The "Supernatural": Burden of Proof?

[boatsnguitars]

Question:
Why should the burden of proof be placed on Supernaturalists (those who believe in the supernatural) to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural, rather than on Materialists to disprove it, as in "Materialists have to explain why the supernatural can't be the explanation"?

Argument:

Placing the burden of proof on Supernaturalists to demonstrate the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural is a logical and epistemologically sound approach. This perspective aligns with the principles of evidence-based reasoning, the scientific method, and critical thinking. Several key reasons support this stance.

Default Position of Skepticism: In debates about the supernatural, it is rational to start from a position of skepticism. This is in line with the philosophical principle of "nullius in verba" (take nobody's word for it) and the scientific principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the burden of proof should fall on those making the extraordinary claim of the existence of the supernatural.

Presumption of Naturalism: Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, the default assumption has been naturalism. Naturalism posits that the universe and its phenomena can be explained by natural laws and processes without invoking supernatural entities or forces. This presumption is based on the consistent success of naturalistic explanations in understanding the world around us. After all, since both the Naturalist and Supernaturalist believe the Natural exists, we only need to establish the existence of the Supernatural (or, whatever someone decides to posit beyond the Natural.)

Absence of Empirical Evidence: The supernatural, by its very nature, is often described as beyond the realm of empirical observation and measurement. Claims related to the supernatural, such as deities, spirits, or paranormal phenomena, typically lack concrete, testable evidence. Therefore, it is incumbent upon those advocating for the supernatural to provide compelling and verifiable evidence to support their claims.

Problem of Unfalsifiability: Many supernatural claims are unfalsifiable: they cannot be tested or disproven. This raises significant epistemological challenges. Demanding that Materialists disprove unfalsifiable supernatural claims places an unreasonable burden on them. Instead, it is more reasonable to require Supernaturalists to provide testable claims and evidence.

In conclusion, the burden of proof should rest on Supernaturalists to provide convincing and verifiable evidence for the existence, qualities, and capabilities of the supernatural. This approach respects the principles of skepticism, scientific inquiry, and parsimonious reasoning, ultimately fostering a more rational and evidence-based discussion of the supernatural in the context of understanding our world and its mysteries.

If they can't provide evidence of the supernatural, then there is no reason for Naturalists to take their claims seriously: Any of their claims that include the supernatural. That includes all religious claims that involve supernatural claims.

I challenge Supernaturalists to defend the single most important aspect at the core of their belief. We all know they can't (they would have by now), but the burden is on them, and it's high time they at least give an honest effort.

Please note: Arguments from Ignorance will be summarily dismissed.

[The Tanager]

Evolution has produced many people who rape, torture, and kill... This is an invalid conclusion, for several reasons. According to the Biblical theist, GOD produced these sociopaths, these criminals, since he made everything. Yes, Yes, he "gave us 'free will.' Then he repented he made us and drowned everyone but his favorite drunk, Noah. And, according to this absurd myth, nothing changed. Sociopaths and criminals as you describe reemerged. And you blame evolution? Why not blame God?

You misunderstood the context of my comments. I was assuming alexxcJRO’s worldview in order to critique it. That worldview says there is no God, so how could a non-existent being be rationally blamed for these things within that worldview? No, in this worldview, if the evolutionary process is the source of “morality”, then it results in at least two competing ways to act naturally ingrained in us. In other words, subjective moralities, not an objective morality where one code is objectively better than another.

Yes, in my worldview, while free will does put blame on humans for their evils, the ultimate buck stops with God giving humans free will when He didn’t have to. At that point the question becomes which is better: (1) free will with resulting evils such as rape, torture, killing or (2) no free will and only good outcomes. We can discuss this, too, if you want.

Evolution is just a description of how organisms change. It is not some motive force. It does not have consciousness. It does not do anything. But by studying the process we understand that social mammals have come together in groups for mutual protection and production and thus they have developed a code of conduct or morality [as I have explained ad infinitum with the ref. to which NO ONE here has ever even attempted an argument against.

There will always be outliers, individuals who have not been sufficiently socialized, people and other animals who disregard societal norms. But it is entirely arbitrary when you blame this on 'evolution' when your imaginary 'God' is just as logically the culprit.

I’m not treating it as a motive force. That’s actually my point. There is no intention behind it and, as the objective process/source of our existence, therefore, there is no objective should for how one is supposed to act. Yes, animals come together and develop codes of conduct or morality, but these codes are subjective, not objective.

Re: the "Kalam" argument, you would be well advised to drop it. It has been repeatedly debunked whether or not you think so. Continuing to promote it only holds you up to (largely silent) ridicule. Among other problems, the K argument works just as well for the 'Devil' or any pagan 'god' as it does for your chosen 'god.' It is just a silly argument and no different from the one made by Aquinas, except it is dressed up in philosophical clothes from a modern era.

If you want to claim it’s debunked here then show it. If all you have is empty rhetoric and unsilencing your silent ridicule, then you aren’t in for a rational discussion.

And to clarify, I never said the Kalam alone gives us my chosen God. I said it is an argument for the existence of the supernatural, which is what this thread is about.

[alexxcJRO]

No, I asked you for evidence for your claim that religious claims have a zero success rate. That means you would have to show why all of them are clearly wrong. That’s a big claim to have to support. I don’t think you can do it. I don’t expect you to be able to do it. I don’t think you not doing means my religious claims are correct. The point is that it is an irrational claim you are making and, therefore, it does nothing to answering the questions in our discussion.

I have already looked into all known religions. I have looked into all major religions and ancient religions before I become an atheist.
They are all nonsensical ramblings of morons who were too ignorant to know any better.
You know it deep down it is true. You come here and play dumb like you don't believe this to be so.

Even then it’s still going to be less than 50% because you don’t have a general hypothesis immediately accepted by every scientist. Maybe scientists all eventually change their mind, but there are plenty of defunct religious views as well. If you aren't counting defunct scientific views, you can't count defunct religious views.

Irrelevant ramblings sir.
Its not about acceptance its about turning to be correct and true in the end. None of the ancient religion have turned out right. They have gone extinct. Being to stupid to be believed as knowledge about reality increased. They are objectively wrong.
The overwhelmingly majority of the general scientific hypothesis turn out correct in the end.
Some details are wrong but those get corrected over time as knowledge increases.
Let's take Evolution of Species. The General hypothesis has been more the 100 years on the market of ideas. Only details have changed or have been added.

If it is clear, then show the reasons to believe that. You aren’t offering any support. You are simply assuming your interpretation is the correct one and then using empty rhetoric to try to mask that. I don’t believe the creation story of Genesis is myth (technical term, not a synonym for false) because it contradicts science or whatever, but because of studying the book itself within its historical context. It is a different genre because of specific reasons. If you can’t give reasons for believing it is a specific genre, then perhaps you are twisting and turning the text into what you need in order not to let go of your precious beliefs.

