Nope.

Supernatural agent A cannot be differentiated from supernatural agent B, which cannot be differentiated from no agent at all.

If we have a way to differentiate, they fall under the scope of science, and aren't supernatural anymore; unless arbitrarily announced to be "supernatural" regardless.

"That guy did stuff and I don't understand how" =/= "That guy is objectively supernatural"

https://youtu.be/CNbjn6rHmW4

(June 3, 2016 at 1:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: "That guy did stuff and I don't understand how" =/= "That guy is objectively supernatural"

And "that guy said he's objectively supernatural every time he did a thing and I don't understand how," does not help.

(June 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm)madog Wrote:  

Logically, if a supernatural being does not interact with our universe, we cannot know anything at all about it. However, if it does, we can logically both infer information and deduce information from its effects on our universe.

Once we can deduce that something interacted with a natural event and can't be presently explained it is unnatural. It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained.

You want it both ways .... you want a supernatural god that can be known, yet is supernatural which can't be known ..... with the proviso you can move the meaning around to accommodate yours and religions changing interpretations of a single badly written book?

(June 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 7:05 am)SteveII Wrote: The very definition of a supernatural event make detecting and investigating the cause logically impossible. So we are only left with the result and the context. 

Continuing to ignore the validity of the events for the purposes of a philosophical discussion...

Perhaps you are right for one event. If there were hundreds of similar events and other events that illustrated power over matter, life and death, knowledge that should not have been available, etc., the contextual interpretation becomes become stronger and the probability increases that supernatural forces are at play. This would all be in addition to the fact that Jesus clearly explained the source of this power--which at the very least lends additional context clues.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong here: increasing the number of events in which a given cause is asserted in no way influences what the cause of those events actually is. Allow me to demonstrate: here's a magician, and he says he's doing magic. Do you believe him? He just sawed that woman in half!

Except isn't that is how we arrive at all sorts of beliefs and theories?  We are talking about a series of unique but similar/connected events. We look for context and patterns in cause and effect, we look for exceptions, and we look for a theory that fits the data. More data strengthens the theory. 

You say a time traveler fits the theory just as well as does supernatural causation. Since time travel has its own problems, it isn't a viable option (causal loop paradox, grandfather paradox), it seems supernatural causation is still a leading contender (Occam's razor and all). 

You asked: "how do you ascribe a higher probability to a cause you cannot detect or even show is possible, over those other ones?" Why do you say we cannot detect the cause? We have the effect. Why aren't we justified in inferring supernatural causes as the best explanation? 

From Wikipedia: Inferring the cause of something has been described as

• "...reason[ing] to the conclusion that something is, or is likely to be, the cause of something else".[3]
  
• "Identification of the cause or causes of a phenomenon, by establishing covariation of cause and effect, a time-order relationship with the cause preceding the effect, and the elimination of plausible alternative causes."[4]
  

(June 3, 2016 at 3:40 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong here: increasing the number of events in which a given cause is asserted in no way influences what the cause of those events actually is. Allow me to demonstrate: here's a magician, and he says he's doing magic. Do you believe him? He just sawed that woman in half!

Except isn't that is how we arrive at all sorts of beliefs and theories?  We are talking about a series of unique but similar/connected events. We look for context and patterns in cause and effect, we look for exceptions, and we look for a theory that fits the data. More data strengthens the theory. 
 

Yes it is how some people arrive at belief and faith, you just have to look at "Christians" doesn't mean its correct ...

The story has been fabricated.

Very simple and plausible explanation. Requires no assumptions of anything not demonstrated to be possible.

(June 3, 2016 at 1:12 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm)SteveII Wrote: Logically, if a supernatural being does not interact with our universe, we cannot know anything at all about it. However, if it does, we can logically both infer information and deduce information from its effects on our universe.

Once we can deduce that something interacted with a natural event and can't be presently explained it is unnatural. It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained.

You want it both ways .... you want a supernatural god that can be known, yet is supernatural which can't be known ..... with the proviso you can move the meaning around to accommodate yours and religions changing interpretations of a single badly written book?

I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition.

What sense does " It has an explanation that just can't yet be explained" make? It either has an explanation or it does not. How can you say that an event was certainly not supernaturally (let's just say God so you don't start the definition thing again) caused?

(June 3, 2016 at 3:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: The story has been fabricated.

Very simple and plausible explanation. Requires no assumptions of anything not demonstrated to be possible.

Ah, a positive claim. Do you have proof that is more convincing than what they appear to be or are you going to use your circular reasoning of supernatural events don't happen because they can't happen argument?

(June 3, 2016 at 4:05 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 3, 2016 at 1:12 pm)madog Wrote:  

I do not know what your hangup on the word supernatural is, so call it anything that makes you happy. I'm sticking with the traditional definition.
 

I have no hang up with the word other than it is used to make a fairy story appear relevant ....