an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

On a Supernatural God

It’s mostly agreed that, for a god to be a god, it has to be supernatural. As I don’t think the supernatural exists, I don’t think gods exist, and here’s why….

If a natural being were powerful enough to do all the things a god could do that would still not make it a god, and no more worthy of worship that I would be by an ant.

Example – man has immense power over single cell organisms, we can even make artificial ones in the lab, from the point of view of a single celled organism WE are gods, and show all the traits that we’d ascribe to a god. But that doesn’t alter the fact that we’re not, we’re just much more powerful than they are. Likewise, any naturally occurring being that appears godlike to us.

For anything to be supernatural to exist it HAS to exist outside of the realm of the real, if something isn’t real it doesn’t exist. The very act of existence pushes anything that exists into the realm of reality, no matter how strange or powerful that thing is.

Nothing is supernatural, because it is not possible for anything to BE supernatural. And as nothing can be supernatural, even if a being were discovered that showed all the traits of a god, it would not be one.

Single Post Navigation

10 thoughts on “On a Supernatural God

  1. Thanks Paul. To me the logic of all that seems blindingly obvious, yet the Please Convince Me crowd are accusing me of being incapable of even basic logic, despite their often insane episodes of extreme special pleading.

  2.      The logic of all that is the same Presuppositional Baloney that Sye uses, just pointed in the other direction. Sorry, you shouldn't need to use redefinitions to say that. if you found a being that most people would identify as a god and as supernatural, that being would be "not really supernatural." And it's totally unnecessary. There is, as yet, no evidence of being who can alterthe position of the stars in the sky to spell out a message. If such a being existed, I would identify that being as supernatural as opposed to following a rule of "found it, therefore not supernatural." It's just dishonest to use such a rule. And it is a tactic I expect from someone like Sye, but not from you.

  3. If a god can be non-supernatural is it still a god? The definition of supernatural I'm using is the standard one.Pvblivs, do you think that a god can exist that isn't supernatural?

  4.      The idea of "found it, therefore not supernatural" is not a standard definition. The normally accepted standard would be outside the world we are currently capable of observing. If we were part of a computer simulation, for example, anything outside that simulation would be supernatural (to us.)

  5. I'm using the definition of 'supernatural' that appears to be the standard one "1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.3. Of or relating to a deity.4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.5. Of or relating to the miraculous."'m honestly lost as to where you think I'm redefining the word."If we were part of a computer simulation, for example, anything outside that simulation would be supernatural (to us.)"No, it may APPEAR supernatural to us, but it would still be part of the greater Universe that we exist in. There is a difference between something being or appearing to be.

  6. Alex:     As I have commented in my own blog post, "natural" was not intended to absorb everything that might be found. In other words "existence outside the natural world" is an open question by standard usage. You are using a non-standard definition of "if it is shown to exist, it becomes natural."     If you are honestly lost as to where I find you to be redefining the word, you need look no further than the fact that "natural" was never intended to encompass the "greater universe" should there actually be one. The question of the supernatural is the question of whether there is a "greater universe" or whether what we see is all there is.

  7. I respect your opinion, Pvblivs, though I disagree.

  8. Good points Pvblivs, nice to agree for a change.

  9. good points? Really?At least we have evidence of a universe and a natural world. Where is your evidence for a supernatural universe and a supernatural world?Those "good points" seems to consist of "I wish there was a supernatural world, so I'm gonna believe in one until someone can prove there's not one".Never does it occur to these mentally challenged people that the burden of proof is theirs. They have had thousands of years to prove their supernatural world exists and have failed miserably to do so.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: