Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[GrandizerII]

And here comes Mr. Know-It-All Steve who, once again, feels compelled to lecture us on how to do critical thinking.

Well, it does seem to elude some of you.

Easy to see faults in others' arguments rather than in one's own arguments.

Oh, so you can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Why does this sound like an argument made out of convenience?

To answer your first question, yes. It is not an argument made out of convenience. It logically follows that you cannot use science, a disciple entirely focused on the natural world, to examine the supernatural world where it literally does not have one tool/concept/principle that applies. It is really amazing some people's trouble with definitions. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

You didn't really address what I actually said. You can't test the supernatural naturally, but you can observe them naturally? Doesn't the fact that you can observe them naturally contradict the definition you just provided here? If not, then I haven't seen the argument yet as to why we can't test this force then. Just because it may be beyond scientific understanding doesn't mean it's beyond scientific testing. It is possible to demonstrate scientifically that something exists without understanding scientifically how it works.

You know why. Don't pretend there is not a good reason why this example specifically is continually brought up as an argument against the likelihood of the supernatural. The likelihood of limbs growing back spontaneously would be incredibly high under supernaturalism/theism, and yet that's not something we ever witness. Instead, all we witness as so-called "miracles" are phenomena easily explained by naturalism or involve invisible disorders or illnesses.

You have simply asserted that regrowing of limbs would incredibly likely. That's a pretty bold statement that obviously must have reasons. So, why? Answer as completely as you can. Only then will we see if you have a point. Until then, we have nothing.

Yes, if we're assuming the mainstream type of supernaturalism/theism of course, where God continually intervenes and heals people of cancer, blindness, heart problems, and such. Under such a hypothesis, it's pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen. Why is it then that it's not been observed at all, but we get people reporting they have been miraculously healed from the same health problems that would've either been minimized via suggestibility or comprise symptoms that are difficult to confirm visibly? This is a problem for your sort of theism, and under Bayesian thinking, it would be irrational to conclude that supernaturalism comes out on top in this case. Naturalism wins here easily. Amputees have never miraculously had their limbs grown most likely because supernaturalism isn't true.