The idea is the people who wrote them did it in such a manner that reveal they they meant it as literal. For the most of Chirstian history the believers did believe such stories were literal. Many do so today. Funny how they miss the supposed literal devices that point to metaphors.
If you read the Exodus or Noah story or Samson story or Adam and Eve story or Joshua story is clear as day if not biased and known something about literature and poetry or methaphor, that the stories were meant to be literal and were believed to be so.

Yes, prove that the Bible says evolution didn’t happen as well.

Dear sir the Bible says God created two earth golems which he then with a magical incantation imbued them with life. This disproves Evolution.
God created whales before land animals. This disproves Evolution
The story in Genesis does not match Evolution.
Noah story disproves Evolution too.

Okay, so you call those disagreeing with you a psychopath. So what? That’s just a term.

Dear sir this is well known. Psychopath have a have a innate problem involving the affective empathy.

Why is affective empathy objectively better than psychopathic tendencies?

Off course dear sir. The morality derived from this mirroring process =affective empathy which is mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself is better then psychopathic tendencies because it matches philosophical and logical analysis which tells us punishing non-moral agents is wrong.
A functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong.

Your claims are growing. If you support them, I’ll analyze them and respond.

Notation:
G = God: on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants me to believe in him and have a personal relationship with all humans based on trust, love.
P = People born with psychopathy.


Problem of psychopathy

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop P.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop P has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop P, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then P would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then P does not exist.
P7. P exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Psychopaths can’t feel and experience love, trust, bond(psychopaths don't process oxytocin like neurotypicals do), have a problem with their affective empathy.

Here are the main premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I think you believe you are defeating the second premise by saying we don’t know that the universe began to exist because we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. But, if so, I think you misunderstand what ‘the universe’ refers to here. The ‘universe’ refers to all of spatio-temporal energy/matter, whether that existed before the Big Bang or not. The arguments in support of premise 2 work whether something pre-existed the Big Bang or not.

Disingenuous pathetic attempt to make things looks like something else.
I was talking about Argument for Gods using known gaps of knowledge.

"Form of the argument
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... 0a%20cause

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #91]

And to clarify, I never said the Kalam alone gives us my chosen God. I said it is an argument for the existence of the supernatural, which is what this thread is about.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

The premise does not present argument for "the existence of the supernatural" as you have claimed it does.

When you are ready to present evidence for and discuss your claim.
Q: Does this cosmology require a supernatural/unnatural/non-physical cause?

"Supernaturalism is clearly a relic of the past (ways humans thought about things) which its accompanying superstitions (presented as philosophy) jealously cling to."

[The Tanager]

I have already looked into all known religions. I have looked into all major religions and ancient religions before I become an atheist.
They are all nonsensical ramblings of morons who were too ignorant to know any better.
You know it deep down it is true. You come here and play dumb like you don't believe this to be so.

We’ll be here when you have actual rational reasons to share.

Irrelevant ramblings sir.
Its not about acceptance its about turning to be correct and true in the end. None of the ancient religion have turned out right. They have gone extinct. Being to stupid to be believed as knowledge about reality increased. They are objectively wrong.
The overwhelmingly majority of the general scientific hypothesis turn out correct in the end.
Some details are wrong but those get corrected over time as knowledge increases.
Let's take Evolution of Species. The General hypothesis has been more the 100 years on the market of ideas. Only details have changed or have been added.

We’ll be here when you show that all religious claims are objectively wrong. In fact, I’m only asking you to focus on the Kalam. Show it to be objectively wrong.

The idea is the people who wrote them did it in such a manner that reveal they they meant it as literal. For the most of Chirstian history the believers did believe such stories were literal. Many do so today. Funny how they miss the supposed literal devices that point to metaphors.
If you read the Exodus or Noah story or Samson story or Adam and Eve story or Joshua story is clear as day if not biased and known something about literature and poetry or methaphor, that the stories were meant to be literal and were believed to be so.

No, for all of Judeo-Christian history there have been disagreements over which stories are literal and which ones are not. You are still simply claiming your interpretation is the default without any rational reason for believing so. We’ll be here when you can show why your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

Dear sir this is well known. Psychopath have a have a innate problem involving the affective empathy.

I’m not disagreeing with that.

Off course dear sir. The morality derived from this mirroring process =affective empathy which is mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself is better then psychopathic tendencies because it matches philosophical and logical analysis which tells us punishing non-moral agents is wrong.
A functioning affective empathy interestingly gives the same result as a careful logical, philosophical analysis: punishing a baby(non-moral agent) is wrong.

How does philosophical and logical analysis tell us punishing non-moral agents is wrong? What is that reasoning?

Notation:
G = God: on omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being-perfectly good being who wants me to believe in him and have a personal relationship with all humans based on trust, love.
P = People born with psychopathy.

Whether people are born with psychopathy or simply have a higher risk via their genetics is still intensely debated within psychology. So why do you think P is true?

Problem of psychopathy

Logical deduction by reduction ad absurdum:

P1. G exists.
P2. An omniscient being knows of a way to stop P.
P3. An omnipotent being who knows a way to stop P has the power to do so.
P4. A being who knows of a way to stop P, has the power to do so, and who wants to do so, would do it.
P5. If there exists G then P would not exist.
P6. Because G exists then P does not exist.
P7. P exists.(Logical contradiction)
C: Therefore G does not exist.

Psychopaths can’t feel and experience love, trust, bond(psychopaths don't process oxytocin like neurotypicals do), have a problem with their affective empathy.

You’ve a hidden premise: that G would want to stop people from being able to become psychopathic. P5 doesn’t follow without that.

Disingenuous pathetic attempt to make things looks like something else.
I was talking about Argument for Gods using known gaps of knowledge.

"Form of the argument
The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:[4]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe:[5]

If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... 0a%20cause

How is this showing a gap and putting God into it?

[Diogenes]

What is the difference between 'magic,' in the context of fantasy and the 'supernatural,' in the context of Judeo-Christian theism?

I enjoy good science-fiction. In Sci-Fi there is at least some kind of plausible premise or foundation upon which the story hangs.
With magic, fantasy, and 'miracles,' there is nothing but 'mystery.'

I don't like fantasy. With fantasy there are no rules. Anything can happen. A 'magic spell' can solve any dilemma. There is no honest basis upon which to calculate the plot. Fantasy fiction is like a bad mystery story where a new and implausible character is introduced on the last page to solve the 'mystery.'

This is the problem with the 'supernatural' literature of the Bible, where "God willed it" is indistinct from a "magic spell." There is no working theory explaining "the soul." At least in Superman there was a plausible theory for why people from Krypton had super strength on Earth; they came from a planet with much higher gravity than Earth. Just as a human on the Moon can leap farther than he can on Earth, 'Superman' was stronger than Earthmen.

Of course, in Superman the plausible mechanism of his super strength got stretched, over time, into flying instead of just 'super' leaping, but there was at least an attempt at an explanation for Kal-El's abilities in Action Comics #1.

In short, Superman is more believable than Yahweh.

[alexxcJRO]

We’ll be here when you have actual rational reasons to share.
We’ll be here when you show that all religious claims are objectively wrong. In fact, I’m only asking you to focus on the Kalam. Show it to be objectively wrong.

