Conclusive proof of God

[Tonus]

5. Would any "miracle" that seemed supernatural be accepted as such or required to to be tested until it fit natural laws when it would no longer be supernatural? Maybe God would be seen as an expert illusionist not explaining his tricks?

Think about the many miracles described, for example, in the Bible. Consider how we might go about testing or verifying these, and ask yourself how difficult it might be:

- Turns water into wine.
- Walks on the surface of a lake.
- Gives sight to the blind, including one man who was born blind.
- Gives a paralyzed man full use of his limbs in an instant.
- Resurrects people who had been dead for at least two or more days.
- Heals the gravely ill in an instant.
- Starting with a few loaves of bread and a few fish, feeds thousands of people, and then recovers far more leftovers than the food he began with.
- Resurrects himself after being killed.
- Floats off into the sky and disappears.

Some of these can be easily subject to doubt, but all could be performed under controlled conditions, and some can be checked in any circumstance. So there are plenty of ways that we can substantiate that something supernatural --or at least very much out of the ordinary-- has happened. Perhaps this god being could create a human being out of the dust of the ground (or a human bone) and bring him/her to life. Perhaps he could, with a spoken command, cause the Sun to stop in the sky and remain in place for a day. All of these could substantiate the supernatural power of the Biblical god.

Putting his face on a piece of toast, or a moldy appliance, or making nature almost conform to mathematical ratios... those aren't the acts of a powerful cosmic being. They're the rationalizations of people who are grasping for clues in the wake of god's apparent unwillingness or inability to show himself.