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")

[Ignorant]

I would just say anyone talking out his ass has said something shitty.  In this case, I couldn't tell you what that was however.

Do you have a specific question I could help clear up?

[robvalue]

I got a question, why don't you have an avatar yet

(Recycled joke) I need to know what you look like, if you looked like your avatar.

Mine is me preparing dinner.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

Atheists are in a similar boat and one that is far leakier. The physical universe has particular features such as four fundamental forces and a handful of constants. Do the specific properties of the physical universe require an explanation? Is it reasonable to ask why the speed of light is ‘c’ or why there are only four forces, not more or less? Every time I ask the question, I get the same answer - the universe really could not possibly be different than it is and these are just brute facts. And before you cry multiverse, remember that you've only pushed the question back. If there are laws governing the spawning of new universes, won't those laws also require an explanation? Or are those just brute facts too.

You see. Saying that some things do not require an explanation is fine, but only when those things must be as they are by necessity and could be no other way. The universe does not seem to fall into that category. The mere fact that the universe is expanding shows that it does not have to be just as it is. It is already is changing into something else, i.e. bigger. So if it can get bigger why can't the constants change or new fundamental forces appear? Oh yeah, that's right...brute facts.

[Pat Mustard]

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")

If you're arguing for supernatural being something other than "an event or creature which stands outside nature", why bother using the term?

We have a perfectly adequate one, "natural thing whose cause we haven't yet determined".

But as I've posted above supernatural is simply a term to hide behind the fact that we have no evidence for god, and increasing amounts of evidence that god(s) is not necessary.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Atheists are in a similar boat and one that is far leakier. The physical universe has particular features such as four fundamental forces and a handful of constants. Do the specific properties of the physical universe require an explanation? Is it reasonable to ask why the speed of light is ‘c’ or why there are only four forces, not more or less? Every time I ask the question, I get the same answer - the universe really could not possibly be different than it is and these are just brute facts. And before you cry multiverse, remember that you've only pushed the question back. If there are laws governing the spawning of new universes, won't those laws also require an explanation? Or are those just brute facts too.

You see. Saying that some things do not require an explanation is fine, but only when those things must be as they are by necessity and could be no other way. The universe does not seem to fall into that category. The mere fact that the universe is expanding shows that it does not have to be just as it is. It is already is changing into something else, i.e. bigger. So if it can get bigger why can't the constants change or new fundamental forces appear? Oh yeah, that's right...brute facts.

Chad do you know the expression "better to stay silent and have the world think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Because arguing for god based on your deep ignorance of how the universe works is a prime illustration of that dictum.

I'm not much less ignorant about the above questions than you are. But I have one massive advantage over you. I don't immediately turn to a being for whom we've no fucking evidence at all when baffled by the workings of something. I go looking to see if someone has an answer and, if possible, work to understand that answer. You on the other hand scratch your arse and say "duuuur,...goddidit" and start screaming at the other apes who are unsatisfied with your non-answer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't immediately turn to a being for whom we've no fucking evidence at all when baffled by the workings of something...

Anything that is observably evident counts as evidence. That's what evidence means. You just don't like the rational conclusions that follow from interpreting that evidence, evidence you clowns can see with your own eyes.

1) Some things change and only things that actually exist can make changes happen.
2) People can observe things in nature that could possibly be or not be since those things can appear, change, and then cease to be.
3) Under specific circumstances, unthinking things that cause change regularly produce a limited range of effects.

[madog]

What pisses me off with Supernatural is that it is a word made to describe something that doesn't exist when there is actually no reason for the word other than to give some desperate credence to a fairy story.

We have up and down not superup or superdown.

We have terms to everything discussed with natural and unnatural (other than a made up god), unnatural easily covers what is known and not yet known.

Again you only need to invent supernatural to explain something that you know lacks impact with unnatural.

Define the difference with supernatural and unnatural or please use a different term.

Dog.

[SteveII]

What pisses me off with Supernatural is that it is a word made to describe something that doesn't exist when there is actually no reason for the word other than to give some desperate credence to a fairy story.

We have up and down not superup or superdown.

We have terms to everything discussed with natural and unnatural (other than a made up god), unnatural easily covers what is known and not yet known.

Again you only need to invent supernatural to explain something that you know lacks impact with unnatural.

Define the difference with supernatural and unnatural or please use a different term.

Dog.

Supernatural - anything outside the physical universe and its laws.
Unnatural - within our universe and laws, anything artificially created that would not exist on its own.

That brings up an interested question. Could you have an unnatural supernatural object? Say if an angel made a cake using supernatural chemical sweetener for an all-angel potluck. Huh, have to think about that. 

You can call anything you want a fairy story or made up, but you aren't engaging the question of whether the supernatural exists with anything resembling a cogent argument.

[Ignorant]

If you're arguing for supernatural being something other than "an event or creature which stands outside nature", why bother using the term? [1]

We have a perfectly adequate one, "natural thing whose cause we haven't yet determined". [2]

But as I've posted above supernatural is simply a term to hide behind the fact that we have no evidence for god,[3] and increasing amounts of evidence that god(s) is not necessary.

1) Well, maybe I'm not arguing for a supernatural being at all? In fact, I am merely arguing for fuller understanding of the categories with which to discuss the topic. Also, if you are paying close enough attention, you you might deduce that I don't consider god to be supernatural. If that confuses you, then that is probably because the modern reduction of the categories have a tight grip on you still. Think outside that box! =)

2) Again, if you were paying close attention to my proposed use of the term natural: Things CAN ONLY BE NATURAL. In other words, The "what" of a thing is the same thing as the "nature" of a thing. Things can only "be" themselves, and therefore, there are only natural things. Here is where we differ:

You 

a) Things ONLY act/behave in ways which derive from their nature. 
b) We do not know everything about the natures of things. 

If, therefore, some thing behaved in a way that seemed impossible, the only explanation must be that it is a natural act deriving from some part of the nature which is unknown to us. In other words, "whose cause we haven't yet determined"

Me 

a) Things act/behave in ways which derive from their nature.
b) We do not know everything about the natures of things. 

If, therefore, some thing behaved in a way that seemed impossible, ONE possible explanation might be that it is a natural act deriving from some part of the nature which is unknown to us. Another possible explanation is that the action/behavior is actually caused by a different thing. Another possible explanation is that the thing is acting/behaving in a way which derives from the nature of some other thing which is acting through the first thing's nature.

Compare your a) to mine. Which seems more able to account for the possibilities?

3) If you enjoy beating up straw-men, then by all means, please enjoy.