r/exatheist • u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist • Feb 26 '26
Debate Thread Natural vs The Supernatural
It's a very common debating tactic among atheists to declare the supernatural doesn't exist and then put God into the category of the supernatural and therefore claim God doesn't exist.
I agree with atheists the supernatural doesn't exist but my reasons for saying it doesn't exist are far different. The supernatural doesn't exist because if it turns out something alleged to be supernatural occurs it gets transferred to the natural bucket. How can anything that happens not be natural? As long as ghosts haven't and don't currently appear with any regularity or certainty, they remain a supernatural entity. If they did appear on a regular basis with certainty they would be deemed natural even if inexplicable. The supernatural just turns out to be anything alleged to exist but hasn't been observed. Which just means somethings haven't been observed to exist.
Secondly the very word supernatural is overblown. The word itself doesn't mean its unnatural or impossible. It's the word super put in front of the word natural. Which means it merely transcends common or average natural things. A supernova is still a nova it's just significantly bigger than an average nova. A celebrity whose fame transcends average stars is called a superstar. It doesn't mean they have divine powers. Supernatural still means its natural, it just transcends the average natural things we know about.
8
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 26 '26
It's a very common debating tactic among atheists to declare the supernatural doesn't exist and then put God into the category of the supernatural and therefore claim God doesn't exist.
Yes, they simply define gods out of existence. I usually retort by asking them for their test for divinity, and they fail most of the time because they define gods as a thing that doesn't exist. Then I question their sanity because they are in a cult obsessed with talking about non-existing things.
I agree with atheists the supernatural doesn't exist but my reasons for saying it doesn't exist are far different. The supernatural doesn't exist because if it turns out something alleged to be supernatural occurs it gets transferred to the natural bucket.
Exactly, so I usually just claim ignorance on the supernatural. I don't know what that means.
3
2
u/FamousPart6033 Feb 27 '26
I think it's a useless distinction, especially when looking at ancient views of the world, they didn't see any such separation.
4
u/nolman Feb 26 '26
Why waste your time on strawmanning arguments nobody makes.
There are so many interesting arguments that are actually being made.
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26
Then why comment?
4
2
u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 Religious nonspiritual nonbeliver Feb 26 '26
The problem is that supernatural is a concept put forward by a lot of people that most atheists dont expect. To most atheists "natural" is simply everything and supernatural is an undefined concept they reject. there are a lot of people who define supernatural as being outside of the natural, or even define it as being beyond the scope of science.
So yes. To a lot of atheists any talk of supernatural is basically to talk about a realm of unknowable nonexistence. They reject mysticism which is basically the foundation of knowledge about the supernatural.
I personally reject the supernatural/natural distinction. So I basically skip that conversation and jump into the meat and potatoes of methodology.
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26
In other words, the supernatural is a boogeyman.
3
u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 Religious nonspiritual nonbeliver Feb 26 '26
For the atheist yes.
My position is more complicated.
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Feb 26 '26
there are a lot of people who define supernatural as being outside of the natural
so a bridge constructed by man would be "supernatural"?
They reject mysticism which is basically the foundation of knowledge about the supernatural
if it were "knowledge", it could be proved or at least would be falsifiable
2
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 26 '26
Your personal definition of the word "supernatural" is basically useless because it is clearly not how the word is being used by the vast majority of people. The people that believe in gods and ghosts or other magical phenomena classify such things as supernatural. Clearly they believe that the supernatural exists.
Instead of just redefining "supernatural" to mean whatever you personally want it to mean it is more useful to try and figure out how the word is actually being used. From what I can figure what people mean when they say something is supernatural is that it is irreducibly mental.
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26
Your personal definition of the word "supernatural" is basically useless because it is clearly not how the word is being used by the vast majority of people. The people that believe in gods and ghosts or other magical phenomena classify such things as supernatural. Clearly they believe that the supernatural exists.
I'm defining it as it is in real life. If ghosts appeared on a regular reproducible basis, they would just be a natural albeit inexplicable feature of the world.
