serious way, instead of just saying that the universe created itself, we will have to ask questions about the supernatural, i.e what exists outside the natural universe.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

II would say that the constant reshaping of the universe is entirely probable, almost to be a virtual certainty. The universe is contracting now, and in billions of years time will form a critical mass and expand again. Thus it was written thus it shall always be.

Despite mathematicians arguing the opposite? The probability of the universe and life coming into existence the way that it currently has has been calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1 to (10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123) which won't even fit on your average calculator. So you would have to substantiate your reasoning to suggest that it is probable for the universe to exist given these odds.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Let's use occam's razor for the moment, and instead of assuming something grossly improbable, miraculous and supernatural happened, that something fairly ordinary happened - one or more people lied about a man dying and coming back to life.

I'm not assuming anything. It seems to me that you are assuming that the universe coming into existence is probable. Actually most people I've discussed this with have conceded that it was actually grossly improbable for what has happened to have happened at all. We're extremely lucky to be alive.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that I think the world coming into existence was fairly probable, I don't think that any spurious possibility can prevent something from being disproved. There is no reasonable explanation for the resurrection other than it didn't happen or it didn't happen as they say it did.

You'll have to elaborate on your previous understanding, or revise it before we can really continue. How can something that has been shown to be as improbable as the Creation and the formation of life be any more improbable than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

As for "reasonable explanation". I'd disagree with you on that. I have yet to hear a decent explanation of the history of the early church without a Resurrection event.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

More fundamentally, if these things can't be explained, why do you feel the need to invent something to explain them. Such things, being as they are far beyond the ken of man, prove that god (if it does exist) is also beyond the ken of man, and that the image of god and the whole bible story is either a myth or a lie.

Em, I don't think I have invented anything, or propogated a lie concerning this. I think every person should feel a need to want to explain the unexplainable. Infact I think a person who does not want to do this lacks ambition.

As for "such things being beyond man" malarky. Yes, if there was no such thing as divine revelation these things would be beyond man. However if a supernatural being does exist, I think it's entirely reasonable that He could communicate with man and take an interest in His creation.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

IOk, either miracles are observable by man and therefore can be identified and studied, or else they can't be observed by man and so therefore can be proved not to exist (to the most basic standard of proof).

You're not getting the point. Miracles, are by their nature extremely rare. You're not going to be able to just perform one, to assess when you please. If miracles occurred frequently they would be referred to as if they were normal occurrences.

Anyhow, God given His nature, won't be performing miracles to prove Himself. He doesn't need to do that, and I wouldn't expect Him to pander to people who have blasphemed against Him. As I say, I'd say Jesus regards this generation more evil and perverse than His.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But you could hire atheists to carry out the experiments with impunity, knowing full well that there is no risk that they will be smitten during the experiment (and thus making a saving on the widows and orphan's pension scheme). As an aside, God telling people not to test him is yet more proof that it is all made up by humans.

I could, just not aim to disobey God either. I don't see how that is proof. You seem to struggle with the notion of indication. Indication = something is likely to exist, proof = something is definitely the case. However I don't see how this indicates or proves anything.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

ILet's not get it backwards - I'm not asking you to demonstrate miracles, I know that they don't exist. The absence of miracles proves, at least on a prima facie basis, that they don't exist. But if you want to prove that they exist, you need to bring that to the table. If Jesus didn't demonstrate his miracles, the presumption is that he couldn't.

I'd argue that miracles still exist in the modern age. However major major issue in this part is. You assume miracles don't exist, because you have never seen them. However, I've already explained why this probably would be the case. Miracles are extremely rare. Couldn't it be the case that this rarity explains it, rather than a lack of existence of miracles? Jesus demonstrated miracles to people who humbled themselves to receive them. The Pharisees were arrogant and puffed up, much like many who reject Christianity today.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Experimentation on this wouldn't work due to the fact it would be directly disobeying God's commandment not to test Him. You could do it anyway, but you would no longer be testing the Jewish or Christian hypothesis, but you would be testing an abstract God that nobody ever argued for, but rather is the result of a strawman.

That is one of the most perverse things about the christian god to me. He deliberately doesn't want us to be able to prove he exists. It seems he wants to reward gullibility and credulity over an intelligent enquiring mind. A universe where god cannot be tested looks exactly the same as one where he does not exist so the only logical conclusion to draw is that he doesn't exist (specifically the christian god).

Then all these people who drew the only logical conclusion are burned forever and the people who just accepted what their parents taught them and never scratched the surface or asked any questions get rewarded. Except for the people who did exactly the same thing in another part of the world though where christianity isn't prevelant. If you're unlucky enough to live there you're going to hell too for doing exactly the same thing that most christians do

philologos

Mickeroo wrote: »

You see this is where your logic is lacking.

