The idea of the supernatural is useful only insofar it can be said to offer a better explanation than the natural. However, it is impossible to assert that any event in the universe is a supernatural act:
- Firstly one would need to demonstrate the validity of the measurement (in that the observation was not flawed)
- Secondly if one overcame that hurdle, one would need to establish that there was no currently understood natural antecedent cause
- Thirdly if one overcame that hurdle, parsimony would require you to rule out any undiscovered element of the natural (requiring human omniscience).
Given that we do not have omniscience and only empirical examples where the supernatural has been replaced by the natural by better observations, refining of current natural processes and discovery of new natural phenomona, we are only justified in presuming naturalism is true. Thus supernaturalism is false.
- Firstly one would need to demonstrate the validity of the measurement (in that the observation was not flawed)
- Secondly if one overcame that hurdle, one would need to establish that there was no currently understood natural antecedent cause
- Thirdly if one overcame that hurdle, parsimony would require you to rule out any undiscovered element of the natural (requiring human omniscience).
Given that we do not have omniscience and only empirical examples where the supernatural has been replaced by the natural by better observations, refining of current natural processes and discovery of new natural phenomona, we are only justified in presuming naturalism is true. Thus supernaturalism is false.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