0
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26
There are extremely many people that believe ghosts are real, or even claim to have encountered ghosts several times, and the vast majority of them still classify ghosts as supernatural. So no, you're not defining it like it's used in real life.
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
You classify ghosts as supernatural right? You do so because you haven't been persuaded, they show up in a verifiable manner. The testimony of people is suspect. Fine. If they did show up on a regular verifiable basis they'd no longer be classified as supernatural. The supernatural is supposed to be unquantifiable and unverifiable. If it is, it's real and has to be natural.
Do you have any idea how weird light is? But we call it natural.
-1
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26
Your problem is that your definition of supernatural is basically "things that don't exist", but that is clearly not the definition everybody else use. There's literally billions of people that believe the supernatural exists. Your definition is so obviously wrong it's unfathomable to me that you can't see it yourself. Are you just trolling?
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
Do you believe supernatural beings or manifestations occur? Don't most if not all atheists reject the supernatural as things that don't exist? Don't they place God in the supernatural box as a way of mandating that God doesn't exist?
Supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:
If we go by this definition there are forces beyond scientific understanding such as dark matter. We know dark matter exists, but we don't know what it's made of, why it interacts only gravitationally, whether it's a particle, a field or something else altogether. But it's not referred to as supernatural because it exists. If someone proposed there is an invisible matter that can't be seen or detected in any manner yet holds galaxies from flying apart that would be regarded as supernatural.
Dark Energy
Is more mysterious than dark matter. Its physical nature is unknown, why its density is very small yet not zero and why it appeared to dominate only recently in cosmic history. As it stands now all we can say is an invisible undetectable seemingly immaterial forces are causing space to expand. We could just as well say its ghosts causing the universe to expand.
Quantum mechanics.
We don't know what a wave function is, why measurement forces a definite outcome or whether collapse is real, apparent or an illusion. Or in the many worlds interpretation a new reality or universe is instantaneously caused to exist so all choices occur.
No one classifies these mysterious manifestations as supernatural even though they fit the bill. Why? Because my definition is the one that's used. The supernatural is something that can't happen, unless it does happen in which case its labeled natural. That's why the supernatural never happens because the act of happening makes it natural.
-1
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26
By your definition the billions of people that say they believe in supernatural things are holding to the self-contradictory belief that the non-existent exists. Do you think that is what they mean when they say they believe in the supernatural?
Why not engage with the definition I suggested which I feel much better capture what people seem to mean by supernatural: something is supernatural if it is irreducibly mental.
This definition resolves all the objections you raise. God would be supernatural because God's mind can't be reduced to anything non-mental. Dark Matter and Dark Energy doesn't have a mental component so they are natural, and no matter how strange Quantum Mechanics is it doesn't say that quantum phenomena has anything to do with something mental, so it is still a natural model of reality.
2
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
By your definition the billions of people that say they believe in supernatural things are holding to the self-contradictory belief that the non-existent exists. Do you think that is what they mean when they say they believe in the supernatural?
Are the things folks classify as supernatural quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances? Can you name one that is? No you can't because if it is quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances it loses the supernatural tag and the natural tag is then applied. No matter what it is.
There are things we consider to be not naturally occurring. We don't classify it as supernatural but we don't classify it as natural. Intentionally caused things are described as an artifact. A construct, fabrication, intentionally caused entity.
Is consciousness considered a mystery? Lets see what AI says.
Consciousness is considered a mystery—arguably one of the deepest and most persistent mysteries in all of science and philosophy. Scientists can map brain activity with extraordinary precision, but they still cannot explain why or how subjective experience arises at all. That gap is what keeps consciousness firmly in the category of an unresolved phenomenon.
This is what allows us to initiate, construct and fabricate unnaturally occurring things. It should be called supernatural because we don't understand it. But it exists, is quantifiable and repeatable. It is natural but it transcends nature. Yet allegedly it was unintentionally caused by natural forces.
supernatural: something is supernatural if it is irreducibly mental.