Don't need to be dishonest and distort what I said.
I was talking of known general religion hypotheses vs general science hypotheses.
We had Animism, Shamanism since 100 000 years ago till few thousands years ago when Polytheism appeared.
Polytheism include: Ancient Egyptians Pantheon, Ancient Greek Pantheon, Ancient Roman Pantheon, Ancient Norse Pantheon, Germanic Polytheism, Celtic Polytheism, Indo-Iranian Polytheism, Mesopotanian Polytheism, Phoneciniam Polytheism, Slavic Polytheism, Baltic Polytheism, Celtic Polytheism, Maya Polytheism, Aztec Polytheism, Inca Polytheism and so on.
Monotheism: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and so on.
Asian: Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, Early Vedic Polytheism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so on.

Did a big chunk. Did not do all because of matter of constraints. But I can do it if Toma syndrome plagues you.

1. Animism: "Animism (from Latin: anima meaning 'breath, spirit, life')[1][2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as animated and alive. ...
Animism encompasses beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical world, and that soul, spirit, or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features (such as mountains and rivers), and other entities of the natural environment. Examples include water sprites, vegetation deities, and tree spirits, among others. Animism may further attribute a life force to abstract concepts such as words, true names, or metaphors in mythology. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

Animism is debunked by the fact that natural objects are clearly not alive or animated or sentient. Mountain spirites, Water sprites, vegetation deities, and tree spirits clearly do not exist.
Mountain, rocks, rivers are just aglomeration of matter(aglomeration of molecules which are aglomeration of atoms) in different states: solid, liquid, gaz. They do no poses sentience or minds or intentions.

2. Shamanism: "Shamanism encompasses the premise that shamans are intermediaries or messengers between the human world and the spirit worlds. Shamans are said to treat ailments and illnesses by mending the soul. Alleviating traumas affecting the soul or spirit are believed to restore the physical body of the individual to balance and wholeness. Shamans also claim to enter supernatural realms or dimensions to obtain solutions to problems afflicting the community. Shamans claim to visit other worlds or dimensions to bring guidance to misguided souls and to ameliorate illnesses of the human soul caused by foreign elements. Shamans operate primarily within the spiritual world, which, they believe, in turn affects the human world. The restoration of balance is said to result in the elimination of the ailment.[26]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism
Shamanism is associated usually with altered states of consciousness induced by drumming, fasting, wilderness vision questing, sweat-lodges, and especially by hallucinogenic plants.

"The term shaman derives especially from the Tungus people of Siberia,
meaning “one who is excited or raised or simply to know ( Shaman is a religious leader of the community whose principal role is to act as a mediator between the three worlds, such as upper (sky), middle
(earth) and underworld (underground), aided by his or her ritual equipment and spirit helpers. Ritual equipment almost always includes a drum or other musical instruments, dress, bag, horned mask and models of spirit helpers.
Besides shamans are presumed capable of directly interacting or communicating with humans, animals and spirits and sometimes it is necessary for a shaman to transform into spirits themselves . During this stage,
shamanism often report travelling to the supernatural real to gain help or knowledge for healing, manipulating weather, divinations, ensuring successful hunts or other important activities such as ensuring fertility.
While shamanism activities may begin to show themselves in parts of Europe before 30.000 years ago, similar activities have been seen around 12.000 BC in the Near East. "

"Ritual areas are typically viewed as the literal doorway between the spiritual and physical worlds, and are often an opening into the earth, like caves or springs, or elevated spaces such as mountains and even caves in mountains.
1 In this paper I did not present Palaeolithic of Near East because the Upper Palaeolithic era has only
been minimally explored and requires a brief glance to distant Europe for parallel examples. Also
during the Epipaleolithic shamanism restricted only with burials and mortuary activities.
These are viewed as literal entrances down to the underworld and world above the ornamented caves were sanctuaries, it is a common and pervasive assumption among ethnographers
and archaeologists that large caves such as Altamira (Conkey 1980),Castillo (Conkey 1980), Lascaux (Leroi-Gourhan – Allain 1979), Trois-Fréresb (Maringer and Bandi 1953) and Tuc d’Audobe"
https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/ar ... le/1715302

The premise that a human(shaman) can mediate between sky, earth and underground is clearly bogus.
They clearly did not know Earth is just a small planet among bilions upon billions of planets existing in a huge universe where underground there lays only the crust, the mantle, the outer core, and the inner core of our planet made of different materials: solid rock, liquid rock, solid metal and so on.
There are no special places(ritual sites) on Earth from where on can enter the spiritual realms.
There is no evidence shamans today manipulate the weather or actually heal people or actually communicate with animals.

2. Ancient Egyptians Pantheon:

"The god Shu was the deification of all the world's air; the goddess Meretseger oversaw a limited region of the earth, the Theban Necropolis; and the god Sia personified the abstract notion of perception.[36] Major gods were often involved in several types of phenomena. For instance, Khnum was the god of Elephantine Island in the midst of the Nile, the river that was essential to Egyptian civilization. He was credited with producing the annual Nile flood that fertilized the country's farmland. Perhaps as an outgrowth of this life-giving function, he was said to create all living things, fashioning their bodies on a potter's wheel.[37] Gods could share the same role in nature; Ra, Atum, Khepri, Horus, and other deities acted as sun gods.[38] Despite their diverse functions, most gods had an overarching role in common: maintaining maat, the universal order that was a central principle of Egyptian religion and was itself personified as a goddess.[39] Yet some deities represented disruption to maat. Most prominently, Apep was the force of chaos, constantly threatening to annihilate the order of the universe, and Set was an ambivalent member of divine society who could both fight disorder and foment it.[40]

Not all aspects of existence were seen as deities. Although many deities were connected with the Nile, no god personified it in the way that Ra personified the sun.[41] Short-lived phenomena, such as rainbows or eclipses, were not represented by gods;[42] neither were fire, water, or many other components of the world.[4"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_deities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnum

Khnum was not the the source of the rive Nile and did not not create bodies of human children from clay and placed in their mothers' wombs at the potter's wheel.
Nile water comes from natural sources: "The Ethiopian Plateau provides 86% of the Nile's flow (Blue Nile 59%, Sobat 14% and Atbara 13%), while the contribution from the Equatorial Lakes region amounts to 14% (White Nile)".
The bodies of humans embrio are developing on their on inside a womb thanks to DNA-Hox genes-Sonic Hedgehog.
Ra did not sailed across the sky in a boat during the day as the sun.
Earth rotates on its axis. When we are on the side of Earth that is facing the Sun we have daylight. When we are not on the side of Earth that is facing the Sun we have night.
Sun is not a god but a incasdescent ball of gaz emitting light as photons. Just a mere star among billions upon billions of stars present in a unimaginable big universe.

