Can we please see the calculations you used to come to this conclusion? I mean, how do you even start to calculate the probability of a supernatural event, like God manifesting tommorow?
Truth:
the supernatural is by definition impossible. If it were possible it wouldn’t be supernatural. It’s not a low probability, it’s a zero probability. The reason we know that turning water into wine is impossible is not because we haven’t observed it but because it is impossible to create matter out of nothing (and the water-into-wine trick would involve the actual creation of new molecules not present in mere water. It’s not just a transformation it’s an act of ex nihilo creation…among other things). matter cannot be created or destroyed. That is an inviolable law of physics. It can’t be done. Ever.
Blake:
That’s just my point. There is no statistical or mathematical way to calculate relative probabilities of impossible events. If something is impossible then by definition it has zero chance of being possible. All such hypothetical phenomena are equally impossible. There are no degrees of impossible.
Yes there is!
The ultimate degree of impossible would be Diogenes voting for Bush in 2004.
Hmm…is there such a thing as a negative probaility value? 
You know, something can have a probability of zero and nonetheless happen, or a probability of one and nonetheless not happen.
Jesus will return on May 33rd.
There is more in heaven and earth, Diogenese, than is dreamt of in your philosophy. It’s hard to say what’s more impressive, your cluesnesses regarding physics, chemistry or logic. It’s like a trifecta of ignorance.
I guess I’d have to go with “logic.” Your definition of “supernatural” simply creates a tautology. Using your definition, the statement “X is supernatural” never has a truth value of one.
Look, try, just try, reading those cites I gave you. See if you can follow them. Admitedly, the second is a bit stiff but you ought to be able to handle the first one. You might even actually learn something, thereby proving for yourself that miracles really are possible.
I can agree with much of this, but not the part about either it’s true or it isn’t because it does matter to whom. A truth to a lekatt is different to him than a truth to James Randi, and it’s often going to be different for each person and even epistemologist’s, I’m sure, are going to have varying degrees of strong opinions on what it constitutes. Since the OP addresses some of Polycarp’s statements, I’m particularly interested in how much all of this is truth according to him. Says Polycarp:
Polycarp does give enough qualifiers in the quoted material from the OP to realize it isn’t some absolute fact or truth to him, but it is of little consequence to me for someone to admit that he might be mistaken, when he writes all of the stuff that was presented here. Just the thought that anyone would half-ass think they might be right with some of these statements of what reads like some prophetic vision, is still something I find bizarre. What he calls a “strong hunch” doesn’t give it any more respectability to me, and I fail to see how that would give anyone consolation either, after he went into some detail with this person’s features, to which he says he is going to name his identity soon. I know that if anyone else had written the same, many would have been accusing that person of being about 51 cards short of a full deck. And no, I’m not picking on Polycarp. Perish the thought. Did I fail to roll out the red carpet? Hell, I come here for the entertainment value. I’m sure Polycarp is every bit the fine person many people think he is that have met him. I only know what he writes here, and his opinions on religious or supernatural matters doesn’t cause me any harm in the least; nor does it cause me to dislike him even if I think some of what he writes is tommyrot. It is little concern for me if some skeptics want to give Polycarp veneration for his strong hunches, visions, or whatever one would like to call them. It is all fine and dandy with me, but I’ve seen this before, and guess I’m not as easily amused and intrigued as others. Perhaps, twenty years ago, I would have been.
JZ
Cite? 
Cite 
Tell me anything I’ve said which is incorrect about either physics or chemistry or logic.
It’s not a tautology so much as a truism. By empirical standards all “supernatural” events are impossible. The statement “X is supernatural” never does have a truth value of one. That’s my point. Maybe, the problem is with the language here as the word “supernatural” is somewhat of a null term. If something exists, it is natural. The question is what is the probability that an event will disobey the normal laws of nature. Since the laws of physics can never be disobeyed (or they wouldn’t be laws) there is a prior probability of zero for any such hypothesized event. Look, is it safe to say that there is a zero probability that 2+2 will ever = 169? It’s the same principle.
I read the first and tried to read the second. It seems to me like they’re talking about probabilities for events which obey the laws of physics. I didn’t see or at least didn’t comprehend anything about probabilities for events which violate those laws.
Look at it this way. Supposing I throw a fair die.
The odds that it will turn up six are one in six.
If I throw it again, the odds that it will turn up six are one in thirty-six.
The longer I throw it, the odds that the string of sixes will be unbroken approach zero.
