I have not seen this use of "plausible" but i am new here. maybe i will some time. if i did see it used that way, with regard to what i consider the supernatural, i, too, would balk. i don't find such things plausible at all.

g

Sometimes people say 'plausible' when what they really mean is 'it is not impossible'

I just looked up the definition of plausible. The Oxford mini dictionary says 'Seeming reasonable or probable, (of a person) persuasive but deceptive'

Maybe the second half of the definition has more resonance for people with regards the supernatural. But essentially I agree with you, no proof = no belief

Just for fun, let's pull up an actual definition of plausible. Per
[merriam-webster.com]

"Definition of plausible
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious a plausible pretext
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive
a swindler … , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman —R. W. Emerson
3 : appearing worthy of belief the argument was both powerful and plausible"

So "superficially" factors into the top two definitions. This fits with my use of the word. I'd use plausible to mean something like "seems reasonable at first glance, but I'd have to dig deeper to decide whether it deserves credence. " I think there's always an implied "but" when I use the word.

Can't recall running across any posts that used the word, so I can't render a judgment on how it aligned with the site's lexicon. Suppose it isn't entirely implausible that it was used incorrectly.

Theism convinces a lot of people that the options to the unanswerable questions of the universe are either "god(s)" or "no god(s)"/anything else. That argument is extended to support a stance that there is a 50% chance that god(s) is/are real. It's debate tactic that works far better than it should.

The reality is that someone long long ago asked "how did this all start" and someone else made up a huuuuge line of fucking bullshit. Imagine if you asked me why Mars is red, and I explained that Spiderman comes out of a cave and sprinkles dust on it each morning, and then tried to convince you that my argument is 50% likely because you have options of "Spiderman" and "no Spiderman".

Plausible and probable are not the same as possible. Anything is possible, because a .0 repeating 1 percent chance is possible. It's a trick, the wordplay was done on purpose and now idiots repeat it ad nauseum. Don't fall for it.

I don't even think the word probable is appropriate. For something to be probable, there must be some evidence. Any claim of magic is not plausible or probable, it is an arbitrary claim.

they are mixing up probable and plausable .

I'm not willing to accept that anything about gods and religion is "plausible".
There are no gods and religion is just a dangerous scam.
Then again, I'm an atheist, and an anti-theist. So it makes sense that I wouldn't.

I'll not claim that this would wholly justify the use of the word plausible, but some people accept the possibility of spiritual/religious claims because of things they have witnessed. Perhaps they have witnessed so much, that plausible seems like an appropriate term to them.

In this context I think plausible probably means "sounds attractive and I want it to be true". It's not literally plausible, as you point out.

If something is plausible it SEEMS reasonable or likely. What seems likely to some people might not seem so to others. There is at least some evidence for nearly every idea, and it is perfectly legitimate to discuss those ideas whether or not they are accepted by the scientific establishment.

I don’t know why you link spirituality and the “supernatural”. To be spiritual is to be sensitive, aware, and appreciative of the grand mystery of existence. “Supernatural” is just a word used by some to label phenomena outside the realm of rational understanding. Nothing is supernatural, just not understood. Conversely you could say that everything is supernatural since nothing is truly understood on a deep basis.

They're just misusing it, mixing up plausible and possible. There's a possibility, albeit minuscule, that god exists, but it's not plausible.

It can also mean simply "possible".

Very often people don't mean 'reasonable' or 'likely' when using the word 'plausible'. I think it means the following. Something is plausible if it fits into somebody's worldview (in other words: "there is nothing in my worldview that contradicts it" ). So for a religious/spiritual person plausible means: "maybe God/spirit/demon X did it"
An atheist or agnostics might mean 'reasonable' or 'likely' (within their scientific worldview), but in a discussion people would be talking past each other if they assume they share the same meaning with the words they use. Nobody is wrong just because they use words a certain way. That's why it would be important to clear up these different usages to avoid confusion.

I haven't seen any either. I hang around women who do yoga and they are very "woowoo", their term for it. But they have no reasoning behind what they say is our connection to divinity. They just believe it is there and that yoga is in itself a spiritual practice. Of course this is not true for all yoga practitioners but they say that yoga was begun as a spiritual practice to help connect to divinity. I think it connects me to my body and it is good for me to do that. Why does it have to be anything more than that?