(September 15, 2015 at 1:51 am)Esquilax Wrote:(September 14, 2015 at 5:09 pm)lkingpinl Wrote: "supernatural" is only defined as being inexplicable by natural law or "outside" natural law. The current hypotheses surrounding the beginning of the universe are currently supernatural or outside natural laws or require the natural laws to "not apply". Supernatural can be a place holder until a verifiable natural law can explain the perceived phenomena but super-naturalism in itself is not false.
Sorry, but why do we need a placeholder for the beginning of the universe at all, much less one as loaded as "supernatural"? Isn't "insufficient data," a cogent enough description of the state of affairs?
Certainly is. I think the default position is "unknown", "Unexplained", "insufficient data", etc. What I said was the current hypotheses presented for the beginning (like those of Hawking) are "supernatural" or in violation of current known natural law.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
