Alternately, we can employ more conceptual methods. We can just ask ourselves if the supernatural proposal even makes internal, logical sense. Are the various claims about this supernatural entity consistent with each other? If they are not, then at the very least, that should raise a red flag about the plausibility or viability of the proposal. (I dealt with the possibility of acquiring private knowledge of God through your own thoughts here: Vetting Supernatural Knowledge Claims)
What about other supernatural hypotheses. We can proceed according to plan. And we can use both approaches. For centuries, philosophers have been considering the viability of abstract characterizations of God as a singular, personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being. Call this GodB5, for the big 5 properties listed. Does a being a being like this make sense?
Are we proving the negative yet?
For decades, the patent offices in the U.S. and Britain were deluged with submissions for patents on perpetual motion machines—contraptions that would produce more energy than was put into them, and thus solve all of humanity’s energy needs forever. Such a device is highly dubious, if not impossible, given what we know about the laws of nature. After wasting countless frustrating hours reviewing these proposals only to reject them, the patent offices adopted a new policy. They ruled that no more patents applications for pepetual motion machines would be accepted.