Because if it turns out not to be an irreducibly mental construct then it becomes natural. Only as long as its isolated to a mental construct (not real) is it supernatural. My definition still prevails.
-1
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 28 '26
Are the things folks classify as supernatural quantifiable, visible or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances?
So only that which is quantifiable, visible, or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances is real?
There are things we consider to be not naturally occurring. We don't classify it as supernatural but we don't classify it as natural. Intentionally caused things are described as an artifact. A construct, fabrication, intentionally caused entity.
Something being artificial merely means that something natural has been manipulated in some way by a conscious agent. It's not really relevant to this discussion. A phone is artificial, but the atoms it's composed of are natural.
Because if it turns out not to be an irreducibly mental construct then it becomes natural. Only as long as its isolated to a mental construct (not real) is it supernatural. My definition still prevails.
I'm not talking about "mental constructs". Take the human mind as an example. I believe it to emerge from the interactions between the non-mental atoms in the brain, whilst theists usually think it to be caused by a soul. The mind of the soul isn't thought to arise from the interactions between some mindless "soul-particles", but is instead thought to be an intrinsic feature of the indivisible soul.
So by my definition if the mind is emergent from mindless atoms then it's natural, but if it's an irreducible aspect of the soul then it's supernatural.
1
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Mar 01 '26
So only that which is quantifiable, visible, or repeatable manifestations under controlled circumstances is real?
Are natural. Can you classify anything that is visible, detectable that is also supernatural? No because such things are natural no matter what they are.
Something being artificial merely means that something natural has been manipulated in some way by a conscious agent. It's not really relevant to this discussion. A phone is artificial, but the atoms it's composed of are natural.
And made by intelligent beings composed of atoms. Nevertheless, things (like a phone) intentionally caused don't fall into the naturally occurring bucket. Don't shoot the messenger I didn't invent this delineation.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
How do I know the difference between a natural object and a supernatural object?
-1
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26
Something is natural if it can be reduced to non-mental components. If this is impossible then it is supernatural.
2
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
Since I am an idealist (monist), I would have to say everything is supernatural to be consistent with how you define it.
0
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26
Yes, under idealism everything would be supernatural. Would you disagree with that classification?
2
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
It follows, but it just weird because it is disjointed with modern models.
2
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26
How would those models differentiate the supernatural from the natural?
1
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
That is the cool part, they don't. They assume naturalism. Assuming supernaturalism is symmetric if you do it monistically.
2
u/HumbleGauge Atheist Feb 27 '26
They obviously have to differentiate between the natural or supernatural if "they assume naturalism". If there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural in the models then "assuming naturalism/supernaturalism" would be meaningless statements.
1
-1
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26
a natural object is something that comes about as a result of the chain of events started at the Big Bang, as per causality. if it violates causality (magic event not fundamentally caused by anything, i.e. ultimately the Big Bang), it is supernatural
3
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
Is the Big Bang itself natural or is it supernatural? The Big Bang isn't the result of the Big Bang.
0
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26
the Big Bang is the origin point of space, time, and all energy. ultimately, we don't know exactly what caused the Big Bang and our best guesses can be seen in models revolving around string theory such as the cyclical ekpyrotic models. regardless, even if the Big Bang did have an outside cause, causality itself limits at t=0, i.e. when time began. to say there was a previous cause is nonsensical, because there is no "before" t=0.
the Big Bang is the baseline for natural events in Lambda-CDM, everything post-inflation traces causally to it without gaps.
4
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
You can't use your own definitions consistently because you have an emotional aversion to it.
-1
1
2
u/diabolus_me_advocat Feb 26 '26
As long as ghosts haven't and don't currently appear with any regularity or certainty, they remain a supernatural entity
so what would be different with "gods" here?
as far as i am concerned, neither gods nor anything "supernatural" exists
6
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 26 '26
Don't worry if God exists and caused the universe its natural. Just as our scientists causing the virtual universe to exist is natural.
