Even if a supernatural God does make its appearance unquestionably, my first thought would be how does this being came to be, and how does he work? And if an investigation becomes successful in revealing the answers, then this 'God' will suddenly not be so 'supernatural' and lose the whole definition of God.

Likewise, If this investigation doesn't wield satisfactory answers, then it's most likely due to my own current limitations rather than it being a being somehow cheating the laws of nature. Hell, quantum mechanics looks on the surface it's cheating nature, but you don't see all these physicists starting a new religion to desperately explain it......that'd be just irrational!

(May 15, 2016 at 7:36 am)maestroanth Wrote: Even if a supernatural God does make its appearance unquestionably, my first thought would be how does this being came to be, and how does he work?  And if an investigation becomes successful in revealing the answers, then this 'God' will suddenly not be so 'supernatural' and lose the whole definition of God.

Likewise, If this investigation doesn't wield satisfactory  answers, then it's most likely due to my own current limitations rather than it being a being somehow cheating the laws of nature. Hell, quantum mechanics looks on the surface it's cheating nature, but you don't see all these physicists starting a new religion to desperately explain it......that'd be just irrational!

How would you distinguish a god from a powerful alien? Q in star trek was not a god but displayed many of the things ascribed to god.

I still don't know what supernatural means. At all.

It appears to be an arbitrary splitting of things that exist into two groups, and what determines which group things are in varies from person to person.

Rules can apply differently (or not apply at all) to different things... what's the big deal?

The people who lobby for the supernatural seem to do the following:

(1) We have scientific theories

(2) They are the laws of the universe, and are 100% correct and exhaustive (or "close enough"!)

(3) Oh noes! Something broke one of the laws! (Theories). It's supernatural!

Yeah. 3 contradicts 2. Our theories do not cover everything that exists, in that case. They weren't accurate, nor close enough. So it's just a term used relative to our current understanding, which is pointless.

Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

There is a show called Ghost Hunters, and there is still no evidence of ghosts.

There is also a show called God Hunters, except that the show is real life whereby the delusion is in the form of Church and Bible.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

How would one go about establishing that the cause of something wasn't part of "the natural order?" Define "natural order."

If someone believes that our reality was artificially created by magic, how is anything in it natural? What would that even mean?

Surely it would make more sense to say that the creator is natural, and the creation is unnatural.

On top of Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" I also recommend two books by the recently late Victor Stenger, "God The Failed Hypothesis" and "The New Atheism". Especially "The New Atheism" goes into detail as to why a God certainly DOES NOT EXIST, and also in later chapters demonstrates that religion is not the root of our species morality, our evolution is.

(May 21, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 3:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Supernatural is simply those things or events that do not have a natural cause.

A supernatural event is not 'breaking a law'. It is not a suspension of cause and effect. A cause not part of the natural order acted to bring something about.

How would one go about establishing that the cause of something wasn't part of "the natural order?" Define "natural order."

Observation that the effect could not have been the result of naturalistic causes.