From "supernatural" to "God"?

[Beto]

I have a question for theists that seem to infer "God" (in whatever form) from what they perceive to be "supernatural", "mystical", or "transcendental" phenomena. The question is straightforward. How is that leap justified? Even if the phenomenon is as mind-boggling as precognitive dreams (even assuming they're objectively unquestionable, which they obviously aren't), like the experience thebluetriangle shared in another thread, how does one infer the phenomenon is "given" by a "God" entity, rather than a yet unknown physical possibility within our universe, independent from its origin?

[byofrcs]

I have a question for theists that seem to infer "God" (in whatever form) from what they perceive to be "supernatural", "mystical", or "transcendental" phenomena. The question is straightforward. How is that leap justified? Even if the phenomenon is as mind-boggling as precognitive dreams (even assuming they're objectively unquestionable, which they obviously aren't), like the experience thebluetriangle shared in another thread, how does one infer the phenomenon is "given" by a "God" entity, rather than a yet unknown physical possibility within our universe, independent from its origin?

Simple when you think about it. The "supernatural" is much too general to

- make money from,
- justify hereditary power over people,
- justify bizarre laws,
- empower customs,

so you invent a "God".

If you have no need to make money, enslave people or impose law or some bizarre custom then you just say it is "supernatural", else "God".

[Jura]

I have a question for theists that seem to infer "God" (in whatever form) from what they perceive to be "supernatural", "mystical", or "transcendental" phenomena. The question is straightforward. How is that leap justified? Even if the phenomenon is as mind-boggling as precognitive dreams (even assuming they're objectively unquestionable, which they obviously aren't), like the experience thebluetriangle shared in another thread, how does one infer the phenomenon is "given" by a "God" entity, rather than a yet unknown physical possibility within our universe, independent from its origin?

Simple when you think about it. The "supernatural" is much too general to

- make money from,
- justify hereditary power over people,
- justify bizarre laws,
- empower customs,

so you invent a "God".

If you have no need to make money, enslave people or impose law or some bizarre custom then you just say it is "supernatural", else "God".

ok now it is understandable how a certain way of thinking can validate the above statement, and while it is certainly true all possible kind of exploatation, opression and violence have been and are constantly legitimised using belief in anny number of devine beings, the statement, in its whole, is not valid
people will exploit, opress, violate and kill others for causes of what is believed or sayd to be supernatural as they will for causes of a specifically defined god

do humans not mutilate other humans and consume various bodyparts in hope of supernatural benefits? or cut of bits of human anatomy for good luck? or exploit other humans by capitalising on superstitions and supernatural beliefs? or excuse serious violation and even homicidal behaviour with alegations of posession or acusations of malevolent magical practice or just simple mallochio
how manny milions of euro are made each year on human ignorance and superstition?

just google Vanda Marchi, or that Silvia person

im not defending religious belief or saying what you specifically said about inventing a god is not true, im just saying people literaly make money, justfy hereditary power, and especially empower customs based on non-religious supernatural beliefs
in the past even laws were made based on this, often bizarre ones