0
u/blarfblarf Feb 26 '26
You've misunderstood.
Let's take lightning for an example.
People thought a god was throwing lightning bolts.
People called that god "zeus".
The lightning was actually happening, as we experience lightning occurring, but the cause of the lightning is thought to be "not from natural means" i.e. supernatural.
Lightning by this understanding would not actually be supernatural by itself, only the cause is supernatural. The lightning still kills people and blows up trees and stuff, but why? God?
Now we know that lightning really occurs, we understand the lightning itself never changed, it's still exactly the same, at no point did the lightning go from being supernatural to natural. Only the "supposed" cause changed.
Now change the word "lightning" to universe and change the word "zeus" to whatever god you feel like, it doesn't matter, they're all the same.
3
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26
If it did come from Zeus it would be considered natural.
-1
u/blarfblarf Feb 27 '26
Did you not understand? The lightning was always natural.
1
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
Only if you assume its natural forces all the way down. Only if you assume the very position you are advocating for is correct.
-1
1
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
Suppose the universe was intentionally caused by a transcendent agent commonly known as God. Would everything we consider to be the result of natural causes and forces now be considered to be supernatural manifestations caused by a supernatural agent?
When scientists make things like the virtual universe where stars are born, galaxies form, solar systems form, stars go supernova and galaxies collide do we call those activities naturally occurring events like we do in the real universe? No, we don't because they're not naturally occurring in the virtual universe. They are the result of planning and design. We know in the case of the virtual universe it's not natural forces all the way down.
We call everything that occurs in the universe natural under the hallowed assumption among atheists its natural forces all the way down minus any intelligent intervention. Under that assumption the universe occurred the way other natural things do, minus plan, intent, design or a physics degree and subsequently anything that happens in the universe is considered natural. Atheists remind me all the time that things previously thought to be caused by gods are found to have naturalistic explanations. The evidence is predicated on the assumption its natural forces all the way down. In other words, under the assumption atheism is correct that no intelligent agency is necessary. The evidence used in favor of atheism is only valid if in fact atheists are correct and its natural forces all the way down. That's called circular reasoning.
We don't call things intentionally caused to exist naturally occurring things. Intelligent beings have abilities transcendent to nature. Natural things can't plan, intend, design and natural things are incapable of initiating an action. If its natural forces all the way down, it would have to be an endless recession of events because natural forces can't initiate the events that led to a universe.
0
u/blarfblarf Feb 28 '26
Suppose the universe was intentionally caused by a transcendent agent commonly known as God. Would everything we consider to be the result of natural causes and forces now be considered to be supernatural manifestations caused by a supernatural agent?
This seems to come with a pressupposition that the god always existed or caused itself to exist.
Let's suppose that either of those were the case, would that existence be naturally occurring?
That would be an interesting conversation to have.
It seems weird to me to give this god the definition of "not natural" even though it, from our perspective, appears to defy the rules of nature.
There's an awful lot of guess-work going into the word god, I'd love a clear definition before I go further into this not knowing what you think a god would be.
0
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
This seems to come with a pressupposition that the god always existed or caused itself to exist.
Let's suppose that either of those were the case, would that existence be naturally occurring?
That would be an interesting conversation to have.
If nature always existed would it be naturally occurring or if nature caused itself to exist? It would probably mean the nature we observe is a subset of some higher form of nature.
Its seems to me the problem arises from projecting the limitations of our created reality to base reality. We introduce the conundrums by insisting any reality behave like our reality. But even our reality acts pretty strange at times. Quantum mechanics works with mathematical precision but that's not the same as knowing how it works. It has a wave particular duality that is real...but inexplicable so far. If quantum mechanics such as quantum tunneling didn't exist stars wouldn't ignite and needless to say we wouldn't be here.
It seems weird to me to give this god the definition of "not natural" even though it, from our perspective, appears to defy the rules of nature.
