(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.
By definition Supernatural is not of the natural and thus it cannot be a placeholder. And thats the point we would need to be omniscient to declare the supernatural as meaningful and valid. As it is not possible for us to be omniscient we must declare supernaturalism to be false.
I do not agree that any current hypotheses supports a supernatural "beginning" to the universe. Theists have a conjecture and reasons for thinking it is true, but these arguments are deeply unconvincing (including the theists poster child - the Kalam). It is not the same thing as it being true and it certainly isn't a testable hypotheses.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
