Can't prove the supernatural God

[Ignorant]

If something is acting in a certain way in the real world then, ipso facto, it is acting naturally. Just because we don't have a natural explanation for something it doensn't follow that we can call it supernatural. [1]

Nearly every single activity that theists ascribed to gods, such as thunder, crop cycles, rain, sunrise sunset and even gravity have been subsequently shown to be purely natural phenomena. [2] And even witb the few areas we're not sure of yet most have plausible natural explanations, e.g. the creation of the universe and abiogebesis both have multiple explanations which are natural and plausible given our current knowledge. [3]

The problem with the appeal to the supernatural for believers is that it essentially an admission that they have no explanation and no evidence. It is an admission that they are holding a value to be truthful despite the evidence.

1) Sure, on that use of the term. I am suggesting, however, a different use of the vocabulary which may more adequately and without bias account for any phenomena at all. I AM NOT ARGUING that any particular event or thing is supernatural. I am merely suggesting a vocabulary with which we can describe events at all, supernatural or otherwise, in a way that is coherent and unbiased to our metaphysical presuppositions.

In other words, it may not be the case that anything ever acts in a supernatural way. Your use of the terms does not even allow for that possibility. Mine does, but without importing any ACTUAL supernatural presuppositions.

2) Can you cite the last serious philosopher/theologian who ascribed supernatural activity to crop cycles or the sunrise?

3) I AGREE (with a loose understanding of your use of the words "creation of the universe"...technically, a naturally beginning-to-occur universe isn't "created")