3. Ancient Germanic Peganism/Norse Pantheon:
"Some basic aspects of Germanic belief can be reconstructed, including the existence of one or more origin myths, the existence of a myth of the end of the world, a general belief in the inhabited world being a "middle-earth", as well as some aspects of belief in fate and the afterlife. The Germanic peoples believed in a multitude of gods, and in other supernatural beings such as jötnar (often glossed as giants), dwarfs, elves, and dragons. Roman-era sources, using Roman names, mention several important male gods, as well as several goddesses such as Nerthus and the matronae. Early medieval sources identify a pantheon consisting of the gods *Wodanaz (Odin), *Thunraz (Thor), *Tiwaz (Tyr), and *Frijjō (Frigg),[a] as well as numerous other gods, many of whom are only attested from Norse sources (see Proto-Germanic folklore)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... 20matronae.

"In Germanic cosmology, Midgard (an anglicised form of Old Norse Miðgarðr; Old English Middangeard, Old Saxon Middilgard, Old High German Mittilagart, and Gothic Midjun-gards; "middle yard", "middle enclosure") is the name for Earth (equivalent in meaning to the Greek term οἰκουμένη : oikouménē, "inhabited") inhabited by and known to humans in early Germanic cosmology. The Old Norse form plays a notable role in Norse cosmology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midgard

"In the 11th century, chronicler Adam of Bremen records in his Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum that a statue of Thor, who Adam describes as "mightiest", sits in the Temple at Uppsala in the center of a triple throne (flanked by Woden and "Fricco") located in Gamla Uppsala, Sweden. Adam details that "Thor, they reckon, rules the sky; he governs thunder and lightning, winds and storms, fine weather and fertility" "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor
"Midgard, in Norse mythology, the Middle Earth, the abode of mankind, made from the body of the first created being, the giant Aurgelmir (Ymir). According to legend, the gods killed Aurgelmir, rolled his body into the central void of the universe, and began fashioning the Midgard. "
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Midgard

1.
Thor is not responsible for thunder, lightning, storms and winds.
These are all natural processes that happen in our atmosphere.
Thunder is the sound caused by lightning. Lightning is a giant spark of electricity in the atmosphere between clouds, the air, or the ground. Storms are disturbed states of the natural of the atmosphere which involves: strong winds and/or tornadoes and/or hail and/or thunder and/or lightning and precipitation.

2. Midgard-middle-earth as in planet Earth was not created from the body of the first created being, the giant Aurgelmir (Ymir).
They clearly did not know Earth is just a small planet among bilions upon billions of planets existing in a huge universe.
The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the Sun.


4. Ancient Greek Pantheon

"In ancient Greek religion and mythology, the twelve Olympians are the major deities of the Greek pantheon, commonly considered to be Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter, Aphrodite, Athena, Artemis, Apollo, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes, and either Hestia or Dionysus.[2] They were called Olympians because, according to tradition, they resided on Mount Olympus.
Besides the twelve Olympians, there were many other cultic groupings of twelve gods.
Olympians
The Olympians were a race of deities, primarily consisting of a third and fourth generation of immortal beings, worshipped as the principal gods of the Greek pantheon and so named because of their residency atop Mount Olympus. They gained their supremacy in a ten-year-long war of gods, in which Zeus led his siblings to victory over the previous generation of ruling immortal beings, the Titans, children of the primordial deities Uranus and Gaia. They were a family of gods, the most important consisting of the first generation of Olympians, offspring of the Titans Cronus and Rhea: Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter and Hestia, along with the principal offspring of Zeus: Aphrodite,[3] Athena, Artemis, Apollo, Ares, Hephaestus, Hermes and Dionysus. Although Hades was a major deity in the Greek pantheon and was the brother of Zeus and the other first generation of Olympians, his realm was far away from Olympus in the underworld, and thus he was not usually considered to be one of the Olympians.[4] Olympic gods can be contrasted to chthonic gods[5] including Hades and his wife Persephone, by mode of sacrifice, the latter receiving sacrifices in a bothros (βόθρος, "pit") or megaron (μέγαρον, "sunken chamber")[6] rather than at an altar.

The canonical number of Olympian gods was twelve, but besides the (thirteen) principal Olympians listed above, there were many other residents of Olympus, who thus might be considered to be Olympians.[7] Heracles became a resident of Olympus after his apotheosis and married another Olympian resident Hebe.[8] According to Diodorus Siculus, some said that Heracles was offered a place among the twelve, but refused as it would mean one of the original twelve being "cast out".[9] In the Iliad, the goddess Themis, who is listed among the twelve Titans, dwells on Olympus alongside the other gods,[10] making her a Titan and an Olympian at the same time. According to Hesiod, the children of Styx—Zelus (Envy), Nike (Victory), Kratos (Strength), and Bia (Force)—"have no house apart from Zeus, nor any dwelling nor path except that wherein God leads them, but they dwell always with Zeus".[11] Some others who might be considered Olympians include the Horae, the Graces, the Muses, Eileithyia, Iris, Dione, and Ganymede.[12]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians

There are no immortals living on the highest mountain(Mount Olympus) in Greece.
On the highest peaks of Mount Olympus we will find mostly desolate rock.

5. Ancient Iranian pantheon-Mithraism
"Ancient Iranian religion or Iranian paganism[1][2] was the ancient beliefs and practices of the Iranian peoples before the rise of Zoroastrianism. The religion closest to it was the historical Vedic religion that was practiced in India. The major deities worshipped were Ahura Mazda and Mithra from Iran to Rome, but Atar was also worshipped, as names of kings and common public showing devotion to these three exist in most cases.[3] But some sects, the precursors of the Magi, also worshipped Ahura Mazda, the chief of the Ahuras.[4] With the rise of Zoroaster and his new, reformatory religion; Ahura Mazda became the principle deity and the Daevas were relegated to the background. A lot of the attributes and commandments of Varuna, called Fahrana in Median times, were later attributed to Ahura Mazda by Zoroaster.[5][6] ...
Cosmography
The ancient Iranians believed in a cosmos which was a three-tiered structure. This structure consisted of the earth, the atmosphere, and the heaven above. Beyond heaven was the realm of Endless Lights while below the earth lay the realm of darkness and chaos. The earth rested on a cosmic ocean called the Varu-Karta. In the earth's centre was cosmic mountain Hara. Down the Hara flowed the river Ardvi.
The earth divided into six continents surrounding the central continent. The central continent was Khvaniratha, the locus of Airyanem Vaejah (land of the Aryans)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Iranian_religion

The Earth did not rest on on a cosmic ocean called the Varu-Karta. Bellow earth there is not realm of darknes and chaos.
They clearly did not know Earth is just a small planet among bilions upon billions of planets existing in a huge universe where underground there lays only the crust, the mantle, the outer core, and the inner core of our planet made of different materials: solid rock, liquid rock, solid metal and so on.


