Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

Except isn't that is how we arrive at all sorts of beliefs and theories?  We are talking about a series of unique but similar/connected events. We look for context and patterns in cause and effect, we look for exceptions, and we look for a theory that fits the data. More data strengthens the theory. 
 

Yes it is how some people arrive at belief and faith, you just have to look at "Christians" doesn't mean its correct ...

This works better if you give a reason why my reasoning isn't correct.

[madog]

The story has been fabricated.

Very simple and plausible explanation. Requires no assumptions of anything not demonstrated to be possible.

Ah, a positive claim. Do you have proof that is more convincing than what they appear to be or are you going to use your circular reasoning of supernatural events don't happen because they can't happen argument?

I have proof that the story was fabricated, I read it on a forum .... and in other documents ... ooops thats how "Christians" prove stuff

---

Yes it is how some people arrive at belief and faith, you just have to look at "Christians" doesn't mean its correct ...

This works better if you give a reason why my reasoning isn't correct.

All of it 

[SteveII]

Ah, a positive claim. Do you have proof that is more convincing than what they appear to be or are you going to use your circular reasoning of supernatural events don't happen because they can't happen argument?

I have proof that the story was fabricated, I read it on a forum .... and in other documents ... ooops thats how "Christians" prove stuff

---

This works better if you give a reason why my reasoning isn't correct.

All of it 

I thought for a minute that you were interested in thinking things through. I was wrong. Won't make that mistake again.

[madog]

I have proof that the story was fabricated, I read it on a forum .... and in other documents ... ooops thats how "Christians" prove stuff

---

All of it 

I thought for a minute that you were interested in thinking things through. I was wrong. Won't make that mistake again.

I will discuss your reasoning on a point by point basis ... but not as a whole ... but if that gives you an out and makes you happy so be it

[Whateverist]

Once we can deduce that something interacted with a natural event and can't be presently explained it is unnatural. It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained.

You want it both ways .... you want a supernatural god that can be known, yet is supernatural which can't be known ..... with the proviso you can move the meaning around to accommodate yours and religions changing interpretations of a single badly written book?

I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition.

No "hangup", it just doesn't make any sense and one can live their entire life without ever having heard of such a thing.  Nothing anyone actually encounters is actually supernatural.

What sense does " It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained" make? It either has an explanation or it does not. How can you say that an event was certainly not supernaturally (let's just say God so you don't start the definition thing again) caused?

Are you pulling my chain now?  Are you seriously asking what sense does it make to say an event has an explanation which can't yet be explained?  Of course some events cannot not be explained for a number of reasons, most common being lack of access to the needed facts.  All events which happen where I lack knowledge of the antecedent cause are examples of events which happen for reasons I can't explain.  Since absolutely every other event for which we've ever been given an adequate explanation turned out to be natural, I think we're safe in assuming the reason for the event in question will also turn out to be natural.  

When does anyone even specify that it is a natural explanation that they're interested in?  It only comes up when someone suggests silly woo stuff.  Steve: "Maybe it was just God's will?"  Me:  "Come on, Steve.  There has to be a natural explanation."  -OR-  Simpleton: "Maybe it was magic!"  Me:  "No, there has to be a real (i.e., natural) explanation."

[robvalue]

I did not claim it had been fabricated, although it wouldn't be much of a claim to make.

I'm saying it's an extremely simple explanation which fits the facts very well and requires no additional assumptions.

[IATIA]

Why aren't we justified in inferring supernatural causes as the best explanation?

Hmmmm ...  "We don't know so it must be god.".

You mean like the Sun, Moon and stars?  Or maybe earth, fire, wind and water?  Wonder what it will be another millennia from now?

[madog]

Why aren't we justified in inferring supernatural causes as the best explanation?

Hmmmm ...  "We don't know so it must be god.".

 

I missed that gem IATIA LOL ...

Can I add the inferring is one thing, but then going from that inference to a fictional book that dictates how people should live and allows those with the most power to interpret that book to their own ends sort of justifies why the are not justified 

[Ignorant]

I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition. [1]

What sense does " It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained" make? It either has an explanation or it does not. [2] How can you say that an event was certainly not supernaturally (let's just say God so you don't start the definition thing again) caused? [3]

1) Doesn't the fact that there IS a hang-up give us pause to "force" this term? Clearly it brings a lot of baggage with it, why not concede a little. It's only a term.

Also, I am not sure the term is very traditional. Instead, it appears to be quite modern (e.g. compare the term "nature" as used since 19th century to its use before Descartes).

2) There is a difference between things which can be explained in principle, and things which contradict the principles we know. I think they mean the former.

3) This is why I think this dichotomy of terms is unhelpful. I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular.

[madog]

I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition. [1]

 

1) Doesn't the fact that there IS a hang-up give us pause to "force" this term?  

3)  I don't think it helps to limit God's activity in this world ONLY to the miraculous and spectacular.

I don't actually have a hang up with the term anymore than all the rest of the man made terms the religious use to some how prove a god.

I have more problems with statements like the highlight text .... and the fact you can say it with a straight face ... and then try to support it by man made evidence?

As a side point, if there was a god (which there isn't) your man made words would have no power to "to limit God's activity" ....