If I continue to throw it forever, the odds that the string of sixes will be unbroken is zero.
However, it would violate no physical law for me to continue getting sixes forever. It is possible, even though the probability is zero.
(Well, except for the part of me eventually losing interest or dying, but let’s not that get in the way of anything.)
To be precise, I should have said, “The odds that it will turn up six twice in a row are one in thirty-six.”
Well, that’s a bit circular, isn’t it? Nothing can disobey a law of physics, because a law of physics is something that cannot be disobeyed.
Well.
I admit, when I stumbled upon this thread last night, I was stunned speechless right along with DuckDuckGoose. I, however, REMAINED stunned speechless. And to my shame, I was inclined to “weasel” out of it since no one had actually asked for my opinion. It would have been easy to pretend that I never ever SAW this thread. Never have I EVER had to actually confront the fact that I am a wuss and so forth. I confronted it today.
I would prefer to NOT be here. However, I don’t feel I can actually NOT say what I believe. I know that no one really cares about my opinion, but I don’t feel that I can sit here and shut up.
First of all, here is an explanation of my belief system, originally expressed on the UnaBoard.
So, that is my “theology”.
As to this thread…I love Polycarp. He is my friend, and I would do almost anything for him. I have a great deal of respect for him. He is a marvelous person, and a good friend. He exhibits a lot of the attributes that I would expect a Christian to have.
However, I do not agree with him, apparently, on some very basic points. I thought we were in sync on most things…if this isn’t a “whoosh,” I was apparently very wrong.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I believe that He DID fulfil the Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament as the Messiah…in ways that are real and understandable…also, I understand why these Messianic prophecies were misunderstood by the people who were looking for an earthly King instead of a spiritual King.
I DON’T however, find any ambiguity in the New Testament accounts that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the son of God. When Christ was crucified, God Himself said “This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Now, if you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, of course you don’t believe this, …and that is your right, of course. So you can pretty much discount anything I have to say. Sobeit.
But since I DO believe it is the Word of God, I take issue with my friend’s belief that Christ is living among us and just waiting for the right time to reveal himself. I find nothing ambiguous in the Bible in reference to the Second Coming of Christ. I find nothing that supports the notion that Christ will live among us THIS TIME until He finds the time right to reveal Himself. Everything I find in the Scripture says that the Second Coming of Christ will be a descent from the clouds, a very public descent from Heaven involving VERY obvious and spectacular pyrotechnics. Thunder and lightning, I suppose.
I also, regretfully, agree with the poster who said that this person who Polycarp “has a hunch” is Christ is more likely the “antichrist” than the Christ. Well, I KNOW he isn’t the Christ, so I guess that leaves the antichrist. I know you all are going to jump all over me, but according to Scripture, the antichrist is going to appear to a LOT of people as Christ. I wouldn’t have thought it would be my friend who would be deceived, but then I am still stunned by his post to begin with, and I don’t have any idea what to say about that.
So, I guess I have to say that although I wouldn’t have worded things exactly the way DDG did, I am essentially in agreement with her.
What about an average joe?
Um, as much fun as the Polycarp pile-on must be for some of you, I’m curious. What extraordinary claim did he make? That he suspects something?
Um. “have a hunch” isn’t a claim. It’s a gut level feeling. An emotion. If he said that Jesus made him happy, would he need a cite that he felt happy?
Really, I expect this sort of behavior from Badchad, an obvious troll who has nothing better to do than follow his betters around, nipping at their ankles, but from some of the rest of you, I’m pretty surprised.
Could very well be…some average joe who Polycarp sees as someone other than who he actually is. All I was saying is, if Poly thinks he is the Christ, and this person appears to BE the Christ, the only other thing that occurs to me is that this person might actually be the antichrist. I don’t know.
I am still stunned, quite frankly, so I don’t really have an opinion.
I find it fascinating that people who hear someone they trust suspect that someone is Christ immediately assume that he’s the Antichrist.
I mean, seriously… is either one really more likely than the other?
It’s like claiming that the moon is really made of Gorgonzola, and not green cheese as certain heretics would assert. Talk about quibbling.
I’m sorry you feel that way, Fenris.
I love Polycarp. I would NEVER support a “pile-on”.
I love him, he is my friend. I just think he is wrong. Unless, after all, it was a “whoosh.”
Oh, and my last post was in answer to Matt, not Fenris.
PS: (Scotti and DDG and those who are expressing doctrinal differences are, of course, not what I was talking about in my earlier post.)