Reply #127: I understand what you are saying [View All]

[Zodiak]

but there is still a lot of presumption in your statments. Something that is "supernatural" one day may become perfectly mundane in our understanding the next. The term itself does not imply detectability or indetectability....just that it operates outside of the physical realm..the definition does not imply no effect on the natural world, only the "location" of its existence. Theorists who engage in string theory, extradimensional space, etc. all deal with what we call "out of the physical world", but we treat what they do as a science without really having any real data other than the logic of their theories.

One also cannot argue that God has no discernable effect on mankind...one can only argue that God has no effect on the person giving the testimonial. God and religion does have an effect on mankind (at least the concepts do), as attested by the namy, many humans who have "faith", the many times that a spectre is photographed and believed to be a "ghost", the numerous examples of "I cannot explain it" that bespeckle human experience, near death experiences, astral projection, etc. None of these data are useable for a formal analysis (being anecdotal and not reliably reproduceable), but these data do exist. The only issue up for grabs is the explanation for all of this anecdotal evidence. An atheist may say "these people are delusional, lying"...or have some data-less supposition on brain chemistry without sampling the evidence in question. (invoking Occam's Razor, no doubt, which is NOT a scientific law, but a convention) The religious will chalk all of these experiences up to the existence of God and evidence of life after death. The scientist would say "inconclusive...more data needed...more rigorous testing needed" or something of the like that has no element of certainty. The agnostic would say the same.

I do not believe for one second that religious people would suddenly think of "God" as non-supernatural if his presence were absolutely known and undeniable. His existence would still be in a realm beyond what we call the physical. We cannot presume that extraphysical bodies have no effect on the physical. Nor can we presume the opposite. This is something that has never been tested.

Not all religions or religious traditions see "God" as sacred and forever outside of our understanding. Nor are all of the "believers" those that ascribe to such hypotheses. I believe that your definition of "God", "religion", "supernatural", and "effect on humans" may be too narrow.

"God can never be detected or experienced because if he was detected or experienced, he wouldn't be God" is the basis of your argument. This is a tautology.