How to disprove God to a believer? (no really)...

[gwenol]

One cannot disprove a religion based upon faith, because the foundation of that religion is not based upon fact to begin with. This is how Chrisitianity has maintained its hold for 2k years, by demanding unquestioning faith from its followers.

Sorry, but as a Christian with faith in Jesus, I am happy that the scientific, historical and philosophical facts completely validate and prove my beliefs. I recommend for your reading "Idon't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Geisler and Turek, for a full treatment of the facts of the Christian faith

 

[d.]

as a Christian with faith in Jesus, I am happy that the scientific, historical and philosophical facts completely validate and prove my beliefs.

they easily do if you only accepts as fact that which does not counter your a priori assumptions. i'd be happy to see some of these 'facts'?

 

[logician]

YOu certainly won't see a real factual defense of Christianity on this board or any other, because such a defense is not possible.

 

[Nehustan]

By my definition (i.e. understanding of existence) My God does not exist, so really pointless proving he exists or doesn't. I am still however very grateful for all he does for me, and have often reason to say 'Alhamdulillah'. I think in all of my years, whether I was consious of Him or not, he has always been there for me.

I declare that there is no god, but the absolute and infinite.​

:bow:​

 

[s2a]

Hello SoliDeoGloria,

You said:

Just the premise of asking believers to present arguments that would disprove their beliefs assumes as much despite the clarifications presented in the OP. It would be like me asking you to disprove atheism without using reason while acknowledging the role reason plays in atheism.

Your assessment might have merit if (adherence to) "atheism" tendered any inherent claims of either "fact" or "truth". It doesn't. How does one "disprove" an unmade or non-existent claim? On the other hand, adherents of faith-based beliefs tender both claims of "fact" and "truth" - ranging from the unequivocal and "absolute", to dogmatically metaphorical "teachings" of self-validating reinforcement in religious texts.

I reassert that my premised inquiry is both valid, and worthy of considered reply. Despite minimal efforts to deflect or discredit the initial premised argument in and of itself, the question remains (largely) unaddressed.

When I said:
It was not I that suggested that faith was "dependent on ignorance". But neither would it be unfair to observe that many of faith willingly reject any knowledge that they deem as conflicting with - or contradictory to - their understanding or their faith.

You offered:

Did I happen to quote any statement you made in my previous response as to rebute a direct statement of yours?

No, but you chose to imply as much instead when you offered:

The first thing this thread does from a Christian prospective is downplay the role that faith plays in this issue (Eph.2:8-9 Heb.11:1), but being as how I am all for Christian Apologetics (1Pet.3:15) and firmly believe that faith is not dependant on ignorance (2Tim.2:15)

All I did was acknowledge the existence of Fideism, which you have also acknowledged, and clarify that, that is not the presentation I would be using.

You are welcome to quibble with my style or manner of presentation of topic as a critic of such interests, but in so doing, this should not absolve you from answering a legitimately premised inquiry either. As an REF member, you are both welcome and invited to tender your own qualified premises for discussion/debate, utilizing your own style and personality as suits you best.

I said:
Faith-based rationales and motivations borne of wishful thinking are not especially conducive to discernment of fact, or to open inquiry.

You replied:

"wishful thinking" eh? Nice choice of words. You should look into the history of this subject matter. You might find that Christian Apologetics (1Pet. 3:15) was actually born of criticism and persecution of believers.

My "choice" assessment is derived from my years of lent evaluation/exegesis of Biblical scripture. It would be unwise to underestimate my capacities in this regard.

Did you know that some of the first Christians were actually called atheists for their refusal to acknowledge that ceasars were gods? Polycarp tried to present an argument defending that accusation and was arrested and sentenced to death. While in the arena facing his impending doom, he was told to recant his beliefs to avoid death and he answered by calling the crowd atheists. The rest is obvious.

Obvious...and also moot.

I opined:
Ignorance certainly isn't requisite to faith, but neither is challenge to personalized faith especially encouraged, invited, or welcomed either.

You said:

By some maybe but I and the Bible more than welcome it (once again 1Pet.3:15)

Just for those that do not have a Bible handy...
1 Peter 3:15 (NIV) - "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..."

Your supportive scriptural justification/rationalization in validating Biblical apologetics (both in person and literary commentary - and the role they both serve) is notable, but the completion of that lent verse (1 Peter 3:16) implies an inconvenient allegation of purposed malevolent intent, to wit:

"...keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

Is it your assertion that I have maligned either your personal behavior, or rendered a false or meretricious attribution upon your favored religious text?

