I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Is your definition of a "real GOD" one who necessarily does not, has not, and never will have any effect on the observable world?The sentence I've quoted above seems to be a follow up to this unsupported claim: Is your definition of "Super Natural" something like: "That which cannot have any effect on the observable world"? That's certainly nothing like the meaning of "supernatural".Have you identified some force which would constrain a "real GOD" in such a way that it could not possibly affect the material world? Is a "GOD" not a supreme being?If you haven't identified such a force, why do you make the above claim?

I don't know what you mean by "directly attributable", but science doesn't require directness in order to reasonably establish cause, anyway. So, if the Great Lakes were suddenly turned into wine, empirically identified as a fine Bordeaux Red of a specific year, and all our observations tell us that such a quantity of that specific wine (or any other) could not have been produced naturally, couldn't we reasonably infer supernatural interference of some kind? Or, if all Muslims suffering from cancer were suddenly cured, wouldn't the selective nature of the mass curing lead us to some reasonable supernatural inferences? It wouldn't be a "natural event" if it had a supernatural cause, would it? Perhaps you meant something more like "observable event", or "material phenomenon". And there's no reason to suppose that a god would be constrained to be so subtle that his effects could never be measurable.The point I'm making is that it's only if we declare that the supernatural can have no effect whatsoever on the observable world that we could say that it is not (at least hypothetically) possible to identify its existence via observation and reasoning from observation, which is science.As you agree, of course, we can clearly test (and sometimes falsify) specific supernatural hypotheses, like the YEC model, for example.There's no reason for the a priori exclusion of supernatural hypotheses from science, and those who declare that they should be automatically excluded are often making the worst argument against "Intelligent Design" around. The only reason that the actions of supernatural beings aren't currently included in the observation based exploration of reality that is science is the same as the reason that flat planets aren't currently included; none have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence that such things can exist, let alone do.

Or the "inexplicable naturally" folder. Remember that we actually have positive evidence (essential proof) that that amount of Bordeaux can't be produced naturally, and Muslims are a group defined by their religious beliefs alone.I find it odd that you believe that your GOD affects the observed world, but that there could never be observation based evidence for his existence.

Who's expecting strict 100% proofs from science. I strongly believe that the Great Lakes as they are now formed naturally, but don't ask me or any geologists for a 100% proof.

You shouldn't. Christians who regard their God as necessarily incapable of demonstrating his existence to us via our senses are rare. Omnipotent is a common description. So it certainly isn't odd that that I find your position odd. We know that it never has been. Especially one specific vintage.

You've declared your belief that your GOD intervenes in the world, but that he could not or chooses not to do it in a way which we could detect. Presumably, if he so wished, he would be capable of creating us with the ability to detect his intervention. Strict verification isn't necessary. If, as you believe, a supernatural being can affect the physical world, there's no actual reason why we shouldn't be able to observe the effects, whatever conclusions we come to. The O.P. writer believes in gravity, but his belief is built on his own and others observation of its effects, rather than the force itself. So, why this: Why do you believe that the scientific method cannot be used to observe phenomena, and to infer things about the cause of those phenomena? Before you say "I didn't say that", it is what you seem to be implying.Take my Great Lake waters turning into Bordeaux wine example. You believe there is at least one supernatural being capable of doing this. I'm presenting it as a hypothetical situation in which that is the case. A supernatural being of some kind has decided to turn the lakes to wine, and has done so. So, although we can't be sure of it, we are actually observing a supernatural effect when we observe the transformation. When you consider that (a) we know that the Bordeaux region never produced that much wine, and (b) our knowledge of natural chemistry tells us with high confidence that dirty lake water doesn't suddenly transform naturally into fine wine (the fact that our knowledge of chemistry is incomplete doesn't actually lower that confidence), then why would the observation based hypothesis "the cause is supernatural" be the exclusive province of fools, charlatans and con-men? The fact that they can't strictly verify it is a common situation in science, but they can support it by observation and experience.A supernatural cause is an extraordinary claim, because the existence of the supernatural hasn't been established. But, as is often quoted, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Lakes transforming into wine fits the bill (unlike "irreducible complexity" in biology, for example). Yes we do know approximately how much Bordeaux is produced naturally, and we also know, with very high confidence, that the chemistry of lake water does not permit it to transform spontaneously and instantly into Bordeaux wine naturally. You mean UG might have made the unsupported claim that he knew that fire couldn't come from the sky naturally? What makes you think that is analogous to the well supported claim that the Bordeaux region doesn't make enough wine to fill the Great Lakes?If you want to use UG for an analogy, his baseless belief that a lightning bolt was caused by a supernatural being would have been far more akin to your belief that "all things seen and unseen" were caused by a supernatural being than it is to the very well supported belief that Bordeaux doesn't make enough wine to fill the Great Lakes, or indeed, a belief in gravity.

How did you establish that as a fact? "Standing by" your belief is not the same as supporting it. If it's based on blind faith and isn't supportable, just say so. Are you also "pretty sure" that only fools, con-men and charlatans would attribute that to the supernatural? What makes you believe that an observation based inference to a cause would be "absolutely meaningless". Blind Faith?

