(May 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.
I am aware of no definition of 'natural' which insists that we have total and complete knowledge of what constitutes 'natural'. Is atomic force and gravity supernatural? People used to think so. People used to worship the sun because they thought it was a god. Your assertion implies that science can never progress in understanding the natural world beyond what it knows today, and you have taken to arbitrarily deciding what is, and what is not, natural.
Science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once thought to be supernatural. I see no reason to expect this will change, because 'supernatural' is really just a polite term for 'things we are currently too ignorant to explain naturally'.
You also fail to explain why we should call this gap in our knowledge 'god'. It is just assertions spawning assertions.