I would assert and maintain that challenge and inquiry of faith-based motivations and rationales is neither comparable, nor tantamount to, religious persecution of "believers". "Apologize" to suit you own sensibilities, but let's not color any and all challenges/inquiries into faith-based claims and rationales as being inherently evil or malicious in purposed intent. Maybe, just maybe...there's another "truth" out there...somewhere.

When I said:
Your lent caveat ("From a Christian Theistic worldview") - while candid - certainly does limit the scope of what such a perspective might constitute as "damaging" disproof.

You offered:

With the vast varieties of philosophies that can be claimed while also claiming "christianity" (wiccan/christian; fideism; deism; etc.) I felt the need to claify once again which argument I would be presenting. How nice of you to point out how candid it is though.

Your clarification is (was) overreaching. Neither Deism nor Fideism necessarily incorporate (or even consider) a requisite Savior, nor any worshipful adherence/obedience to Jesus Christ Himself. I saluted your candor in acknowledgment of a qualified (and narrowed) perspective. As cited in The American Heritage Dictionary, a "Christian" is:
"One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

Christianity is but one of many faith-based beliefs/religions; and espouses it's own unique subset of faith-based perspectives/claims. In as much, "disproving" the attendant claims of the Bible would have no interest or impact upon Hindus or Buddhists whatsoever.

I said:
The "Cosmological argument" (or as you qualify it, "the first principle of causality"), is an argument for (or favoring) the existence of [a] god.

You replied:

While the first principle of causality plays a role in the cosmological argument, there is much more to it than that.

Perhaps, but that initial intent remains the primary thrust of the "principle" itself.

While I could've presented other such parts of the cosmological argument as motion(Aquinas); possibility & necessity; gradation; Duns Scotus' argument from producibility; Leibniz's argument from sufficient reason; etc. I felt it would better serve the thread by not taking up as much space and present a simpler aspect.

Indeed. There are numerous philosophical ruminations and expositions to cite and expound upon (both pro and con regarding "primary cause" argumentations - including the overwhelmingly compelling negations of Aquinas' proposed rationales, amongst others), but what of them? I summarily disposed of your qualification within but a few sentences. Reasonable doubt has been introduced. Your turn.

I said:
It proposes no methodology for falsification of that "logical proof"

You replied:

Nice copout. Silly me, I didn't know that I was required to present the methodology of it.

It is, silly you. ;-)

The burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant (if the claim is to be deemed worthy of experimentation and subsequent validation/falsification, or futher exploration); not the skeptic. Our entire system of justice is founded upon such a methodology. The burden of proof in accusation (or claim) is borne by the accuser (or claimant) themselves. The accused (or skeptic) bears no burden to "disprove" the accusations (or claims) put forth. In such a system of justice, not only must the prosecution present, pre-trial, any incriminating evidence; it is also compelled to provide any and all exculpatory evidence...that may (or may not) allow or engender reasonable doubt (or outright falsification) of the accusations (claims) so tendered.

If you would like I can do so, but wouldn't it be better presented in a different thread? Then again I am sure we will have to clarify what is meant by methodology.

I would be pleased (when convenient) to engage such a topical debate. Would you prefer to present such a premised argument yourself, or would you prefer some collaborative effort?

 

[s2a]

SoliDeoGloria inquired:

Has this turned into a debate over causality?

Only superficially, insomuch in addressing your introduced caveat of a personally satisfying "disproof". I retain no especial interest in "causality" (either "prime" or consequential), since I regard scientific explanations as both most plausible (beyond reasonable doubt), and more than satisfactory in suit to my own sensibilities.

I am trully impressed in your vast knowledge of $20 dollar words and scripture and would love to have a one on one debate with you over the existence of God. I will even start one for you if you would like. I was under the impression that this particular thread was for believers to present possible disproofs of their beliefs.

Your initial impression/assumption is the correct one.
I merely rebutted your introduced caveats. You were invited to cite specific evidence or circumstance that you would regard as a qualified "disproof"; directly causal to an unequivocal "disbelief" of your adherent religious (faith-based) perspective. The attendant vagaries and unspecified particulars of any "first cause disproof" are so broad and anomalous as to be untenable in serious deliberation of circumspect and quantifiable fact. How shall we test some theoretically proposed "first cause"? What credible hypothesis could be crafted? By what measure or methodology shall we garner comparison in subsequent validation or falsification?

