The real religion?

[SteveII]

You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science-

I'm sorry; did I need to?  The clear answer is: you can't, because such a proposition is absurd to begin with.  Which is my whole point.  

You put forth an unfalsifiable claim, then offer evidence in support of this claim that you, yourself, admit cannot be scientifically evaluated in any way.  THEN, you turn around and declare we cannot judge the quality of the evidence you provided because the claim is unfalsifiable, and not subject to scientific scrutiny!  Make up your mind already.  If there is no way to evaluate the likelihood of your theory being true, then you can't say you have proof of its cause and effect, lol.

Secondly, what does "supernatural" even mean?  If God really does exist as a pure and eternal entity; the source of all things in existence, wouldn't that make him the embodiment of all things natural?  

Thirdly, I'd still like to know your thoughts on the extraordinary claims of the Mandela Effect.

You are still treating the question as if it was a lab experiment. You probably don't espouse scientism as your worldview so admit there are other methods than science of gaining knowledge. A person's self-reported intuition is one of those other methods.  A billion peoples self-reported intuition is even better. 

Supernatural is not quite simply not natural. Not made of stuff from this universe. 

I don't know anything about the Mandela Effect. 

That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one.

And...?  What follows this?

See above about methods of knowledge. 

So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original.

Since I am not the one making a positive claim, it is not my duty to provide an "argument against the existence of God."  It is YOUR duty to demonstrate evidence in support of your claim.  I am merely pointing out factual reasons why eye-witness testimony is not reliable evidence; especially for such an extraordinary claim.  If you have something better to show us, I'd be happy to see it.

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting.

Okay...so...'there is stuff we don't know, may never know, may never be able to know via the scientific method,' somehow magically leads to, 'God exists, and the Christian God is the one true God?'  

*scratches head*

Science has gotten us quite far if you haven't noticed...[emoji53]

That was not the point. Since you obviously cannot claim science is the only source of knowledge you cannot claim something to be false simply because you can't examine it in a lab. Find another reason to say that God does not exist and/or people do not have relationships with God. 

There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions?

So, other people believe stupid crap for crappy reasons.  So what?  Lots of people are convinced by accounts of the Mandela Effect when they read of it.  This is not evidence of the truth of its claims.  People are gullible.  This shouldn't surprise you.

That's not an argument against a specific belief. You need to provide a specific reason why a billion people's experience is false and not just say 'experiences can be false, therefore this one is false'. 

And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will [u]always be evidence

But, I thought your claim was supernatural, and therefore not subject to examination via natural means?  [emoji848]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In context, I said that a supernatural claim cannot be measured with science. The NT contained actual events that happened in the natural world that are the evidence that I referred to.