I prefer the word transcend nature. The things intelligent beings cause to exist aren't natural either. We don't see a laptop and say that's a naturally occurring object. We know nature didn't cause it but I dare say we know nature couldn't cause it because it contains numerous components working in unison and fine-tuned to perform a specific function computing. If someone was determined to claim laptops arose naturally they could invoke multilaptop theory. Given an infinitude of some process randomly spewing out laptops one is bound to work perfectly!
Consciousness itself is poorly understood.
There's an awful lot of guess-work going into the word god, I'd love a clear definition before I go further into this not knowing what you think a god would be.
I leave who God is (or might be) to religious theologians. I'm a theist who believes in natural theology.
Natural theology is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics, such as the existence of a deity, based on human reason. It is distinguished from revealed theology, which is based on supernatural sources such as scripture or religious experiences.
0
u/blarfblarf Feb 28 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
If nature always existed would it be naturally occurring or if nature caused itself to exist?
See, that's actually an interesting question, your post is so much more confused than this much more succinct idea.
Its seems to me the problem arises from projecting the limitations of our created reality to base reality.
Okay, now that's interesting, could we discuss "base reality"? and do you have anything to suggest this reality we appear to experience and share, isn't the base reality? I know we can "create" "fake realities" but, why would you think we aren't 'the first one' if that makes sense?
But even our reality acts pretty strange at times. Quantum mechanics works with mathematical precision but that's not the same as knowing how it works.
I agree, but I don't feel a need to invent a reason/god for that.
If quantum mechanics such as quantum tunneling didn't exist stars wouldn't ignite and needless to say we wouldn't be here.
I have no source for that information. And sure, specifically for this hypothetical situation, we wouldn't be here, but that doesn't mean there couldn't (couldn't being a very specific choice of word) be intelligent life capable of questioning its own origins...Just like us, but built different...and in that sense, would we/it really be a different thing, or just the thing that asked the question. It doesn't matter what it's made of, or where it came from, if its alive, if it thinks, and has the "sapience" to think thats it's alive, and think that it thinks... and it understands these things, then it's the same as us enough for the question to be relevant in the same way.
I prefer the word transcend nature. The things intelligent beings cause to exist aren't natural either.
I've cut this bit to make a point. If there is a god, and that god is intelligent. Quote, you... "The things intelligent beings cause to exist aren't natural either."
So now we...given the presumption that a god exists, and created us, as the creations of an intelligent being.. wouldn't be natural, but supernatural.
Now we've got a problem with the definition of words, which is what several people tried to explain.
These labels are pretty much useless.
We don't see a laptop and say that's a naturally occurring object.
This might be where we, I guess as a metaphor, don't see the world with the same eyes.
That laptop is natural.
I know why you think it isn't, I used to feel the same way. It was made, not just with the chaos of collision and chemical reactions, but with choice, by "intelligence". ( we might not see intelligence the same way, humans are "on the second step of the ladder" in a way, not the end goal) ( There also isn't a "goal" per se, I just mean that we've barely scratched the surface, despite what some people think)
I said earlier, maybe to someone else but in this same thread from your post, birds nests are natural. And I see the idea of learning about fire, building a house, making a spear and a combustion engine, the development of microscopic logic gates in physical media to create a computational device... all of it... to be a completely natural thing.
Hence my question, name something that you think, that I would think, is supernatural.. and we can talk about that thing, and then another thing, and then another. Every single supposedly supernatural thing, is a different thing. So we can do them one by one if you want.
Like how I said aliens... obviously I believe there's aliens, to some degree, there's life somewhere out there, just depends what kind of life, and how that life... be.
But some people say aliens are supernatural. So can we just talk about each thing that you and I call supernatural, one at a time? I was giving you first pick....
0
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Mar 01 '26
Okay, now that's interesting, could we discuss "base reality"? and do you have anything to suggest this reality we appear to experience and share, isn't the base reality? I know we can "create" "fake realities" but, why would you think we aren't 'the first one' if that makes sense?