While this is a debate forum, for the sake of keeping this thread from taking a completely sidetracking direction, I propose the above.

Accepted. I await your lead. ;-)

I concluded:
It would again seem that my question of "What would it take for you to not believe in God?" remains beyond any similarly qualified response on your part, excepting:

You summarized in reply:

As a follower of calvinism, my answer to your question of "What would it take for you to believe in God?". would be a regeneration of your heart by God.

I will assume that your omission of the qualifying word "not" was a typo. ;-)

I guess now is just as good a time as any to clarify the difference between evangelism and apologetics. As R.C. Sproul puts it in his book "Defending your Faith", while the role of evangelism may be persuasive, the role of apologetics is to merely present proof.

Forgive me, but at best apologetics only manages to present defense or justification/rationalization of (contradictory, complex, or multi-facted) faith-based claims/accountings by means of in-depth exegesis. At worst, apologetics typifies circular reasoning.

"The old aphorism rings true 'people convinced against their will hold the same opinions still'.

Some aphorisms are also useless, witless bunk. ;-)
Just the same, I prefer a similar sentiment as expressed by Samuel Clemens, to wit:
"Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul."

That bell has a better tone to my ear. ;-)

That is why, for example, if a Christian were to win an intellectual debate with a non-Christian, the victory celebration may never take place. The non-Christian might concede defeat, thought usually not until his head hits the pillow at the end of the day.

The same may be said for atheists as well. An atheistic perspective offers no promise of bestowed extraordinary reward, nor glorious dispensation of just punishment.
No infinite afterlife of perpetual bliss or torment.
No "universal absolutes" of morality, ethics, purpose, or meaning in a mortal existence (beyond those we practice and accountably assert for ourselves).
No happy answers to painful realities; "Why do bad things happen to good people?".
If I "lose" a debate, I experience no material or "spiritual" loss (beyond the occasional bruised ego), for I have nothing of baiting wayward temptation or promised reward to proffer or gain either for myself, or for my countering foil.

This may never translate into conversion, but there is some value to this aspect of 'winning' an argument. On the one hand, as Calvin said, the unbridled barking of the ungodly may be restrained; and on the other, the intellectual victory provides assurance and protection to the young Christian who is not yet able to repel the bombardment of criticism from scholars and skeptics. It serves as a confirmation of the Christian faith."

Validation of faith-based beliefs is the very grist of the "majority religion" mills. Doubt and skepticism are the inherent products of an evolved consciousness and self-aware sentience. Faith without validation and support becomes no more that popular myth, superstition, and legend. So went the "gods" of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Sumerians, Aztecs, etc. The primary accounting of "validity" in modern religions is due solely to widespread popularity and practiced adherence. Faith remains evidence of faith itself, but still provides not one iota of credible evidence as to any existent "god. 1900 years ago, Christians were regarded as cultists and kooks within the "civilized" world. Methinks it's only a matter of time...

You sought to both compliment, then scold me in saying:

While your knowledge of scripture is impressive, your exegesis is lacking. To take a book that happens to be one of my favorite and turn verses in to absolutes while ignoring the conclusion made at the end of the book; Ecc. 12:13-14; "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." shows nothing more than a convenient and complete refusal to use the proposed verse in it's original context. Eccl. 9:10 is a verse proclaiming the lack of activity as we know it here on earth, not a proclaimation that there is absolutely no activity when one dies or ends up in "shoel". Obviously, with the end of the verse stating "where you are going" is a statement claiming some sort of existence and activity after death.

Obviously, my intent was not to indulge some lengthy and critical exegesis of the passage in question, but to tender a referenced (albeit facile) point. I might readily engage you in critical and circumspect debate over the singular (and similarly unextended context) chapter and verse you have chosen to cite as either support (for your position) or instruction to my supposed (lacking) erudition/benefit. As you are aware, I am an atheist; and as such, not particularly motivated to either support or defend (or apologetically explain/justify) given scriptural passages as veritable wisdom or "Truth". This is not to suggest that such expended efforts are beyond my capacities - only that I am not particularly motivated nor presuppositionally enjoined to expound upon such banalities, as they are not the foundations of my argued positions. If I retained, and sought to pursue such interests, I would spend most of my available time within forums of religion-specific disscusion/debate. My notable absence from such forums is both conspicuous and recorded.

In reflection of the relative permanence of that record, I shall note once again - betwixt our rather lengthy exchanges - you tender no qualified/specified evidential disproof that lends quantifiable answer to the OP question:

"What would it take for you to not believe in (a) god(s)?"

