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

Umm, because his spirit he was busy brooding over the face of the waters?

Ringo....you has teh interwebz.

Straggler, the bible is a compilation of ancient stories, some historical, some mythology, some antedoctal.etc...as you well know.The worth of the bible is that which those put on it.How someone knows which bits are fallicious and which bits are useful is completely subjective que no?The topic is why faitheist believes the bible is so much claptrap because it did not include such information as gravity, but rather the mythos of bronze age/first century writers.Which is obvious to even to most zealous believer,They did not KNOW such a thing as gravity is leaking from a parallel universe.I mean it wasn't until 1920s Einstein wrote his first paper telling the rest of the world that ether not only is not responsible for gravity, but does not exist.Even today it is still a mystery why gravity is such a realtivly weak force, and scientist still have not confirmed the graviton.My point? A few thousand years from now who knows what our ancestors will think of our clap trap.

Indeed, but you say that because you are not some ancient bronze age levitical priest. Your Straggler, you are a man of the times!What do you suppose 1000 years from now humans will think of our scientific fumblings?It reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit:
The Antique roadshow 2550{a guy has a old imac blueberry on display}
"I brought this in but dont know what it is"
{Expert ancient Earth artifacts } "yes I havent seen one of these in forever, it was very popular in the late 20th century, it is what is known as a porn storage device."

You miss my point completely.
Your assessment of what is likely to be correct is garnered from thousands of years of human development.
Bronze age people did not have that advantage.It is a bit disingenuous to make claims of the bible being scientifically inferior to a modern text book on quantum mechanics.

Quite. Conversly UG's further development of naturalistic explainations enhance his understanding of how lightning occurs. But he still says grace, goes to mass and conducts burial services for his kinsman. For no other reason than it is his beliefs. Edited by 1.61803, : correct spelling enhance*

If we detect one of the major great lakes consist of wine, then we can conclude it is of supernatural orgins. Because it is impossible to fill a lake of this volume with wine.
There are not enough grapes on the planet to do so.Logic would dictate the wine is of supernatural orgins.One can debate the where, when, why and how. But the fact that the wine is in there; it is self evident it is supernatural. That much wine does not exist naturally. Edited by 1.61803, : add semicolon

Hi jar, Is it redundant to call something unexplained once it was called supernatural? It seems to me if I call something supernatural it is understood it is unexplained. Is there such a thing as explained supernatural?

Ok, but it is still unknown how and by what process God did it. And how does one go about finding out Goddiit and not Thor or the ghost of Elvis? Divine inspiration? Ok God told me Goddit.
That is of course circular.By stating something is supernatural,it is understood it is not natural, and in violation of the known laws of physics in this universe. Hence it is unknown how this is occuring.That is what supernatural means que no?It is supernatural phenomenon.
It is unknown supernatural phenomenon.The second statement is redundant.

We know our Earth is not one of the planets in a multiverse that spontaneously fills with wine because our current laws of physics prohibits such phenomenon and thus this is supernatural by definition.If the multiverse theory someday is confirmed and we can wormhole tunnel to a Earth with a great lake filled with that vintage, then on that planet it will NOT be supernatural but a natural occurance.Sabe?

No supernatural does not simply mean "unknown".
My point was that using the word supernatural it is already understood to be unknown.
Because if it is KNOWN then it is not supernatural.Example: The lake spontaneously filled with wine.If we could explain this phenomenon and the physics behind it, then this would not be supernatural but a natural phenomenon.Thunder was once labled by Norse culture as supernatural, a result of the Norse god Thor.
Today thunder's cause is explained and has a 'naturalistic' explaination. Thunder no longer is described as a supernatural.

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*

Not at all, I am saying that if a lake spontaneously fills with wine
we can feel justified in calling such a event supernatural. Because it violates all laws of physics and is inexplicable.It is already understood that it is unknown. Now there is a chance that someday it may bare out that there is a naturalistic explaination. And then of course it would no longer be considered supernatural would it? It is pretty well established that many things once considered supernatural have overtime been explained by science and are no longer considered supernatural right?Extraordinary claims require extraordary evidence. que no?
If you have knowlege of a supernatural event that you have satisfactory evidence it is supernatural, James Randi will pay you a million dollars for your trouble. JREF - Home It is....under the sub folder supernatural. Edited by 1.61803, : *added the word have instead of can.

1.What in your mind would constitute a supernatural event?2. What criteria would you impose to call it supernatural? I do not know all the laws of physics concerning gravity. But I do not need to in order to know a anvil when dropped above my foot will result in injury.However if I drop the anvil and it floats off and turns into a flock of fairies I may be inclined to call that supernatural.Which of these two scenarios to you feel is the more likley and why?If a lake spontaneoulsy fills with wine what else could one call it but supernatural. This is sloppy thinking and being dishonest?O.K. My bad.

You can see no way a lake that spontaneoulsy fills in with wine could be called supernatural? If that does not qualify as supernatural then what does? So let me get this straight....
I am on the banks of Lake Erie. All of the sudden it turns into wine. And I say "You know what jar? that is supernatural."You would dispute that? You would have a problem with that statement?But on the otherhand If I merely said, "I believe that may be supernatural." Then all is copasetic.As long as you are alive and merely human you do not think people should be claiming things that appear to be supernatural as supernatural, but rather unknown. You would prefer in fact that I would say, after the lake turned to wine. " I don't know how that happened." Would that meet with your satisfaction?