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

So you are saying that if we know an occurance is natural all is well and good, but if we do not know that an occurance is natural it is therefor supernatural?Upthread here you answered jar with the thunder thing. You suggest that since the source of thunder was unknown to the Norse therefor it was supernatural. Since it is known to us today therefor it is no longer supernatural.I suggest that thunder was not supernatural, ever. That some culture perceived thunder as supernatural because thy did not understand its cause did not make the source of thunder supernatural.In fact, to the Norse, thunder had an unknown cause and in their ignorance they perceived thunder as supernatural and then built myths around it. Just because the Norse perceived (a better word might be assumed) supernatural did not in fact make thunder supernatural. There was a natural cause for thunder all along, the Norse just did not know what it was.Are you being snared in the same trap? If some occurance has an unknown cause are you saying it must be supernatural?Crop circles (used to) have an unknown cause. Were they supernatural? Do we change UFO to SFO?Right now, at this time, we do not know all there is in physics. We have a lot yet to learn.So for our Great Wine Lakes can you be absolutely certain that this was not the result of some yet unknown physics? Are the Great Wine Lakes your Norse thunder?

yes.
But with the caveat that it is inexplicable and goes against all known physics and science we have knowlege of to date. Yes. Until it could be shown that the Great Lakes (Spontaneously filling with wine) have a scientific explaination I would feel justified in calling such a event supernatural.Edited by 1.61803, : * added Edited by 1.61803, : spontaneously*

That's funny. So then standing up would be a method for sitting down that just wasn't rooted in reality? Come on back towards the light ringo. I always thought that logic and reason were more like universal standards as opposed to being like your favourite colour. How does that go, 'you can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts'.You can't have your own meanings for words either. So the word bound does not mean 'without boundaries' and the word logic does not mean 'whatever seems right at the time'.

perhaps you are trying to frame an absolute...the same thing that believers are criticized for doing.

You have a point about speaking in terms of absolutes but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that the rules logic and reason apply across the universe. If they don't then I would bet that there is a reason for it.

But look at your post.Your post shows you simply substituting "Supernatural" for "Unknown" with the assumption that someday the actual cause and process will be explained.That seems a tacit assumption that there really isn't a supernatural.So why not do as I suggest and simply place the even in the unknown/unexplained folder?

Well if it actually is supernatural (as per bluegenes original example) and that is what the evidence actually indicates then calling it supernatural would be an accurate assessment.Now I know that you consider things like 'accuracy' to be rather trivial and irrelevant. But to some of us the entire point of applying the methods of science is to achieve accurate conclusions.Call us crazy if you will......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you presupposing that---lacking evidence---the supernatural does not exist? In other words, are you relying on science to chart your belief?

I'm relying on evidence.It's evidence that lies at the heart of the epistemological difference between a belief in God and a belief in gravity which in turn justifies the statement "I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity".

Would you be willing to accept subjective evidence or would you forever question it...seeing as how it is not objective

Can you give an example of the sort of thing you aren talking about?

I accept God due to subjective evidence...experiences that I myself have had which touched me inb a deep way and which could not be satisfactorily falsified. They are not objective...so I cant expect you to accept them

I don't dispute that you have had subjective experiences that have touched you in a deep way. Many people have.You believe that God is the cause of these experiences.What you call "subjective evidence" is simply a belief that God caused your experience. Then you cite this belief as support for your belief that God exists.Belief piled on top of belief.I'm sorry Phat but calling one belief "subjective evidence" of another belief isn't a valid method of distinguishing between belief and knowledge of any sort.

all im saying is that belief need not be required to rest on evidence. It can stand alone...subjectively.

Then its truth value is only to the individual and has no value to the rest of the universe. It cannot be used as evidence of anything other than the emotion of the individual.