If or until you can produce someone that has been legally, medically, and coroner-certifiably dead, and then buried in an earthen tomb for at least seven days; whom thereupon has been extraordinarily resurrected into conscious, cognizant, and coherent livelihood...with firsthand accountings validating religious claims of some "life after death" - then, and only then, will I consider stipulations of your personalized death (or someone else's) as a viable and reasonable response to the question at hand.

As reminder, I consider respondent answers of "no", "none that I can think of", or "i don't know" as legitimate reply...if not particularly illuminating or helpful in illustration or production of some prospectively unequivocal "disbelief".

It's a fair question, that deserves a fair answer.

If there is no fair or reasonable specificity to be had from proselytizing believers in answer to the OP question, then I simply maintain that "believers" - in asking "unbelievers" to fairly qualify their own requisites for adherence/acceptance to/of faith-based beliefs/claims - only reflect impotent evangelism at best, and vacuous rationale and empty rhetoric in the erstwhile medial norm.

 

[Jerrell]

Essentially one cannot disproove God. It's like saying that a man was born with a penis just by chance and the woman with a vagina just by chance, And also by chance they happen to be able to have children, AND also by chance the body already knows which chromosomes to take, AND by chance it knows how to form a new baby, AND by chance it knows where to go, to grow...that is way too much chance, It's more simple to me to beleive in a God, than to beleive in nothing and believe the impossible.

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

What say you?

The only thing that would cause me to disbelieve in the existence of a "supernatural being" is if we could observe it.

But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".

Yes. The evidence would be a physically tangible god. If that were to occur, I would have to abandon all my beliefs.

Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
How about "proof" of UFO's (essentially the same thing)?

Not so much.

Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

No. Those things are natural. The existence of the natural does not disprove the existence of the supernatural.

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

I agree with that definition. Faith is always in the belief that something is true (and belief is in true things), has an element of trust, and is in accordance with evidence.

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

I have no idea what that means (please forgive my ignorance). "Has it's own merited truth"?

 

[stemann]

Essentially one cannot disproove God. It's like saying that a man was born with a penis just by chance and the woman with a vagina just by chance, And also by chance they happen to be able to have children, AND also by chance the body already knows which chromosomes to take, AND by chance it knows how to form a new baby, AND by chance it knows where to go, to grow...that is way too much chance, It's more simple to me to beleive in a God, than to beleive in nothing and believe the impossible.

Where does chance come into this?

So how come God came into being 'just by chance'?

 

[sparkyluv]

Where does chance come into this?

So how come God came into being 'just by chance'?

He never came into being. He always was.

 

[Faint]

He never came into being. He always was.

Please explain how this is possible/reasonable.

 

[sparkyluv]

Please explain how this is possible/reasonable.

With God all things are possible. Nothing or noone created God. God always was. He's always been there.

 

[Ody]

Sorry, but as a Christian with faith in Jesus, I am happy that the scientific, historical and philosophical facts completely validate and prove my beliefs.

I'm sorry, but theism isn't based on facts.

 

[Quiddity]

Please explain how this is possible/reasonable.

Asking that question is as mysterious as how has everything just existed don't you think?

 

[gnostic]

The simple fact that God doesn't appear in our life, except through holy scriptures is proof enough that doesn't God exist. Until a real manifestion of God appeared before many people then only faith keep God in the mind and heart of men, but faith is not real enough for many who don't believe.

I have not seen any supernatural. Nor I have seen any divine intervention. There are no miracles today. So far, I had only seen natures at work, and that are of "natural miracles", not that of "divine miracles" nor of the supernaturals.

 

[Quiddity]

The simple fact that God doesn't appear in our life, except through holy scriptures is proof enough that doesn't God exist. Until a real manifestion of God appeared before many people then only faith keep God in the mind and heart of men, but faith is not real enough for many who don't believe.

I have not seen any supernatural. Nor I have seen any divine intervention. There are no miracles today. So far, I had only seen natures at work, and that are of "natural miracles", not that of "divine miracles" nor of the supernaturals.

I don't see how that disproves that God doesn't exist at all.

 

[Quiddity]

Gnostic,
As far as the miracles are concerned it is known that whatever miracle occurs, many skeptics like you will disbelieve it (see, e.g., Luke 16:30-31), because you either rule out the possibility of the miraculous beforehand ("define it away") or make verification practically impossible, so that no miracle can occur, let alone a belief in God which oftentimes follows such a remarkable happening. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, who wouldn't believe that he healed a blind man, when He did it right in front of them. They cared little about demonstrable fact (John 9:1-41 -- all).

