It sounds like nothing much has changed since the invention of god: The idea was likely designed to explain events and phenomena that were observed in the world
Let's not get into faith. I never intended this discussion, nor did the OP as far as I can tell, to be about faith, but about higher civilizations, possibilities.
Okay - god can move at a speed that is in his nature. This is self-referential and say nothing of his participation in the natural world.
It is inconsistent with the laws of physics. It might be in 'god's nature' to move at superluminal speeds . . . And one of them being, of course, the inability to cross the lightspeed barrier. Anything capable of doing just that, is unnatural, per definition.
No problem. If you insist on the relation God = omnipotent = supernatural, then there is no discussion. The term supernatural defeats all possibility of rational discussion. Supernatural is absurd, either physically or logically or both. So on definition, before logic, that god must be defined as absurd, there can be no discussion of god and natural.
I think wiki is consistent (I think ) in what it's saying. I'm just not particularly convinced by some of 1-6 and what they even mean. I think some of them would apply to a human so long as the human were willing to consider himself a deity... which, according to Lawcat's recent post is not out of the range of possibility.
First, I apologize if I offended you with the "biased" remarkd. I meant "incomplete," as in rule of completeness.
Second, yes to last sentence. If there is such thing as god, it is certainly not what we decide to define it, but rather it is what it is.
In other words, if god can do numerous mighty things, but is limited nonetheless in natural by some parameter, does that make the entity not god? Really? Just because God fails our expectations of doing the absurd?
I can not agree that supernatural requirement is the only logical way of thinking of god. That kind of thinking is definition before logic, and is pure faith.