There's an RPGnet discussion on faith that I'm probably not going to get involved with. It sparked some thoughts, but they're not directly relevant to that question (which is about the difference between 'supernatural' and 'spiritual').

However, there's an interesting thing about the nature of faith. Someone said she thought "The whole point of faith is believing in something when there is absolutely no evidence to support it."

Hmm.... not really. I, for one (and I believe Thomas Aquinas is with me on this one, which is good company), do not go in for the whole "leap of faith" thing. I believe in God for much the same reason I believe in gravity. Even though the existence of neither has been conclusively proven, I believe that the weight of evidence is enough to go on.

Of course, the existence of gravity is largely based on one, repeatedly observed phenomenon (apple--->tree---->ground---->Newton), while I find the evidence for God comes in various parts. One piece of evidence is not enough, but together they make a compelling argument.

To go off on an utter tangent, one of the classic arguments is the "look at how complex and perfectly-formed the world is" versus "it's all just luck".

Well, if you look at a novel, you could choose to assume it was created by thousands of monkeys smashing typewriters at random. I, on the other hand, tend to infer an author.

Next week: Tom tackles the Question of Evil!

No, not really