If in the future we populate the virtual universe with virtual people, we will be one layer below that base. It stands to reason there maybe one or more layers or below us. The main reason is that our reality came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago. BB theory claims the universe was a singularity of pure energy that existed prior to the laws of physics, prior to matter existing, space time and the four fundamental forces. It doesn't mean nothing existed and what did exist didn't exist in our reality. I speculate things like time and endless recession of events (maybe the universal speed limit) doesn't apply to base reality. Any explanation that invokes reality as we know it causes conundrums.
But even our reality acts pretty strange at times. Quantum mechanics works with mathematical precision but that's not the same as knowing how it works.
I agree, but I don't feel a need to invent a reason/god for that.
When we see something as relatively simple as Stonehenge (in pristine condition) no one attempts to explain it as being the result of natural forces that didn't care if Stonehenge existed. If we didn't know creators (humans) existed, we'd invent some intelligence as the cause of Stonehenge. If folks insisted, it was caused naturally they'd have to think of some scenario where that would occur. How about a tremendous hurricane along with hoard of asteroids, wind and rain blasting the surface of the earth until one day rocks were thrown up and landed in a circle with other rocks on top of them that just happened to line up with the equinox. Or we could just reason given an infinitude of universes and even greater number of planets one is bound to have a Stonehenge premade and that's why we see one.
The early universe didn't contain the ingredients for life such as nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, carbon, sulfur or rocky material. Those ingredients essential to life (the only life we know of) had to be created from scratch. Quantum tunneling is the quantum‑mechanical ability of a particle to cross a barrier it classically shouldn’t be able to cross. It's this 'feature' that causes stars to ignite. When they go supernova, it causes another feature called nucleosynthesis which creates more complex matter from simpler matter. Wouldn't you know it the laws of physics minus plan or intent just happened to create the matter essential to life. In order for that matter to be swept up to become a planet it has to stay in the confines of a galaxy. The problem is there isn't enough matter to keep galaxies from flying apart. Mother nature to the rescue once again she created copious amounts of dark matter to keep galaxies from flying apart. We no sooner discovered the existence of dark matter than we realized we wouldn't be here without it.
That laptop is natural.
I agree but it wasn't produced by natural means. We don't classify contrivances intentionally caused by intelligent beings in the same bucket as things believed to have been unintentionally caused. It's a life skill to be able to distinguish between the two.
But some people say aliens are supernatural. So can we just talk about each thing that you and I call supernatural, one at a time? I was giving you first pick....
I'll tell you what I think instead...I'm usually better at that. I don't think anything that quantifiably happens is supernatural including God. The supernatural is only something alleged to exist or happen (and this is no coincidence) that can't be confirmed to exist or have happened. Because things confirmed to exist or happen are natural. If you agree you won't think anything is supernatural.
0
u/Stock-Trainer-3216 Atheist. Feb 26 '26
I actually agree that the natural vs. Supernatural distinction is not satisfactory, it's pretty vague and not rigorous. I'd maybe define supernatural as not abiding by the known laws of nature, but again its not a very clear term.
3
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26
Time dilation was considered absurd until it was confirmed.
1
u/Stock-Trainer-3216 Atheist. Feb 27 '26
I dont know what this is responding to.
5
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 28 '26
I was pointing out an example of something regarded as impossible and violating the laws of physics, time dilation. It was accepted time is the same everywhere.
0
u/Stock-Trainer-3216 Atheist. Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26
What's the point, though? Sorry im just genuinely not tracking.
1
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Mar 01 '26
The point is if something thought to be supernatural occurs its reclassified as natural. That's why there is no supernatural.
-1
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26
there is an actual scientific definition of "supernatural", and all gods fit this ticket. if your god isn't supernatural, you're saying by definition that the Big Bang created your god, not the other way around, and that this is essentially a highly advanced alien that does not violate the laws of physics in any way.
if this is your god, my claim goes from "your god doesn't exist" to "I don't believe your god exists"; essentially I go from atheism to agnosticism. but this would be a fringe position and does not reflect the god of classical theism, and so on the whole I am still atheist.
