Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[theologian]

As though a "being" weren't a "particular form"...and as though you don't imagine that this "being" -has- an even more specific, and particular, form.  Sure as hell aren't talking about Ometecuhtli, are you?  Seems the only time you think that a "particular form" requires a creator being that is itself uncaused... is when it isn't your creator being's particular form, lol.  Special rules for special people and their special beliefs.

Well, I have to agree with you with some things. First, imagination does and must include specific and particular form. Because, imagination are about images, and all images has forms. However, imagination is different from the use of intellect which knows reality and conceive concepts, just as an image of triangle and the concept triangle are infinitely different from each other. And what we have use in order to prove the existence of God is not imagination alone which remind us of what we have sensed in reality, but what is use to prove His existence is reality, sense and intellect. And so, to deny that God exist without have a good refutation is to deny both reality, the credibility of our senses and of our intellect and of the rules of logic.

Second, I agree that there must be special. Just as Dr. Edward Feser, a Philospher, argues that the rules of the chess game by itself cannot explain why is that there are rules of chess or why does chess game exist; in the same manner, law of nature which science studies can never explain why is there law of nature and why is there existence. So something special to the rules of chess must be known to know why is there chess game or why is there chess rules, just as something special to the laws of nature (which is the scope of science) must be known in order to explain why is there something instead of nothing, and why is there laws of nature. Hence the heart of this thread: regarding Supernatural; and that I hold it is beyond being a useful concept: it's real.

That's ignoring that you just smuggled the being bit in for no reason at all, ofc.  People can call their uncaused cause god all they like, but that doesn't demonstrate that it is a god.  That just demonstrates that people say things of shady rational provenance, as you've done above.  On the subject of things said with shady rational provenance....it's enitrely unclear why there must be an uncaused cause in the first place.  It's easy to see why we'd need one to form a rational argument, because an infinite regress cannot yield a definite answer...and thus the purpose of a rational argument cannot be met.  People imagine that an infinite regress is impossible in some sense other than it being impossible to reach terminus in a rational argument, but that's just their imagination.  A subtle misunderstanding of the problem of infinite regress.

Well, the term God means one Whom nothing can be more perfect. But, the argument which is more than rational argument, (because sound theistic arguments starts from things we can sense through our 5 senses) proves that there must be the Pure Act of Being. If act is the most perfect, and if there's a being Whom is Pure Act of Being, Whom must be Being Himself, it must be the one Whom nothing can be more perfect. So, it shows that God exists.

Now, regarding the argument itself, it is founded on the principles that "from nothing, nothing comes" and that "the effect cannot be greater than the cause". Using those principles, and supposing that everything has a cause, we can arrive at an absurd conclusion: that there must be nothing. But, we can sense  and know that there are things. And by logic, which both philosophy and science utilizes, there must be an Uncaused Cause. So, that's how to understand the rational part of the sound argument for God's existence.

---

Let's see. Could the universe be the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause?

To answer that, let us examine whether the universe cannot have a cause or it must have a cause.

Well, the universe is must the collection of things in it. But all things in the universe have particular form and configuration. So, the universe has a particular form.

But, everything that has a particular form must be caused, for we may ask, why is it in this form instead of another? What or whom form it that way? The one which or whom formed it may have not have a particular, or it may have, which in turn must be formed by another and so on. But, it cannot go on, lest nothing will exist. But things exist. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being, an Uncaused Cause, which cannot be the universe. To deny this is to deny both reality and logic. And that Necessary Being and Uncaused Cause is called by people: God.

---

I think, if there is a God, that he would probably have been created in his form, of his form, within the formless form of being that is a caused causal chain of sucking that can only come from a vacuum cleaner; specifically one from the 26th dimension. That is 15 more dimensions than we have in this reality sir!

Words are fun, you can create outlandish walls of text that are tearfully hard to parse and feel that you are getting somewhere. What you are doing is special pleading and you ARE forgetting to explain the 26th dimensional vacuum cleaner and why there is no super-God.

For real though I have no answers. I just find yours as convincing as my own bullshit one. It would be like explaining gravity by pleading some gravus purus that knows which direction to push things because it is omniscient and can do so because it is omnipotent. Oh, and it doesn't just crush us because it is omnibenevolent. We think there are gravitons but we haven't observed them. Gravity is a much more mundane topic than the beginning of the universe but we wouldn't want to just invent some sprite or imp that controls it rather than figure out what the mechanism really is.

Well, what I can see is that you are starting with the properties like Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omniscient. However, nothing can have properties without existence. And after we have prove through reality and logic that there must be an Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, Necessary Being, Being Himself and Super Intelligent Being, then we can rightly prove whether He is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. That's how to argue orderly, right? I think there's no special pleading with that way of reasoning. For if is special pleading, then all other sound argument will be special pleading.

Further, it is the effect of the wrong philosophy, namely scientism, that you are looking for mechanism here. Why? Scientism declares that only what can be scientifically proven are the true things. However, science is concern only with mechanism, and not why is there mechanism or why is there existence. Nevertheless, the proposition "only what can be scientifically proven are the true things" is self-defeating. For, that proposition itself has not been and can never be scientifically proven, as it is a philosophical claim. So, don't just be locked up with mechanism, and accept other sound form of reasoning. And you'll leave the error of atheism and start being truly happy.