[b]Super-nature hypothesis and nature.

Why is supernatural hypothesis less valid than a natural one in claims of causation? the short answer is that things do not exist and things that do not exist can't be cause of other things. This is not a claim that super nature do not exist but it is a statement asserting that in order for anything including super nature to be put forward as a valid cause, that thing at least should be existent.

There is a pool of thing that are known to exist and pool of other things that are known not to exist, one thing might possibly exist but something is still non-existent like other things of the same category, until we can demonstrate it, not saying that one day, we are going to demonstrate this thing exist.

Nature is known to exist of which we can demonstrate that it exists but putting forward supernatural explanation to begin to be valid, we have to find a way to define that it is actually existing as such a thing as super nature and we can actually say that it can do what we are claiming it can do. Until we examine super nature, we can't make a valid assertion about what super nature is or what it does in a way we care about nature, because we can't demonstrate that it do certain things.


We have an unexplained event "X" and we have nature that can be examine to see if it can do what's required to achieve "X". Then we have super nature we can't examine, we can't demonstrate and above which we can't make no informed claim. So it's literally and unknowable variable that we can just call it "Y"; Simply an undefined variable.
In this case, if we could put super nature forward as the cause, what we are saying in effect is that we can't explain what produced "X" because we know nothing about "Y" and for all we know, it doesn't even exist, so mysterious event "X" is caused by unknown possibly non-existent cause Y, and that's really not saying much.

Saying "Y" caused "X" where "X" is unexplainable, "Y" that is undefined is not an explanation, and i wanna know that by piling on more claims about Y, it's not defining Y. It's really isn't because when somebody says Y is my god and it is the god of the bible, you're just making more claims about Y that are then claims about attributes or causation of the things that we're unable to examine, so you are just piling on the same claims that have the same problem with it, requiring a demonstration. There is need to demonstrate the existence of something in order to verify that what you just said about it is correct.

It is kind of complicating the issue, in one hand when you start making claims about the attributes of god and the nature of god, you are attempting to define this in a way that makes it appear to be more explainable, like if you're saying that you have to actually demonstrate it, in the other hand you are making it more and more difficult to the case, while you are attempting to make it easier by going through and adding tricks to the definition, you are at least making an attempt towards defining something in a way that we may be more able to investigate it, for example, if you talk about god that specifically answers prayers verses some abstract god, we need to look if the answer is imparting on that which is potentially testable.
Further examples is like someone saying that god is eternal, it is useless help because it didn't define anything to me, it is just another claim and for me to accept that your god is eternal, i need to see your god, i need to at least look at it and examine it to say well it is eternal or not. I don't know what eternal god may look like. I don't know how you can demonstrate that your god is eternal without the god being present or responsive

That we can't get the explanation for "X" doesn't make "Y" the possible explanation since there is no evidence or demonstration to back it up. I see that as extremely arrogant. Is like if you don't know the answer to something, a god must be responsible for it, that there is no way a human being can be aware or unaware about the explanation of something, then those things must be eternal mysteries from god as oppose to things that are part of what we never figure-out or those things we never have an explanation for yet. [/b]

Meneseh, nice one. You just opened and then closed your own thread.

I waiting for a response from people that serve from the known unknown.

But first they have to be able to read the write up and then understand

hahn:
Meneseh, nice one. You just opened and then closed your own thread.

I waiting for a response from people that serve from the known unknown.

But first they have to be able to read the write up and then understand

Yeah. The Known unknown