However it is illogical to assume that a Supernatural being is subject to natural law and that is the whole of your argument.
Logic is not a natural law, it deals with the metaphysical AND the physical.
This is a classic obscurum per obscurius argument used by the religious.
"God exists outside in a plane outside of our possible understanding"
Logos dictates the reply to this to be..
"If it is outside of our possible understanding then how do you know of it's existence?"
Just saying "You can't prove it!" isn't going to change somebody's personal experience.
Strawman warning. I haven't said 'you can't prove it' as evidence of the non-existence of the transcendental. The religious use the argument 'you can't prove me wrong' to substantiate their claims, and I believe, you have used a similar argument here today.
I have said that the arguments used are weak, that they are unsubstantiated and unverified because they are based on pathos. They are weak because they claim understanding of the existence of the transcendental and yet claim the transcendental is in the emotional plane that cannot be substantiated or comprehended.
Telling people they should ignore their own experience because it doesn't fit within Logos is like telling water in a river to stop running South to North because usually water runs north to south... Totally ineffective.
Again, strawman... I haven't informed people to ignore their experience, but to question it, to hold the assumptions they make under scrutiny, rather than merely accept them for pathos reasons...
I have asked them to explain the logical gaps and fallacies in their arguments, to question the origins of the knowledge that caused such emotions, to provide substantiation other than obscurum per obscurius arguments that create nothing but ambiguity.