Do you mean that hypotheses about cause are meaningless if they do not describe the exact process in all possible detail?Where did you get that idea from? The first doesn't follow from the second. We've detected many things that we once did not have repeatable methods of detecting. Well, you're the one believing all that is seen (excepting, should we observe them, apparently, lakes full of wine) and unseen was created by a god.The observation based hypothesis I was suggesting for the lakes of wine would be that the cause was supernatural, rather than necessarily involving a god or gods.

So what? I'm saying that "it's supernatural" would be a reasonable observation based hypothesis in the circumstances. If you disagree with the observations relating to the quantity of Bordeaux produced and the chemistry of lake water, by all means laugh. You are free to laugh at anything. So what?How would your laughter support your claim that supernatural beings could not possibly influence the physical world in ways that are detectable to us?

How have you established that the transformation would be natural?And "extraordinary" is a far better adjective than "unusual". With your senses. Supernatural does not mean "undetectable via the senses". And in science, indirect observation is commonplace. And you can use the scientific method to try to figure it out. And "it's supernatural" can be a general hypothesis, as can "it's natural". Both are testable against observations. There is no evidence to suggest trolls did it, but there is evidence to suggest that it cannot happen naturally, so no, it is not the same, and no, it is not a word salad.You don't need to conclude that it is supernatural, but the fact that there isn't enough Bordeaux to fill the lakes is one of a number of things that supports the hypothesis.So far, you're saying nothing which actually supports your claim that only fools etc. would include "it's supernatural" as a hypothesis.I know that, because I can read.

Not making sense to you is not the same as making no sense whatsoever. In the same way you detect other forces which have an effect on the physical world. By observation of the physical world, and reasoning from those observations. How do you think we detect gravity, other than by observing its effects and reasoning from observation? Against observations. You can test the supernatural proposition that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by making relevant observations, and you can test the proposition that the Great Lakes require supernatural help in order to transform into wine by making relevant observations. If you can reasonably establish that it happened by some currently unknown natural process, you've falsified the supernatural hypothesis. A hypothesis cannot be regarded as both falsifiable and untestable.Science is always dealing with stuff that one does not know how it happened. Hypotheses are formed about such stuff, and they are tested against observations.It is not good practice in science to declare that any force that could affect the physical world is untestable.

No, that's what you're doing. Yes it is. For example, the observation of how much Bordeaux is produced is repeatable, and all observations relating to the chemical nature and potential of lake water are repeatable. The scientific method. If the super natural affects the observable, physical world, then it is necessarily testable in principle.To declare the "it's supernatural" hypothesis about my Great Lakes transforming into wine scenario untestable is to declare it impossible that we could establish a natural process that caused the phenomenon, and thus falsify it. A hypothesis cannot be regarded as untestable if it is regarded as falsifiable.So, declaring that the hypothesis is untestable means that you are declaring it a well supported fact (because you've ruled out the possibility of there being a natural cause).

You're forgetting what we can observe about the physical properties of both lake water and wine, and their potential. ???!!!They aren't identical, so that wouldn't be honest. It's hard to see what you're trying to say there. It was you who was implying, without realising it, that natural cause could never be discovered, by declaring the supernatural hypothesis untestable, which would mean unfalsifiable, which implies that a natural explanation could not be discovered. Earlier, you implied the opposite, that there could be an unknown natural explanation. That means potential falsifiability of the supernatural hypothesis, and therefore that it's testable.To sum up, you don't seem to grasp what testable and falsifiable mean. If a supernatural being had transformed the water into wine, it would be an inference to the truth. Are you sure that you are not making a fundemental mistake, and conflating "unprovable" with "untestable". Many scientific hypotheses can't be strictly proven, but that certainly doesn't mean they are untestable, and can't be either falsified or supported by observations. If the observed transformation is caused by unknown natural force "X", then it is a sign of "X". If it is caused by a supernatural being or process, then it is a sign of the supernatural.If the latter could be true, why would someone putting forward a potentially correct hypothesis be a fool, charlatan or con-man?

Testing doesn't mean proving. You're contradicting yourself.If we can conceive of establishing that the water-wine transformation was natural, then the supernatural hypothesis is by definition testable and falsifiable. We have examples of falsified supernatural hypotheses.Now tell me, if you believe that at least one supernatural being is capable of causing the water-wine transformation, and that could be the case, why would you describe someone who puts forward a potentially true causal hypothesis as a fool, charlatan or conman?

I didn't actually say that. I said "testing doesn't mean proving".We cannot know whether or not a supernatural hypothesis of any kind will ever be verified, all we can say is that none ever have been. But that doesn't mean that they aren't classed as verifiable. Verifiable and falsifiable are hypotheticals relating to the nature of claims. ("There is dark matter" would probably be considered verifiable but not practically falsifiable, and "there isn't dark matter" to be falsifiable but not practically verifiable, for example). Would you like to verify that hypothesis? Or are you a fool, charlatan, or con-man?Your general view that supernatural hypotheses can never be verified should be stated as a hypothesis itself, rather than as a iron cast conclusion. It can be supported by the observation that no supernatural hypothesis ever has been verified. You would be using the scientific method to test your hypothesis against observed reality, and making a reasonable inference about the supernatural, and why should that mean you are fool, charlatan or con-man? If you put forward a supernatural hypothesis merely on the basis of your Faith, I'd be inclined to agree. But you wouldn't be doing that in my scenario.