6. Zoroastrian
"Zoroaster's revelation
"According to Zoroastrian tradition, at the age of 30, Zoroaster received a revelation: while fetching water at dawn for a sacred ritual, he saw the shining figure of the Amesha Spenta, Vohu Manah, who led Zoroaster to the presence of Ahura Mazda, where he was taught the cardinal principles of the "Good Religion" later known as Zoroastrianism. As a result of this vision, Zoroaster felt that he was chosen to spread and preach the religion.[8] He stated that this source of all goodness was the Ahura, worthy of the highest worship. He further stated that Ahura Mazda created spirits known as yazatas to aid him. Zoroaster proclaimed that some Iranian gods were daevas who deserved no worship. These "bad" deities were created by Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit. Angra Mainyu was the source of all sin and misery in the universe. Zoroaster claimed that Ahura Mazda used the aid of humans in the cosmic struggle against Angra Mainyu. Nonetheless, Ahura Mazda is Angra Mainyu's superior, not his equal. Angra Mainyu and his daevas, which attempt to attract humans away from the Path of Asha, would eventually be defeated.[9]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahura_Mazda

“Zoroastrianism exalts an uncreated and benevolent deity of wisdom known as Ahura Mazda (lit. 'Lord of Wisdom') as its supreme being. ...
In Zoroastrianism, water (aban) and fire (atar) are agents of ritual purity, and the associated purification ceremonies are considered the basis of ritual life. In Zoroastrian cosmogony, water and fire are respectively the second and last primordial elements to have been created, and scripture considers fire to have its origin in the waters (re. which conception see Apam Napat). Both water and fire are considered life-sustaining, and both water and fire are represented within the precinct of a fire temple. Zoroastrians usually pray in the presence of some form of fire (which can be considered evident in any source of light), and the culminating rite of the principal act of worship constitutes a "strengthening of the waters". Fire is considered a medium through which spiritual insight and wisdom are gained, and water is considered the source of that wisdom. Both fire and water are also hypostasized as the Yazatas Atar and Anahita, with worship hymns and litanies dedicated to them.[citation needed]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Water and fire were not created by any god. There is no primordial elements like water, air, fire, earth that were created.
Water is just a conglomeration of molecules, molecules which consist of two kinds of athoms: Hydrogen and Oxygen. A sustance found on Earth, probably on other planets, in comets and asteroids.
Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
There is not wisdom gained through the use of fire. It is just a good source of heat, light, a good predator repelant and sometimes a good source for burns if one is not careful.

7. Ancien Mesopotamian pantheon

“In the Epic of Creation, dated to 1200 BC, it explains that the god Marduk killed the mother goddess Tiamat and used half her body to create the earth, and the other half to create both the paradise of šamû and the netherworld of irṣitu.[12] A document from a similar period stated that the universe was a spheroid, with three levels of šamû, where the gods dwelt, and where the stars existed, above the three levels of earth below it.[13]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_M ... n_religion

"Enlil plays a vital role in the Sumerian creation myth; he separates An (heaven) from Ki (earth), thus making the world habitable for humans. In the Sumerian flood myth, Enlil rewards Ziusudra with immortality for having survived the flood and, in the Babylonian flood myth, Enlil is the cause of the flood himself, having sent the flood to exterminate the human race, who made too much noise and prevented him from sleeping."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlil

The Earth was not created out of the half of the body of goddess Tiamat.
The Earth formed over 4.6 billion years ago out of a mixture of dust and gas around the Sun.
Enlil does not make the world habitable for humans. The Earth being in the Goldilock zone, having a metalic core which creates a magnetic field which offers protection from cosmic/sun radiation and helps mentaining our atmosphere and so on.
There was not global flood that was supposed to exterminate the human race. Geology and many other scientific fields debunk this idea.

8. Phoenician/Punic Polytheism
"The Phoenicians had a polytheistic religion, worshipping many gods and goddesses. They practiced temple worship in their cities, with the most important temples dedicated to Baal and Astarte. Processions were held in honour of these deities, often involving music and dancing. Superstition was also an integral part of their religious beliefs; for example it was believed that wearing amulets or figurines could bring good luck or ward off evil spirits."
https://kinnu.xyz/kinnuverse/history/ph ... %20dancing.

"Baʿal is well-attested in surviving inscriptions and was popular in theophoric names throughout the Levant[28] but he is usually mentioned along with other gods, "his own field of action being seldom defined".[29] Nonetheless, Ugaritic records show him as a weather god, with particular power over lightning, wind, rain, and fertility.[29][d] The dry summers of the area were explained as Baʿal's time in the underworld and his return in autumn was said to cause the storms which revived the land.[29] Thus, the worship of Baʿal in Canaan—where he eventually supplanted El as the leader of the gods and patron of kingship—was connected to the regions' dependence on rainfall for its agriculture, unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, which focused on irrigation from their major rivers. Anxiety about the availability of water for crops and trees increased the importance of his cult, which focused attention on his role as a rain god.[19] He was also called upon during battle, showing that he was thought to intervene actively in the world of man,[29] unlike the more aloof El. The Lebanese city of Baalbeck was named after Baal.[32]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal

Ba'al does not manipulate lightning, wind, rain. Just like his similar god of thunder: Thor is simply non-existent.
Ba'al is not responsible for thunder, lightning, storms and winds.
These are all natural processes that happen in our atmosphere.
Thunder is the sound caused by lightning. Lightning is a giant spark of electricity in the atmosphere between clouds, the air, or the ground. Storms are disturbed states of the natural of the atmosphere which involves: strong winds and/or tornadoes and/or hail and/or thunder and/or lightning and precipitation.

9. Celtic polytheism

"Celtic religion was polytheistic, believing in many deities, both gods and goddesses, some of which were venerated only in a small area or region, or by a particular tribe, but others whose worship had a wider geographical distribution.[6] The names of over two hundred Celtic deities have survived (see list of Celtic deities), although it is likely that many of these were alternative names, regional names or titles for the same deity.[6]
The various Celtic peoples seem to have had a father god, who was often a god of the tribe and of the dead (Toutatis probably being one name for him); and a mother goddess who was associated with the land, earth and fertility[8] (Matrona probably being one name for her). The mother goddess could also take the form of a war goddess as protectress of her tribe and its land, for example Andraste.[8] There also seems to have been a male celestial god—identified with Taranis—associated with thunder, the wheel, and the bull.[8] There were gods of skill and craft, such as the pan-regional god Lugus, and the smith god Gobannos.[8] Celtic healing deities were often associated with sacred springs,[8] such as Sirona and Borvo. Other pan-regional deities include the horned god Cernunnos, the horse and fertility goddess Epona, the divine son Maponos, as well as Belenos, Ogmios, and Sucellos.[6][4] Some deities were seen as threefold, for example the Three Mothers.[25]
According to other classical sources, the Celts worshipped the forces of nature and did not envisage deities in anthropomorphic terms.[27]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_C ... stribution.

The springs, lands, Earth, thunder and other forces of nature are clearly not gods.
They are just elements of the natural world with no link to the supernatural.

