Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[Ravenshire]

In every instance, examining a natural effect will not give you information on the supernatural cause.

If examining the effect says nothing about the cause, how in the fuck do you determine the cause to be something supernatural? By your own words, your claim is that you cannot determine a supernatural cause.

You are attempting to cross the barrier or blur the lines between science and metaphysics. 

No, that would be you trying to blur that particular line.

---

Just chuckling like mad at the argument ...

A:You have no evidence
S: Looks! Maths! Scary symbols! Probability and Bayes theorem you'll have accept me on! Not at all garbage-in-garbage-out!
A: You have no evidence.
S: You aren't accomplished as me at logic. You refuse to listen. You aren't critical thinkers. <swans off>
A: None of which changes the fact that ... you have no evidence.

Ah, the "no evidence" card. That's the card unthinking, unsophisticated, critically-thinking impaired atheists play. It is trivially easy to prove you wrong: Let's try an easy one related to the earlier post: Luke. Why is Luke not evidence?

And we come full circle... Your argument that unsupported assertions of fact is somehow evidence still falls completely flat Stevie. But, even if you accept unsupported testimony as evidence, nothing in the buy-bull is testimony. It's the recording of oral traditions decades, at least after the alleged events. On other words, hearsay. That's why Luke is not evidence.

---

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong.

No, to claim you have no evidence is quite accurate. That you accept the hearsay (at best) in the buy-bull as evidence merely demonstrates that you set the bar for evidence exceedingly low.