Prove that there can't be evidence for a god or other supernatural things.

At first some definitions:
natural - as found in nature. And with that describable in that.
supernatural - not describable in nature; the opposite of natural.
evidence - a fact or information that is described in a structured way.

Prove by contradiction:
1: Let's assume there is evidence for something supernatural.
2: From (1) it follows that it has to be describable for it to be evidence.
3: If it's describable, it has to be natural.
(3) is a contradiction to (1) thus the assumption is false.
Thus there can't be evidence for something supernatural.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

For that matter, I have a problem with the word supernatural. Because with respect to your definition and your understanding, my understanding of the word stems from the root words. Super = above or beyond, or sometimes outside of. Natural = well, natural. So for something to be supernatural, it would not only be indescribable in nature, it would have to be outside of nature. In my opinion, based on my own research, nothing can technically exist outside of nature, as nature encompasses everything.

That's not to say that I don't believe in things that are currently outside the realm of understanding. I've seen too many inexplicable things to rule them out. I'm simply saying they aren't supernatural, because nothing can be. Magick, spirits, demons, angels, even gods or goddesses, are not supernatural.

Luke73 · 26-30, M

@LordShadowfire I get what you say. Though there can be things that would exist out of what we think exists, like for example in the simulation hypothesis.

LordShadowfire · 46-50, M

@Luke73 absolutely. I just don't think we should call it supernatural because it exists outside of our frame of reference. That's suggesting nature has limits.