10. Early Vedic Polytheism
"Brihaspati appears in the Rigveda (pre-1000 BCE), such as in the dedications to him in the hymn 50 of Book 4;[6] he is described as a sage born from the first great light, the one who drove away darkness, is bright and pure, and carries a special bow whose string is Rta or "cosmic order" (basis of dharma).[5][7] His knowledge and character is revered, and he is considered Guru (teacher) by all the Devas.[2] In the Vedic literature and other ancient texts, sage Brihaspati is also called by other names such as Bramanaspati, Purohita, Angirasa (son of Angiras) and Vyasa;[3] he is sometimes identified with god Agni (fire). His wife is Tara (or goddess who personifies the stars in the sky).[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihaspati

"Aryaman (Sanskrit: अर्यमन्‌, romanized: Āryaman) is one of the early Vedic Hindu deities.[2] His name signifies "Life-Partner", "close friend", "Partner", "play-fellow" or "companion".[3] He is the third son of Kashyapa and Aditi, the father and mother of the adityas, and is depicted as the mid-morning sun disc. He is the deity of customs, and rules over the customs that rule the various Vedic tribes and people.[4]
In the Rigveda, Aryaman is described as the protector of mares and stallions, and the Milky Way (aryamṇáḥ pánthāḥ) is said to be his path.[3] Aryaman is commonly invoked together with Mitra-Varuna, Bhaga, Bṛhaspati, and other adityas and asuras.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryaman

“The Early Vedic people personified the natural forces, e.g. wind, water, rain, etc. and worshipped them as god”
https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/12345 ... nit-12.pdf

The Sun is not a god but a incandescent ball of gas emitting light as photons. . Just a mere star among billions upon billions of stars present in a unimaginable big universe.
The stars in the sky is not a god but are just incandescent ball of gas emitting light as photons formed at different time in the history of the cosmos.
There is no Brihaspati which bow string brings order to the cosmos. There are laws of physics according to which all the constituents/elements of the natural world function. Laws of Thermodynamics, Electrostatic Laws, Conservation of Mass and Energy, Three Laws of Motion, Law of Universal Gravitation.

11. Brahmanism/Hinduism

“Brahmanism, also called Brahminism, developed out of the Vedic religion, incorporating non-Vedic religious ideas, and expanding to a region stretching from the northwest Indian subcontinent to the Ganges valley.[3][17] ...
The concept of Brahman is posited as that which existed before the creation of the universe, which constitutes all of existence thereafter, and into which the universe will dissolve, followed by similar endless creation-maintenance-destruction cycles.[80][81][82][h]?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... eligion%20(also,(1500–500%20BCE).

“Hindus believe that all living creatures have a Self. This true "Self" of every person, is called the ātman. The Self is believed to be eternal.[226] According to the monistic/pantheistic (non-dualist) theologies of Hinduism (such as Advaita Vedanta school), this Atman is indistinct from Brahman, the supreme spirit or the Ultimate Reality.[227] The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realise that one's Self is identical to supreme Self, that the supreme Self is present in everything and everyone, all life is interconnected and there is oneness in all life.[228][229][230] Dualistic schools (Dvaita and Bhakti) understand Brahman as a Supreme Being separate from individual Selfs.[231] They worship the Supreme Being variously as Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti, depending upon the sect. God is called Ishvara, Bhagavan, Parameshwara, Deva or Devi, and these terms have different meanings in different schools of Hinduism.[232][233][234]
Hindu texts accept a polytheistic framework, but this is generally conceptualized as the divine essence or luminosity that gives vitality and animation to the inanimate natural substances.[235] There is a divine in everything, human beings, animals, trees and rivers. It is observable in offerings to rivers, trees, tools of one's work, animals and birds, rising sun, friends and guests, teachers and parents.[235][236][237] It is the divine in these that makes each sacred and worthy of reverence, rather than them being sacred in and of themselves. “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

“Vishnu (/ˈvɪʃnuː/ VISH-noo; Sanskrit: विष्णु, romanized: Viṣṇu, lit. 'The Pervader', pronounced [ʋɪʂɳʊ]), also known as Narayana and Hari, is one of the principal deities of Hinduism. He is the supreme being within Vaishnavism, one of the major traditions within contemporary Hinduism.[9][10]
Vishnu is known as The Preserver within the Trimurti, the triple deity of supreme divinity that includes Brahma and Shiva.[11][12] In Vaishnavism, Vishnu is the supreme being who creates, protects, and transforms the universe. In the Shaktism tradition, the Goddess, or Adi Shakti, is described as the supreme Para Brahman, yet Vishnu is revered along with Shiva and Brahma. Tridevi is stated to be the energy and creative power (Shakti) of each, with Lakshmi being the equal complementary partner of Vishnu.[13] He is one of the five equivalent deities in Panchayatana puja of the Smarta tradition of Hinduism.[12]
According to Vaishnavism, the supreme being is with qualities (Saguna), and has definite form, but is limitless, transcendent and unchanging absolute Brahman, and the primal Atman (Self) of the universe.[14] There are many both benevolent and fearsome depictions of Vishnu. In benevolent aspects, he is depicted as an omniscient being sleeping on the coils of the serpent Shesha (who represents time) floating in the primeval ocean of milk called Kshira Sagara with his consort, Lakshmi.[15]
Whenever the world is threatened with evil, chaos, and destructive forces, Vishnu descends in the form of an avatar (incarnation) to restore the cosmic order, and protect dharma. The Dashavatara are the ten primary avatars of Vishnu. Out of these ten, Rama and Krishna are the most important.[16]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu

There is clearly no benevolent being:Vishnu (manifestation or an avatar of Brahman)who protects the universe from evil and restors cosmic order.
Evil and malevolence runs rampart in the world. We have world wars, genocides, serial killers and psychopaths running rampart doing egregious kinds of evil to the innocent, natural disasters/genetic diseases and diseases which indiscriminately affect all people the moral agents(good moral people or evil immoral serial killer and rapists) and the non-moral agents(the innocent).

12. Maya Pantheon

“Chaac (also spelled Chac or, in Classic Mayan, Chaahk [t͡ʃaːhk]) is the name of the Maya god of rain, thunder, and lightning. With his lightning axe, Chaac strikes the clouds, causing them to produce thunder and rain. Chaac corresponds to Tlaloc among the Aztecs.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaac"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... ral_beings

“Tohil (IPA: [toˈχil], also spelled Tojil) was is the Mayan god of fire. He is a deity of the Kʼicheʼ Maya in the Late Postclassic period of Mesoamerica.
At the time of the Spanish Conquest, Tohil was the patron god of the Kʼicheʼ.[1] was included of the Tolteca pantheon that was influenced in the high lands mayan culture in the post-clasic. Tohil's principal function was that of a fire deity and he was also both a war god, sun god and the god of rain”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tohil

The Sun is not a god but a incandescent
ball of gas emitting light as photons. Just a mere star among billions upon billions of stars present in a unimaginable big universe.
Chaac does not strikes the cloudes causing them to produce thunder and rain.
These are all natural processes that happen in our atmosphere.
Thunder is the sound caused by lightning. Lightning is a giant spark of electricity in the atmosphere between clouds, the air, or the ground. Storms are disturbed states of the natural of the atmosphere which involves: strong winds and/or tornadoes and/or hail and/or thunder and/or lightning and precipitation.

