Why Expect Evidence of God?

[Copernicus]

I'm going to agree with Kilgore, but I'm going to add this: why do we assume that something is supernatural? Just because we have no current way to explain something that is, doesn't mean it's supernatural. All that means is that we currently don't have the proper knowledge to explain it in empirical means.

I do think that the concept of "supernatural" is well-understood, though. It refers to a force that can dominate the perceived natural world and not be resisted by natural forces. Magicians are thought of as individuals who can manipulate reality by occult means. Illusionists are just pretend-magicians. Ironically, real magic is unreal, and unreal magic is real to those who don't believe in anything being "supernatural". God can create, shape, and destroy anything merely by willing it done--not unlike you and I can manipulate imagined realities (albeit not real realities ). The "super" prefix on "natural" tells us that the concept is dependent on the concept of "natural". However, we define what is "natural", the "supernatural" trumps it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, we define what is "natural", the "supernatural" trumps it.

I would argue that the term preternatural has value on to the extent that the term natural has value, the former being defined as independence from natural law.

 

[Meow Mix]

You could also point out that pizza is significantly different from labne, but that too would not be at all relevant to my comment.

Scathing as always, sir

 

[Twilight Hue]

What would you accept as evidence?

Over centuries prophets and many true religious leaders as well as many ordinary believers, including people of the highest moral character, have said that they have experienced God in one way or another.

Why is their evidence not acceptable?

Because it's the kind of evidence that remains provisional in it's acceptance mainly based on testimony.

Since god is acknowledged, one would think there must be a degree of empirical evidence
if at all, at least through a point of detectable interaction where god communicates. After all, something physical must be taking place in light that humans are physical in makeup.

 

[Copernicus]

I would argue that the term preternatural has value on to the extent that the term natural has value, the former being defined as independence from natural law.

Right. The difference from "supernatural" is the missing element of dominance over nature.

The odd thing is that one has be believe that preternatural and supernatural forces can somehow interact with natural forces. If something were truly apart from nature, then it could not have any connection with nature by definition. If God were in any sense "preternatural", he wouldn't be able to perform miracles. So the concepts seem inherently dissonant--self-contradictory. But cognitive dissonance is no bother to those who can embrace the concept of an "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause".