Ah, yes, that's a hairy ball of yarn. "Supernatural" is in itself to me a contraction. How can something be above "nature" when nature is, well, everything? The concept behind gods, magic and superstition isn't that it's "beyond" the laws of the physics and impossible, because well, if it was impossible then it wouldn't happen. It's simply that we don't understand it, that it doesn't fit into current(!) science. If god descended upon earth and let us study him/her/it, it would take some time, but we would find the internal consistency of his powers and amend our understanding of the natural world to fit, even if it meant throwing the first law of thermodynamics out the window. It would no longer be supernatural, and it wasn't to begin with, in a sense.
This doesn't mean we could necessarily why
his powers work. Science doesn't consider "why", it considers how. Many things doesn't have an explanation why they happen. Why does the higgs boson have the properties it does, why is 1+1=2? The things we as humans can perceive in the natural world have a why, deeper, smaller causes, but eventually you're gonna hit a point where something just "is". Why a god functions like it would would perhaps be unexplainable, but it doesn't make it any more supernatural than the most fundamental forces of our world.
EagleMan wrote:So generally you qualify as an agnostic atheist, but I bet you'd be willing to say you're a gnostic atheist towards Jesus, Allah, Vishnu etc. For instance, I would say it's at a minimum possible there's some god out there, and he might not even pay any mind to Earth at all, but I can easily dismiss Zeus as a possible deity, because there is detail to him, and that detail is falsifiable.
Nope. I would assert that you can prove that any god cannot exist, for any useful, contained definition of "god" and any useful definition of "prove". I'd personally call that strong atheism, you're asserting that that's silly, and I disagree. You cannot prove anything at all, zero, nothing, in an absolute sense, but in the scientific sense of the word, it can proven that no god exists. In the same way it can be proven that teleporting mammals doesn't exist, for instance.
I disagree that the specificity makes it easier to disprove a god. Your example is too specific. How is disproving that a god, who, for instance, can create suns and stuff, but has never interacted with earth, easier than disproving the existence of gods in general? In science, the method for disproving both is the same: Until some evidence has been presented for their existence, you don't need to.
If it seems weird that I talk so much about science, keep in mind that the ultimate goal of science is the acquisition of truth and knowledge. Having supplanted philosophy, it is imperfect, but the best available tool we have to know about anything in our world.
Tuor wrote:That's pretty much how I feel too
Hm, curious: What would you self-identify as?