This is very much the case for you, I've explained my position fully. There are quite a few problems with this post.

Mickeroo wrote: »

To say the creation of the world was supernatural is a complete contradiction, the fact that it happened, that i'm standing on it and looking at it is irrefutable proof that it happened, making it far less improbable than the ressurection. Also theres is an unfathomable amount of planets in our galaxy alone, this shows you how often it happened, then look at the amount of galaxies in the universe. These are not presumptions or hypotheses i'm talking about, we know they are there.

No... no it isn't. How is the fact that something happened contradictory to the fact that it is supernatural. Supernatural = not observable from within the natural universe.

Just because you are standing on it, doesn't mean that the earth was not formed through supernatural influences. Infact it has no bearing on it at all. You assume that just because something is claims to be supernatural it cannot exist. However it's highly improbable that the observable universe created itself, and no reasonable person argues this.

As for the amount of planets, this doesn't mean that there were multiple Big Bangs, they are the result of the same Big Bang according to physics. The Big Bang prompted the spreading of the universe and the formation of all of these planets.

Mickeroo wrote: »

The creation of the universe is not improbable, it definitley happened, the odds are meaningless, human minds can't grasp it because we haven't evolved in an environment where all this was apparent to us.

You're not getting the point. It was grossly improbable, yet it happened. There are calculations to show this. Something that is shown mathematically to be extremely improbable of happening occurred. Just because something is deemed to be grossly improbable doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's why when people argue "People don't normally raise from the dead", it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, it just means that it doesn't normally happen.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Theres a difference between improbable and impossible.

You're contradicting yourself now, you've just been arguing this whole post that it isn't improbable that the earth came into existence. However your post is useful, because now you are trying to justify the improbability of the universe having come into existence, just as much as I am trying to justify the improbability of the Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, isn't that just hilarious?

You haven't shown that the supernatural is possible, nor have you substantiated this fact. Therefore it isn't intellectually honest to use this in a discussion as if it were factual.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

natural would imply "frequently observable" to me. The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural

then you need to update your definition of natural because that's not what it means. Even if something happens only once in the whole of the universe, if it fits with the natural laws then it is natural. That's why they're called natural laws and not frequently occuring laws

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Provide this evidence please?

That is the beauty of it. I don't have to. I am not the one claiming the extraordinary feat of magic. Why should I have to prove that something that goes against all the laws of nature and everything we have observed, and has never been seen (and accepted as having happened since) did not happen?

Jakkass wrote: »

If you actually can disprove the Resurrection, it would be a major feat. Infact if you disprove the Resurrection, it would actually crumble the case of Christianity there and then.

I don't need to disprove it. In my opinion it is a load of rubbish. I have read countless posts from christians quoting the "evidence" of the resurrection and read countless post countering this. Added to this I know from many sources that things that have been dead for three days generally do not become living again. This has been backed up by careful observation, and though it has never been proven that they absolutely don't, it seems likely that they don't. Add to this the fact that I also happen to believe there is no evidence for your sky wizard and therefore no way to miraculously reanimate the dead, we come to my position. It most likely did not happen as christians portray it. In fact it so "most likely" did not happen I am quite happy to go that tiny step further and say it did not.

I appreciate that this is not evidence enough for you, but quite frankly, I don't care.

Jakkass wrote: »

Or is it that you are talking nonsense as usual?

Should I be offended here? Perhaps I should just have a giggle to myself at the irony of being accused of talking nonsense by a person that comes out with the kind of nonsense that you do?

Jakkass wrote: »

If so, perhaps you should actually consider the arguments that have been put forward for the likelihood of the Resurrection in Christian apologetics.

I presume the arguements you speak of would be those that are posted in the various threads tackling the resurrection? If so then, sorry. But no.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing what MrPudding will reply or if he will cop out like you have. MrPudding claims that he has the answer to disprove the Resurrection.

Oh. I'm sorry. I seem to have missed the part where I claimed to have the answer to disprove the resurrection.

Jakkass wrote: »

If he does this, Christianity will crumble.

Well, I could not live with myself with that on my concience. Oh wait, I forgot, I am an athiest, I don't have one.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't claim to have a proof for the Ressurection, but I believe I have strong indication that it did happen. Check the link on my sig, and if you want more information feel free to PM me.

Similar to how I don't claim to have proof it didn't happen. Funny that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Argument from Authority - I think you'll find that's a logical fallacy.

LOL at the christian criticising someone for using an argument form authority. Is "god said it" not the ultimate argument form authority and one which is made by christians every day?

