Can't prove the supernatural God

[Ignorant]

I appreciate the thorough commentary Thank you, I'm glad you liked my video!

I agree that we can conclude that an entity has acted in a way that is not at all consistent with our current models and understanding. This leaves two possibilities:

1) Our current models and understanding of this entity, reality itself and the "rules" of reality are incomplete

Or

2) Rules/natures are being "broken"

I don't see how you can ever eliminate possibility one. We make models... you talked about boundaries? Sure. We can set limits on what our modelled slug is able to do. But we never have any guarantees that our model is accurate. Only that it is accurate enough, for the behaviour we have observed so far.

My case is that to positively conclude that something supernatural is going on, nature is being violated or rules are being broken, is to claim to have dismissed option 1 beyond all reasonable doubt. [1] [2] I'm not trying to say supernatural things are impossible, or haven't happened, I'm only addressing claims people make that supnertual things have happened. I believe this is always an argument from ignorance (pardon the pun) because it is concluding knowledge about what we don't know.

If people just say unexpained, I'm totally fine with that. It's when they make actual claims that I object. We can compare what happens to what we know; but why would new data ever be categorised as "supernatural" when "unexplained" works just fine? If you don't make such claims yourself, then I obviously have no issue with you! [3] Many people do, on this very forum, on a daily basis.

1) It is clear that what constitutes a "reasonable doubt" for you and for me are two different things.

2) I mentioned in my previous post that the conclusion that something supernatural is happening is not due to an assertion that we know everything about reality. Careful theists will readily admit that we don't and can't know everything about reality. It appears, however, that you are not sure we can "know" anything at all about reality. I think we can. When something occurs in a what that cannot in principle occur through what we KNOW, then it is a candidate for supernatural (<= notice how it is not therefore supernatural).

Do you think it is possible, in principle, given an ants neurology (or a slug's), that an ant can understand general relativity in the same way that a human does? <= Seriously...

3) Just for the record, as a Catholic, I accept many claims to supernatural realities and action both in history and in the present time. Despite this, I do not intend a defense of those claims. I merely wish to help distinguish the terms in a more helpful way.