13. Aztec Pantheon

“ they had several creation myths. One of these, the Five Suns, describes four great ages preceding the present world, each of which ended in a catastrophe, and "were named in function of the force or divine element that violently put an end to each one of them".[2] Coatlicue was the mother of Centzon Huitznahua ("Four Hundred Southerners"), her sons, and Coyolxauhqui, her daughter. She found a ball filled with feathers and placed it in her waistband, becoming pregnant with Huitzilopochtli. Her other children became suspicious as to the identity of the father and vowed to kill their mother. She gave birth on Mount Coatepec, pursued by her children, but the newborn Huitzilopochtli defeated most of his brothers, who became the stars. He also killed his half-sister Coyolxauhqui by tearing out her heart using a Xiuhcoatl (a blue snake) and throwing her body down the mountain. This was said to inspire the Aztecs to rip the hearts out of their human sacrifices and throw their bodies down the sides of the temple dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, who represents the sun chasing away the stars at dawn.
Our age (Nahui-Ollin), the fifth age, or fifth creation, began in the ancient city of Teotihuacan[citation needed]. According to the myth, all the gods had gathered to sacrifice themselves and create a new age. Although the world and the sun had already been created, it would only be through their sacrifice that the sun would be set into motion and time as well as history could begin. The most handsome and strongest of the gods, Tecuciztecatl, was supposed to sacrifice himself but when it came time to self-immolate, he could not jump into the fire. Instead, Nanahuatl the smallest and humblest of the gods, who was also covered in boils, sacrificed himself first and jumped into the flames. The sun was set into motion with his sacrifice and time began. Humiliated by Nanahuatl's sacrifice, Tecuciztecatl too leaped into the fire and became the moon.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_mythology

There was no 5 creations and gods becoming stars, the moon or other objects in the sky.
The Earth, Moon and Sun were not created. They formed on their own billions of years ago from gaz and dust.

14. Inca Pantheon
“Viracocha:[2] He was typically personified as a human male, and known as the creator of humanity and everything else in the world.[3] In Inca Water Worship and Religion, it states, "He created humanity on an island in Lake Titicaca on the border between modern Peru and Bolivia and taught people how to live, assigning them tribal dress and customs and determining where they should live."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... nca_Empire
“Inti is the ancient Inca sun god. He is revered as the national patron of the Inca state. Although most consider Inti the sun god, he is more appropriately viewed as a cluster of solar aspects, since the Inca divided his identity according to the stages of the sun.[1] Worshiped as a patron deity of the Inca Empire,[2] Pachacuti is often linked to the origin and expansion of the Inca Sun Cult.[3][4] “
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inti

The Sun is not a god but a incandescent ball of gas emitting light as photons. Just a mere star among billions upon billions of stars present in a unimaginable big universe.
A god Viracocha did not create the humans an island in Lake Titicaca and taught people how to live, assigning them tribal dress and customs. Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared hundred of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

No, for all of Judeo-Christian history there have been disagreements over which stories are literal and which ones are not. You are still simply claiming your interpretation is the default without any rational reason for believing so. We’ll be here when you can show why your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

Really in the ancient times or the middles ages the Exodus story and Noah story and Samson story and Adam and Eve story and Joshua story were viewed as metaphorical?
Evidence please! Waiting!

How does philosophical and logical analysis tell us punishing non-moral agents is wrong? What is that reasoning?

Q: Common you do not really know it?

Non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) are blameless and therefore punishing them by death penalty is wrong.
They do not have the mental capacity to differentiate between right or wrong.

Whether people are born with psychopathy or simply have a higher risk via their genetics is still intensely debated within psychology. So why do you think P is true?

Off course you believe people are not born gay or psychopaths. It underlines your whole cherished beliefs

They are born psychopaths. They have an innate problem: can’t feel and experience love, trust, bond(psychopaths don't process oxytocin like neurotypicals do), have a problem with their affective empathy.
"A 2016 study conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan suggests early signs of psychopathy can be seen in children as young as 2 years old.4
Waller R, Dishion TJ, Shaw DS, Gardner F, Wilson MN, Hyde LW. Does early childhood callous-unemotional behavior uniquely predict behavior problems or callous-unemotional behavior in late childhood? Dev Psychol. 2016;52(11):1805-1819. doi:10.1037/dev0000165

Even at this age, they show differences in empathy and conscience.

The study asked the primary caregiver, the other parent, and a teacher/daycare provider, to rate callous-unemotional (CU) behavior between ages 2 and 4 on the following items:

Your child doesn’t seem guilty after misbehaving.
Punishment doesn’t change your child’s behavior.
Your child is selfish/won’t share.
Your child lies.
Your child is sneaky and tries to get around you.
The researchers followed up with those children again when they were 9. They discovered that the children who exhibited the most conduct issues as a toddler or preschooler were more likely to exhibit behavior problems associated with psychopathy later in childhood.4

A child with psychopathy exhibits similar traits to adults who have psychopathy. For instance, they may engage in harming animals or attempting to kill animals for sport and excitement. Tweens, teens, and older kids sometimes engage in harming and killing of animals for sexual gratification. This often occurs in psychopathy/conduct disorder and in antisocial personality disorder."
https://www.verywellfamily.com/is-my-ch ... th-4175470

"When you say cognitive love, does that mean you don’t feel that sort of romantic roller coaster feeling that other people describe to you?
Well, no, I don’t. Certainly attraction. I feel attraction, and he’s very attractive. But psychopaths don’t process oxytocin like neurotypicals do. What oxytocin contributes to in your brain is chemical love, so that feeling of a roller coaster. Bonding is another one we don’t have. You bond to your significant other, you bond to your children, you bond to your pets. There’s also trust, which is a weird one, because I didn’t know oxytocin had anything to do with trust. Most people feel trust as an actual emotion. I never knew that. To me, trust was always: You show me how you’re going to behave, and I will determine whether or not I want you around. I always knew I didn’t trust people, and I always had a disconnect, because I didn’t know it was a chemical reaction for most people. I didn’t have an explanation as to why I didn’t trust people, but then I started digging into oxytocin. It made sense."
https://modlab.yale.edu/news/my-life-psychopath-cut

You’ve a hidden premise: that G would want to stop people from being able to become psychopathic. P5 doesn’t follow without that.

My premise is that they are born psychopaths. Incredibly small children showing signs of psychopathy is evidence of this.
If G exists P would not exist. Existence of P means the non-existence of G.

How is this showing a gap and putting God into it?

LOL.
You religious people crank me up.
It does not follow that because something has a cause for its existence therefore God.
The Earth and Sun has a cause for its existence but it does not mean therefore God. The wind, thunder, storms have a cause for their existence but it does not mean therefore God.
Christians do the same mistake as ancient religious people did.
Ancient religious people: Hmmm! The wind, thunder, storms must have a cause for their existence. I don't what is it! It must be God.
Modern religious people: Hmmm! The expansion of the universe must have a cause for its existence. I don't what is it! It must be God.

Same thing!

[Purple Knight]

It would not, however, have to remain changeless once time started up.

I completely agree.

That's why I'm saying, I don't think supernatural even has a good definition. If we can't even speculate - if we can't, for example, write a story in which ghosts exist and are supernatural - then we don't even know what the word means.