MrP

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself now, you've just been arguing this whole post that it isn't improbable that the earth came into existence. However your post is useful, because now you are trying to justify the improbability of the universe having come into existence, just as much as I am trying to justify the improbability of the Ressurrection of Jesus Christ, isn't that just hilarious?

The resurrection is not improbable, it is impossible. That is the fundamental difference between natural and supernatural. You've been saying this as long as I've been reading your posts and you really need to stop. Your definition of supernatural is wrong

J_Kerr

Isn't there a massive difference between some powerful force kick starting the universe (ala big bang) and letting the laws of physics take its course and a deity who kick started it and in between every exploding star, supernova, nubulae and collapsing galaxy etc which he/she must have control over also decided to focus his/her attention on one group of people in one small place in a tiny bog standard planet and doesn't like it if they eat pork or shellfish or work on a certain day.
As Carl Sagan said; we are like a butterfly who flutters for a day and think we have lived a life time.

Sam Vimes

If jesus was still around and he turned water into wine every single day it would become a frequently observable event but that does not make it natural because it still requires breaking natural laws. Please try to understand this

The supernatural is by definition impossible. That's what it means

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If jesus was still around and he turned water into wine every single day it would become a frequently observable event but that does not make it natural because it still requires breaking natural laws. Please try to understand this

They don't want to understand. Doing so would allow them to consider the possibility of the falsehood of their beliefs.

Unthinkable.

philologos

Sam: If Jesus was turning water into wine every day however, it wouldn't be miraculous, it would become normal occurrence, and through time people would probably perceive it to be natural, even if it isn't in our understanding of what is natural. Will you at least concede that much? I'm actually willing to be corrected. Infact even in this thread you'll find I've conceded some points to Galvasean, I can't say the same for you in any argument.

murrayp4

RKDus wrote: »

I must say I found the ignorance of the people making points really annoying.

I don't find it annoying. I do find them really funny though...

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: If Jesus was turning water into wine every day however, it wouldn't be miraculous, it would become normal occurrence, and through time people would probably perceive it to be natural, even if it isn't in our understanding of what is natural. Will you at least concede that much?

No I will not concede that in any way. You do not understand what the word supernatural means. The universe has certain laws that do not change, one of those being that water cannot be turned into wine by waving your hands. IF Jesus did turn water into wine then he had to suspend the laws of nature and he would have to suspend them each and every time he did it. Frequent=/=natural and infrequent=/=supernatural.

Supernatural means "supersedes the laws of nature". Every time. The requency of occurrence is irrelevant

philologos

Sam: Do you not think that after such an act became normal, people might think that it was natural that this could happen? I don't see how that isn't a reasonable statement to make.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote:

I'm actually willing to be corrected. Infact even in this thread you'll find I've conceded some points to Galvasean, I can't say the same for you in any argument.

What were these points? I bet you a euro I will have made the same point to you at some point in the past

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Do you not think that after such an act became normal, people might think that it was natural that this could happen? I don't see how that isn't a reasonable statement to make.

No, it's not. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the word natural. Come on lads, hop in here and tell him

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote:

I underlined the bit I disagree with. Even if he were to hypothetically show the world undeniable evidence that it certainly didn't happen there would still be thos who would refuse to believe it. I mean, we still have those who refuse to believe in evolution, round Earth theory and the Holocaust.

edit: for the record I'm not implying that you would disregard evidence in such a way, merely that there are those who do.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm going to concede this point. You're perfectly right in this objection to my post. In rephrasing it, would it be reasonable to say that Christianity probably wouldn't have as much momentum if the Ressurection had been disproven (or that the supernatural had been shown to be disproven, as to do one you have to do the other). Or would you have contention that Christianity currently has momentum. Share with me your reasoning on it.

The above is the point that you conceded to Galvasean. Previously you have said to me that people wouldn't believe in christianity if it was proven to be false. I responded by saying that people throughout history have believed in all manner of crap long after it has been proven to be false and the example I gave was the people who refused to accept that Elvis was dead despite all the available evidence.

So I did not use the exact words but I made the same point. Yet you conceded it to him but not to me. hmmmmmmmmmmm

edit:here it is
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59775915&postcount=529

and your response was to back out of the discussion as you tend to do when I say something you can't respond to:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59775942&postcount=530

It's come to the stage now where I've acknowledged that the best I'm ever going to get from you is you withdraw from the discussion with some comment about me or how pointless the discussion is. I take that as conceding a point

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, it's not. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the word natural. Come on lads, hop in here and tell him

A blind man will not thank you for a looking glass.

philologos

Sam: I'm not so sure if you phrased it the exact same way, but I concede that point to you equally as well. Anyhow, I've shown myself to actually listen to other peoples input, however, I cannot say the same for you. I'm not going to however nitpick about posts made in past arguments.

