Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[RoadRunner79]

Sorry for the delay in my response (been busy, tired, and sick as well).  
In regards to your points [1] I understand that there is the view of the word "supernatural" which basically equates to "unknown" (and it seems to me, this is how you are using it). That once the supernatural is known, it then becomes natural.  This is not what I would normally mean by the term.  I would view it more in this instance as transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up (and I understand it can be tricky to define precisely).  However it seems to me, that if we are going to know about the supernatural in any reasonable way, that there would need to be a falsifiable event or reasoning, in which to do so.

[2]  I mean, that I find reason to believe in God, and from that; I have faith in Him, and what He has proclaimed.

[3]  I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean here.  If you mean, that we can have disagreements or differing opinions; then I would agree.  If you mean subjective by nature, in that it is dependent on and internal to the subject then I very much disagree (falsifiable would entail that it is objective).

Again sorry for the delay.  I wanted to respond previously and wasn't able (and almost didn't now because of the pause in discussion).  So I understand if you lost interest.  But I appreciate your questions, and felt they deserved an answer.  I don't know that we approach the issue from the same perspective though (perhaps because of a difference in understanding regarding the word "supernatural".  And I'm not too concerned with the use of that term apart from a certain context.  If someone comes to me, with a claim (supernatural or not), I'm going to ask why I should hold that view.  And I think that something falsifiable should follow.

Thank you for your response, RoadRunner.

Regarding [1], out of curiosity, when you use supernatural as "transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up," do you mean transcending reality itself or transcending beyond the human mind's ability to perceive it? How does an individual reliably distinguish between the two? If something is beyond the human mind's ability to perceive, then is it somewhat presumptuous to conclude that it must be supernatural?

Regarding [2], I appreciate your clarification.  Am I correct in understanding that your belief in god is first established via reason, and then via your powers of reason, you have faith in your god? In other words, your belief in god was first established via logic and reason and was not first influenced by faith in any way? Out of curiosity, from a religious perspective, do you see anything wrong with first having faith in god, and then coming up with intelligent reasons for those beliefs?

Regarding [3], I meant that if different groups of people hold differing/conflicting/falsifiable views about objective reality, then does that suggest that people are subjectively interpreting that reality? If I may, from a religious perspective, how does one accurately separate objective truths and experiences from personal/subjective truths and experiences?   

Thanks again  for your gentlemanly response, RoadRunner.

[1] Neither;  what I mean by universe, is the universe that is ~14 Billion years old.  And I would agree, supernatural is not describing something based on our ability to understand it. 

[2] I would mostly agree, although I think that many things in the progression of learning are a combination of the two.  As to the order of things, I don't think it is that important.  There are many who have faith, but cannot give a reason for their faith.  Although I do think it is important to be able to give a reason why to the question of what you believe.  And I find this is true for a number of things (a good number of people don't really think things through and can give account for their beliefs... believer or not). 

[3]   Yes, and I think that we all subjectively interpret an objective reality.  Would this not be true for the atheist as well.  To separate objective truth  from subjective influences, I think that we need to go back and look at what we are basing it on (reasons and evidence).  And even then we may not always agree.  Just like in this conversation, I think there is a large bridge between where we are starting from.  I also think that we need to look to others as well, and their reasons for a similar or dissimilar view.  How would you answer this from your view?