Can't prove the supernatural God

[robvalue]

I don't know Steve. Since the supernatural is not something that's been demonstrated to be real, people can pretty much define it to be whatever they want.

Ignorant: I don't understand how studying something tells us what an entity "naturally" does. Scientific enquiry models reality. We may find out what slugs are made of, and we may model how they behave and what they are capable of, to the best of our ability. But science doesn't prescribe reality, or nature. It attempts to describe it. So I don't think it's valid to say we have defined the nature of anything; we've just modelled it as best we can, given what we know.

This again hits the problem with supernatural that we (a) assume we have all the information about something and (b) when something happens which supposedly doesn't fit with this information, we call it supernatural. Why not just call it unexplained? If we do later find a natural explanation, we were categorically wrong to ever call it supernatural. So it's an attempt to predict the future.

Maybe if we understood it better, it would no longer seem "supernatural". This again suggests subjectivity, as it depends on knowledge. And any particular claim of supernatural occurences is just a claim that our current knowledge was complete; followed by the admission that it actually isn't, in order to create a new category.

This is a video I made about it before, it seems to address all of this.

https://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