Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

A few things wrong with this. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural. 

What can you infer from it?  If you can't connect the dots between the supernatural and any supposed cause, such as God, then the supernatural can't be used as evidence for a specific cause.  Out go all the miracles of the bible since you apparently can't link them to God.  The supernatural then becomes simply the unexplained.

Why can't you connect the dots in many cases? Context seems to be very important. I have written this before (I think to you actually):

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context that strengthens the probability that the cause was supernatural, might include:

1. Timing 
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

---

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 can observe the effects in the natural world. The definition clearly states "attributed to". That is another way of saying "cause". Regarding your last two sentences, you are not getting it. It is not "beyond scientific understanding", it is another category where science does not nor ever will apply. You final sentence is so wrong because you are still confused on the definition of the word. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definitions and what those definitions entail. 

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.

You did not connect your first sentence to your second with anything resembling a reason. What you did was infer that God's purpose was to heal people and so we should also see this other type of "healing" - regrowing limbs. But your inference is wrong. God's purpose is not to heal people for the sake of healing people. These are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events, are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) significance. Additionally, God could extend someone's life for a reason that might not be apparent for a hundred years (the butterfly effect). Under this understanding of "healing miracles", it is definitely not "pretty intuitive to argue that the growing of limbs spontaneously should also happen."