Upon comprehensive scientific research, yes, He is acknowledged as puce by mainstream biblical scholars, cosmologists, and lesbian unicorns alike.
Everyone is expected to adjust their decor likewise.
“Eeeeeehh… I know this defies the law of gravity, Doc, but I never studied law!”
Besides, what can be more puce than the combined effect of wine and bread: the Eucharist?
Puce. Puce… yeh, it sounds just like it looks, doesn’t it?
Okay, I’m done with this whole puce thing. Sally forth…
puce.
Outside time is easy–He isn’t affected by time. Outside space is harder, but the guy outside a book is a pretty good description of how I think of it.
And we don’t say God is in another universe because that implies that that universe is equivalent to ours, when it is above, the supernatural.
Let’s take the first part first-What does “isn’t affected by time” actually mean?
Does it mean that everything he does he does at the same time(in his perspective)?
Then he can’t do anything, including think. Nor would he be omnipotent or omniscient in anything but the most technical of ways, since he could neither do anything with that omnipotence nor perceive anything with his omniscience.
The concept of a supernatural God not constrained by physical laws does not make sense from a scientific standpoint. Nor is there any way to describe the supernatural characteristics of such a god that will be meaningful in the context of rationalism/materialism/naturalism that science operates with.
Consequently, if we assume that rationalism/materialism/naturalism completely describes reality, then there’s no way that such a god can exist.
However, that conclusion doesn’t effectually refute the theistic belief that such a god does exist. All theists have to do is simply assume that scientific rationalism/materialism/naturalism doesn’t completely describe reality, because there’s some sort of supernatural divinity power that the rationalist/materialist/naturalist worldview can’t detect or comprehend.
And since it’s not logically or empirically possible to prove that such an assumption (which explicitly denies the universality of logic and empiricism) cannot be true, there’s no way to convince theists of the nonexistence of God except by demanding that they believe something that they don’t have to believe.
As Blaster Master said, theists and atheists view the world differently, in a very fundamental way. You can’t have a constructive argument except on the basis of shared assumptions, and this is a situation where the most basic assumptions just are not shared by the disagreeing parties.
What does supernatural mean? In my view, if something exists, it is natural. Nature is everything that exists. Supernatural means it is just a story. If somebody means something else by “supernatural” just define it and let us know.
First, that argument cancels itself out. If rationality doesn’t apply to God, then neither does your rational argument.
Second, that argument amounts to claiming that “in order to believe in gods you have to embrace insanity and deny reality”. Something that is normally said by the critics of religion, not its defenders. It does underline just how ridiculous religion is that its defenders have to so totally reject rationality.
Yup, if your view assumes that everything that exists can be comprehended and described by rational thought and natural laws, then nothing that is supernatural can exist.
Yup, if you assume that “reality” is completely comprehended and described by rational thought and natural laws, and that “insanity” includes the belief that reality is not completely comprehended and described by rational thought and natural laws, that’s absolutely right.
I’m not arguing with or denying any of your rationalist/materialist/naturalist assumptions: I’m merely pointing out that they are assumptions.
That’s not what I said. Again with definitions. I said, I have defined “Natural” as all that exists. What does “natural” and “supernatural” mean to you? I’ve yet to see a definition of “supernatural” that doesn’t boil down to “I made it up, and you can’t argue against it with your ‘natural’ ideas like logic”.
Does God not follow rules and reason? Can he actually nuke a burrito so hot he can’t eat it? What does it mean to say God is supernatural, besides a cop out?
“You can’t argue against it with your ‘natural’ ideas like logic” IS indeed the crucial “boil-down-to” point about the concept of the supernatural, whether the believer in the supernatural made up the allegedly supernatural entity themselves or got the idea from somewhere else.
If you’re asking for my personal take on it, I’m a rationalist-materialist and I don’t believe that there is anything supernatural.
But these “assumptions” are based on all of recorded history and science. Your argument seems to be the equivelent of the one put forth by Creationists-that Creationism is a “theory” just like evolution is just a theory, and thus should be considered equally. Describing all logic, rationality, history and science as just an “assumption” or point of view is, at best, laughable.
Rejecting rationality is rejecting sanity.
No; they appear to be how the world works, and are necessary to have any meaningful conversation or thought on the subject. You yourself demonstrate this with your attempts to argue your position rationally.
No, if we’re using “theory” as a scientific concept, then we have to abide by scientific criteria about what constitutes a theory and what makes one theory better than another.
From a rationalist scientific point of view, it certainly is. If we’re using “reality” as a rational, scientific concept, then we have to abide by rational scientific rules for discourse concerning it. By those rules, to suggest that reality could contain anything that’s irrational or innately incomprehensible by science is completely absurd.
So go ahead and laugh; you won’t hurt my feelings. 
Says the person on a medium devised using those “assumptions”.
I don’t dispute that in the least. I’m just pointing out that it’s impossible to prove beyond a doubt that they are the way the world works.
Again, you negate your own argument. If rationality doesn’t apply, then proof or the lack of it is irrelevant. So is whether or not it’s impossible; if rationality doesn’t apply, then something can be both impossible and true since objecting to contradiction is a rational position.
If rationality does not apply to something, then we can say or think nothing coherent or meaningful about it.
Are there no facts at all? Is there no difference between blind assumptions and assumptions based on tons of evidence?