It doesn’t mean we don’t know what supernatural means; it means that we don’t know what ghosts are.

I'm fine if that's what we get wrong. If there happen to be ghosts and our story gets them wrong, that's understandable. If we can't even conceptualise them being supernatural, then we don't know what something supernatural would look like.

To people who believe in the supernatural, it just means, we can't explain everything, which is a truism. To people who don't, it means something like things not having logical causations, in which case its negation is probably a truism.

No, it doesn’t mean that. It simply means “non-natural,” which isn’t a truism.

We might be able to prove in an argument that something hypothetical like the first cause is rightly defined as supernatural, but that tells us nothing about what something supernatural would be like, as opposed to what that same thing would be like if wholly natural. For example, if ghosts existed and were supernatural versus if they existed and were so natural that you could pick up a dozen at Whole Foods for $24.99.

It tells us the only thing that all supernatural things (whether they exist or not) share in common: they aren’t made of natural stuff. That’s what a negative definition does. The word ‘negative’ is negatively defined. We know what it means, even though that doesn’t tell us positive things about it. Positive attributes of any supernatural thing would come out with other arguments, but it wouldn’t change what ‘supernatural’ means.

It's a definition for that argument then. That's all it is. It has no parity with anyone's beliefs who believes in the supernatural. In your definition, you can believe in the supernatural but you don't know what you're believing in, you just know what you're believing in, isn't. It's not a whole lot different than saying I think there are aliens in the Vega system. I don't know anything about what I think is there and for all you know I'm counting dust particles with weird movements, but hey, they're not human.

[The Tanager]

I'm fine if that's what we get wrong. If there happen to be ghosts and our story gets them wrong, that's understandable. If we can't even conceptualise them being supernatural, then we don't know what something supernatural would look like.

We can conceptualize them as being supernatural; I was just saying I don’t know of an argument that they are necessarily supernatural. If ghosts have no matter/energy/natural property to them, then they are supernatural. Why isn’t that conceptualizable?

It's a definition for that argument then. That's all it is. It has no parity with anyone's beliefs who believes in the supernatural. In your definition, you can believe in the supernatural but you don't know what you're believing in, you just know what you're believing in, isn't. It's not a whole lot different than saying I think there are aliens in the Vega system. I don't know anything about what I think is there and for all you know I'm counting dust particles with weird movements, but hey, they're not human.

If one stopped at the definition, sure. But I don't. For instance, the Kalam, if true, tells us positive things about at least one supernatural being’s characteristics.

[The Tanager]

Don't need to be dishonest and distort what I said.
I was talking of known general religion hypotheses vs general science hypotheses.

I am not trying to distort what you said. It appeared you were arguing against all religious claims because of these claims you reject. You should reject each of them on their own merit. The same goes with scientific hypotheses. So, when a religious claim like the Kalam comes up, you’ve got to deal with that instead of saying something like “but these other religious claims have failed, so we can be confident this one will as well without doing the work of reasoning it out.”

Really in the ancient times or the middles ages the Exodus story and Noah story and Samson story and Adam and Eve story and Joshua story were viewed as metaphorical?
Evidence please! Waiting!

Here is a quote from Augustine on the days of creation from his City of God: “What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.” He wrote at least 5 commentaries on Genesis, struggling with various interpretations he was aware of (literal and non-literal). Anselm is known for his allegorical interpretations of many passages. There has been a variety of interpretation throughout history.

Q: Common you do not really know it?

Non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) are blameless and therefore punishing them by death penalty is wrong.
They do not have the mental capacity to differentiate between right or wrong.

I believe it is wrong, but the question is how we can justify it is objectively wrong and not just our opinion akin to how we like one flavor of ice cream and not another. Why do you think it is wrong to kill those who don’t have the mental capacity to even be aware of differing views of right and wrong?

Off course you believe people are not born gay or psychopaths. It underlines your whole cherished beliefs…

What’s important is why we believe what we do. Yes, you can quote people who agree with you, but respected scholars in the field disagree over this. So prove your view is the objectively correct one.

My premise is that they are born psychopaths. Incredibly small children showing signs of psychopathy is evidence of this.
If G exists P would not exist. Existence of P means the non-existence of G.

It is also evidence for their disposition towards psychopathy coupled with environmental and other factors influencing them, but not determining them. This is hotly debated among scholars in the field, yet you are using it as though your view is the clear consensus.

LOL.
You religious people crank me up.
It does not follow that because something has a cause for its existence therefore God.
The Earth and Sun has a cause for its existence but it does not mean therefore God. The wind, thunder, storms have a cause for their existence but it does not mean therefore God.
Christians do the same mistake as ancient religious people did.
Ancient religious people: Hmmm! The wind, thunder, storms must have a cause for their existence. I don't what is it! It must be God.
Modern religious people: Hmmm! The expansion of the universe must have a cause for its existence. I don't what is it! It must be God.

Same thing!

Why do you think the Kalam does this? Show it in the argument. The reason the Kalam gets us to a God is through logical reasoning about what the characteristics of the cause of the spatio-temporal universe must be. This is by extending beyond the first 3 premises. It pivots on arguments that the cause of the spatio-temporal universe must be personal. Are you aware of the arguments and reject them or do you agree the cause being personal is a major piece of why one might rightly call the cause a god but are simply unaware of those arguments given?

[Purple Knight]

I'm fine if that's what we get wrong. If there happen to be ghosts and our story gets them wrong, that's understandable. If we can't even conceptualise them being supernatural, then we don't know what something supernatural would look like.

We can conceptualize them as being supernatural; I was just saying I don’t know of an argument that they are necessarily supernatural. If ghosts have no matter/energy/natural property to them, then they are supernatural. Why isn’t that conceptualizable?

Okay then, in that scenario, how would we know they existed? I've been asking for a scenario where something is both ubiquitous (and accepted as a known phenomenon) and supernatural. Something verifiably exists, but is not natural.

It's a definition for that argument then. That's all it is. It has no parity with anyone's beliefs who believes in the supernatural. In your definition, you can believe in the supernatural but you don't know what you're believing in, you just know what you're believing in, isn't. It's not a whole lot different than saying I think there are aliens in the Vega system. I don't know anything about what I think is there and for all you know I'm counting dust particles with weird movements, but hey, they're not human.

If one stopped at the definition, sure. But I don't. For instance, the Kalam, if true, tells us positive things about at least one supernatural being’s characteristics.

But it tells us nothing about any other supernatural beings or phenomena. In other words, it doesn't help us understand what supernatural looks like. It just defines one particular thing as supernatural because it draws a rather arbitrary circle around what is called natural and defines that which is outside of it as supernatural.

If God is the only supernatural being then there's no reason to categorise it as supernatural. Its category is "things that are god" and the positive attributes you mention are attributes of that category. The only reason we'd have an extra category to describe the same thing, is if there are other potential members of that category, and the only way we'd know or even conceptualise that, is if that category has attributes that might place other things into that category. And since I can't get you to even imagine a ghost being both accepted to be real and supernatural, I don't think that's happening.