[gspr]

> It explains things which our beyond our natural/physical world. Those things impact how we live in this world.

(1) These two statements seem to me to be incompatible. We live in the natural world. If something "outside the natural world" (whatever that nonsensical statement means) affects the natural world, then surely it's partly part of the natural world?

(2) It is not my business to define what e.g. christians believe, but if I am not mistaken the actual resurrection of an actual man is quite central. How is this not a (bold!) claim about the natural world?

[Digory]

"Naturalism" posits that natural laws are the only rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural world.

So "beyond the natural world" would be shorthand for alternatives to naturalism; the idea there are rules that govern the 'natural world' beyond natural laws or things that can be measured or observed scientifically.

The resurrection is a prime example of rules "beyond the natural" impacting our natural world.

[medstrom]

Well, if the resurrection happened I'd actually class it, and its instigator, as part of the natural world.

[gspr]

So far we have not yet seen a single phenomenon that cannot be explained in the natural system, but can be explained in an alternative system.

(No, "god did it" isn't an explanation.)

If this is all that 1000++ y.o. religions can muster, I say good riddance, laughable attempts at explaining the world.