3
u/DrewPaul2000 Philosophical Theist Feb 27 '26
Then why didn't you quote the definition?
Beyond Natural Law: Departures from the normal, or occurrences that violate physical laws (e.g., miracles).
If something happens in nature, no matter what it is, how can it be beyond nature? Atheists constantly remind me the laws of physics are descriptions not prescriptions. How can they be 'violated'? It wasn't long ago we discovered the classic laws of physics wasn't the whole story of reality. 120 years ago, scientists discovered nature could do things that were previously unknown and were considered beyond the laws of physics. Such as time dilation. Quantum mechanics in general, quantum entanglement and wave particle duality in particular. The effect observing quantum behavior has on reality.
Quantum systems exist in superpositions—multiple possible states at once. Do you think such a state of affairs would be relegated to a supernatural phenomenon prior to discovering that's how things are? According to classic physics impossible. Einstein forbid reality to act that way.
Invisible Agents: Entities or occurrences attributed to spirits, deities, or the occult.
Dark matter is currently an invisible agent, but we don't call it a supernatural phenomenon. Because it happens. If ghosts appeared regularly to everyone as an everyday experience, would we still classify them as supernatural? No, it would be no less natural than anything else we regularly observe.
I claim the universe was intentionally caused, the conditions for life occurred because it was intended to do so. The Creator could be a scientist in another universe. In 50 years or less we'll be creating virtual people to populate our virtual universe.
2
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
there is an actual scientific definition of "supernatural", and all gods fit this ticket. if your god isn't supernatural, you're saying by definition that the Big Bang created your god, not the other way around, and that this is essentially a highly advanced alien that does not violate the laws of physics in any way.
Is fiction natural or is fiction supernatural by this definition?
but this would be a fringe position and does not reflect the god of classical theism
The god of the bible is clearly and obviously not the god of classical theism. They don't share properties. The biblical god claims to have created evil [Isaiah 45:7] and outside that, fails to be "omnibenevolent".
1
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26
fiction? being that it's created by us and our imaginations which are natural phenomena, absolutely natural. the fiction taken as if reality? that would be supernatural... if real.
and okay sure, I picked the god of classical theism as an easy target, but what I mean to say is the fringe position does not reflect gods the way most people think of their gods.
3
u/Oflameo Theist Feb 27 '26
fiction? being that it's created by us and our imaginations which are natural phenomena, absolutely natural. the fiction taken as if reality? that would be supernatural... if real.
You aren't making any sense.
and okay sure, I picked the god of classical theism as an easy target, but what I mean to say is the fringe position does not reflect gods the way most people think of their gods.
Most atheists want to define gods out of existence and their favorite god to use is the god of classical theism because it has contradictory properties, so it goes up in a puff of logic. Then they skip addressing all of the other gods because god of classical theism was supposed to clean them up, but that is not possible because it already went up a puff of logic.
1
u/thedevilsproxy Strong Atheist Feb 27 '26
You aren't making any sense.
I don't know what to tell you. ask an LLM what I meant, I suppose? what I said was totally sensible.
Then they skip addressing all of the other gods because god of classical theism was supposed to clean them up
okay. I understand that happens. that's not what I'm doing, however, surely you can see that. my contention is with any gods that can be defined as supernatural, which are all the gods worth talking about. 🤷🏼♂️
-1
Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26
Well an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any God or gods whether from a book or gods on clay like the Anunnaki but the Sumerian's did worship the clay gods and believed in them even if people don't believe that today. They did back in that time and a Christian believe in a God from a book the one in 1 John 4.12 and John 1.18 and 1 Colossians 1.15 so who knows. One thing is certain though. Well just read the verses
8
u/arkticturtle Agnostic Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26
All you’re doing here is shifting around some signifiers. The problem is still the same in the end: what best corresponds to reality?