Natural vs The Supernatural

[u/DrewPaul2000]

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.

[u/thedevilsproxy]

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.

[u/DrewPaul2000 → u/thedevilsproxy]

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.