Johnny Skeptic

Even if some being can speak a new galaxy into existence, there is not any such thing as supernatural. No matter what abilities a being has, his abilities are natural to him. If a jet plane had flown over Jerusalem in 75 A.D., most people would have believed that they had witnessed a supernatural event, and they would have been wrong. If Jesus turned water into wine, he was simply able use the laws of physics better than ordinary humans could. If an intelligent being created the universe, there is no need for anyone to call him God. If humans are one day able to convert energy into matter, they would not call themselves Gods, although many ignorant people from other planets would.

Clouseau

Why look for Shelley in a recipe book?

Tangent

I think you forgot to read the OP. Thanks though.

Well obviously some supernatural phenomenon would have an effect which would be observable and measurable in the "natural sphere". Thousands of loaves of bread are countable, water into wine is observable, etc. Do you have any evidence of the supernatural besides the philosophical argument that it could exist?

Amaleq13

To excluded such a possibility without consideration of the relevant evidence is surely close-minded just as acceptance of such a possibility absent credible supporting evidence is surely an example of having one's mind so open that one's brains fall out.

Sauron

That statement assumes the supernatural exists in the first place. There has been no evidence offered to support that claim. And you obviously don't have anything to change that.

Now Clouseau, honestly: I realize that you're probably accustomed to just assuming your claim into the argument without offering any actual support for it, but the standards of evidence are a *wee* bit higher around here.

Yes, I'm afraid one *can* say that -- especially since there have been zero counterexamples.

Which would be impossible, because (according to you) the supernatural cannot be detected by ordinary means or conventional inspection. That would include violation of any natural laws.

So what you are positing is a supernatural event that leaves behind no trace of its occurrence - yet somehow, you are made aware of its occurrence. But every method for making your aware of this alleged supernatural event would rely upon natural laws or ordinary inspection.

Maybe you should shake the termites out of your argument, before posting it?

As soon as you find something that is "locally supernatural", please let everyone know. Until such time, however, this remains a figment of your imagination.

Only in the sense that rejecting leprechauns is "close minded". We have the same amount of evidence for leprechauns that we do for the biblical supernatural.

Johnny Skeptic

Sure they can. Tangent told you:

If New Testament stories about the loaves and the fishes are true, it is reasonable to assume that Jesus was able to use the laws of physics in ways that humans are not able to use them, not that he was divine, or supernatural. If aliens exists, and can do similar things, they certainly would not be Gods.

Clouseau

Can we have the rest of the essay? The first ever proof that there is no supernatural, no deity?

Sauron

That is precisely the problem with such miracle claims by christians.

When they want you to believe their religious claims:
"Look at what happened here! Loaves / wine / fishes / healing / resurrecting the dead."

But when you ask for verifiable evidence of these supernatural events, their palms get sweaty and their tune suddenly changes:
"It was a miracle. The supernatural doesn't leave behind any evidence to be inspected."

And it never occurs to them that the blue and red statements are mutually exclusive of each other.

VoxRat

Well said, Amaleq13.

I would go further, though, and point out that there is an infinite number of conceivable "possibilities" - if your threshold for "possible" is as low as the one used in this case. (E.g. Last-Thursdayism; the notion of recent orders-of-magnitude changes in fundamental physical constants; the idea of "virgin birth"...). One has to exercise a judicious process of triage in considering such "possibilities" before even spending any conscious effort on seeking supporting evidence.

(Which is as much as to say, I guess, that the absence of supporting evidence is so blindingly obvious you might file dismissal of such nonsense under what one of our favorite Fundies calls "intuition")

Sauron

The essay is yours to write, Clouseau. Since you're making the affirmative claim for supernatural - either that it *does* exist, or *can* exist - the burden of proof is on you, the claimant.

Hint: that means you.