Flamed Diving: Thanks, I was going to say the same thing to him too .

Flamed Diving

Jakkass, what you are essentially saying is this.

I know that 2 + 2 = 4 in the natural world, but if Jesus went around saying 2 + 2 = 5 for long enough, then surely everyone would think it is normal!

Well no. Because for the rest of us, 2 + 2 = 4 would still apply, because we simply must deal with reality, even if there is a supernatural being in our midst.

You are simply being stubborn.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: I'm not so sure if you phrased it the exact same way, but I concede that point to you equally as well. Anyhow, I've shown myself to actually listen to other peoples input, however, I cannot say the same for you. I'm not going to however nitpick about posts made in past arguments.

Sorry Jakkass but you have not shown that at all. I have listened to your arguments dozens of times at this stage. I know exactly what you're trying to say. That, however, does not mean I have to agree with you.

You, on the other hand, actually started to ignore all of my posts on threads until you saw something you could respond to, then we would go back and forth after a while until I said something you couldn't respond to and you'd ignore me for another while.

Also, you should look back through your posts and see how many times someone has felt the need to say "I didn't say that" or some variant and felt the need to correct your understanding of their point. You have not shown yourself to be the world's best listener. The simple fact that you keep making the same arguments over and over and over again despite you getting the same responses pointing out the same logical flaws every single time you say them indicates this too. your point about the existence of Sodom indicating God's existence has been refuted at least 4 times in exactly the same way by different people and yet you still make it

Also, when you say you're not going to "nitpick", what that means is you're going to accuse me of not listening but you're not going to give any examples to back up your statement

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Jakkass, what you are essentially saying is this.

I know that 2 + 2 = 4 in the natural world, but if Jesus went around saying 2 + 2 = 5 for long enough, then surely everyone would think it is normal!

Not quite, no.

I would consider both to be 2 + 2 = 4. I have no reason to believe that both are possible. You're not comparing like with like for a start. Something happening without divine intervention, is a different thing than something occurring with divine intervention.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well no. Because for the rest of us, 2 + 2 = 4 would still apply, because we simply must deal with reality, even if there is a supernatural being in our midst.

If a supernatural being was in our midst, isn't that not a part of reality? If that were the case, and if it were a part of reality, I have no reason to believe that the supernatural is not also by extension a part of reality.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You are simply being stubborn.

As a mule

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but you would need to substantiate that argument. From my reasoning of it, natural would imply "frequently observable" to me.

No, things are frequently observable because they are natural (i.e. not contrary to the know physical laws of the universe) not the other way around. Supernatural means something occurring that does not conform to the fundamental laws of the universe.

The creation is not something which is frequently observable, therefore I would consider it to be supernatural

And you'd be wrong.

, or outside the sphere of observation.

Yes, correct. Not the same as supernatural. Electrons are unobservable for example.

Despite mathematicians arguing the opposite? The probability of the universe and life coming into existence the way that it currently has has been calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1 to (10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123) which won't even fit on your average calculator.

This is specious reasoning - simply taking the fine tuning argument and multplying the probability of each physical constant being what it is is no different from simply stating that the universe "appears" fine-tuned for life (it just gives an impressive number as if that makes it more scientific). The fine-tuning argument has been discussed before, it's not evidence for God, and certainly not the Christian God.

So you would have to substantiate your reasoning to suggest that it is probable for the universe to exist given these odds.

It almost sounds like you are disputing the existence of the universe on the grounds of probability? Do athiests have to prove the universe exists before going any further?

I'm not assuming anything. It seems to me that you are assuming that the universe coming into existence is probable.

The universe exists. There is no need to invoke probability. It doesn't matter how improbable you think it's inception was, that fact that we're discussing it negates any evidence on the behalf of a creator due to this probability.

You'll have to elaborate on your previous understanding, or revise it before we can really continue. How can something that has been shown to be as improbable as the Creation and the formation of life be any more improbable than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

First off, the start of the universe has not been "shown to be improbable".

Second, they're different things. The inception of the universe occurs at a point in time that physicists are not sure of exactly what fundamental forces were at play. The physics and biological processes of now are pretty well understood.

If miracles occurred frequently they would be referred to as if they were normal occurrences.

No, they wouldn't as they would still contradict physical, biological or other natural laws.

Mickeroo

If existence itself is supernatural therefor everything within it is supernatural. To say existence is supernatural would imply the ****e i took this morning is supernatural. Theres nothing miraculous about us being here,if we weren.t here there'd be nobody to come up with the concept(and thats all it is) of a miracle in the frst place.