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[Willamena]

I have not seen any supernatural. Nor I have seen any divine intervention. There are no miracles today. So far, I had only seen natures at work, and that are of "natural miracles", not that of "divine miracles" nor of the supernaturals.

If you did see it, it wouldn't be supernatural, now, would it?

 

[Booko]

Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).

I don't know how you could either prove or disprove the existence of a deity, but then I'm agnostic about my theism anyway.

If you disproved the validity of the Messenger, that would go a long way, though.

It is well documented and accepted that believers are prone to "crises of faith"...

It is? Uh, would you like to start another thread to discuss this? I'd find it interesting to look at this topic in more detail.

Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?

Uh, my religious beliefs include the existence of life in places other than earth, so that wouldn't disprove much.

Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?

The problem with this is, you can always take it one step further back and claim that it was God that created the spark, set up the rules of physics, decided mutations were a fine idea as a creation mechanism, and so forth.

You can always take the physical one step back into the metaphysical, so I don't think you'd have much luck with this as any evidence in the non-existence of the supernatural.

Faith (religious) is defined in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary thusly:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

If the description/definition above has it's own merited "truth" itself, then certainly the converse, or (otherwise) the absence of "faith" would demand similar considerations in determining a satisfying and self-conclusive "truth" of a "disproof" of supernatural deities.

Unfortunately, faith is a complicated enough thing that a dictionary definition probably can't do it much justice.

Faith relies on all epistemological tools in various measures: reason, empiricism, tradition (history) and intuition. What complicates it more is, the measures in which these tools are used vary from one person to the next.

One person who relies heavily on intuition in life will consider an intuitive proof. Another who relies on traditions (all those people couldn't be that far off!) will take another route. And those that rely more heavily on reason will study theology in its many aspects. And those who favor empiricism will consider evidence of a pattern in human existence, even though admittedly that evidence is far fuzzier than it would be if one were studying,say, bond strengths in saturated hydrocarbons.

Science has a fairly clear and simple method of investigating the physical universe.

In metaphysics, though there are some common threads, the methods are unique to each person when you look at the details.

Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.

Hey, I'm a theist now, and I *still* get asked this question. It's like a few fellow theists who believe something else have a difficult time believing that I actually believe what I believe, and can't fathom I could possibly come to a somewhat different conclusion.

What say you?

Well, Aragorn, I think it's a pretty cool thread.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see how that disproves that God doesn't exist at all.

Personal experience, Victor.

Being able to see, hear or feel it for myself is important to me. I can't take anything for granted on simple faith alone.

Good or warm feeling in the heart, when you pray, is not very meaningful to me, because I can interpret this in many possible ways.

As far as the miracles are concerned it is known that whatever miracle occurs, many skeptics like you will disbelieve it (see, e.g., Luke 16:30-31), because you either rule out the possibility of the miraculous beforehand ("define it away") or make verification practically impossible, so that no miracle can occur, let alone a belief in God which oftentimes follows such a remarkable happening.

Look, Victor. Before your church can make a saint out of someone, I have been told that certain people have to investigate saint-candidate for some performance of miracles. Does that mean that they have to find proof of such miracle, critically and questioning? Or do they just accept the miracle as hearsay?

If they accept it as hearsay, and was already set to believe in the miracles, without questioning, then that's not a critical examination, is it?

But if the saint investigators critically investigate miracle, then how am I different?

I will believe in a miracle if it is genuine, but I am not going to accept the words of prophet, saint, priest or anyone who is already a believer. What good is my faith if it is only based on the bible or prophet? My faith or belief would to my mind be worthless.

It is like me breaking a priceless vase, and a friend of mine apologise for me to the owner, even if I am not sorry. What is that apology worths? Not much at all. So unless I myself apologise to the owner, there is no resolution.

At one point, I would have been baptised and followed a church, which my sister belonged to. If I join the church only because I am following my sister, and not any belief of mine, then what is whole point? I can't simply follow any religion because of someone else's belief or because it is fashionable to follow certain crowd.

It has to be done in my own determination and in my own term, and not because your bible say so or someone claiming to be a prophet. So unless, I see some real miracles, I will continue questioning religion about this or that.

If you did see it, it wouldn't be supernatural, now, would it?

That really depends if I am seeing the impossible happen or not.