Atheism

[Angrboda]

Seems like a claim, which, by its very nature, cannot possibly have any evidence for it. (For various reasons.)  So you have a claim with no evidence, which you can only abet by assuming the supernatural exists, which is begging the question.  This seems to be the lynchpin of your argument, so I don't see how it can succeed.  You in the past have suggested that people having foreknowledge of supernatural events is evidence in favor of people having knowledge of the supernatural nature of those events.  However that doesn't follow.  At best, it's an argument from ignorance, so the conclusion is not reliable.  This is a fundamental epistemic problem that I don't believe you can get around.  Even if people have foreknowledge of an event or attribute an event to the supernatural, that in itself isn't evidence that the event is supernatural.  You would have to assume the supernatural exists in order for the conclusion to follow, so you've once again begged the question.  I've heard your argument multiple times, and the fundamental objection remains the same.  Since we cannot have any knowledge of the source of supernatural events by natural means -- zero, zip, nada -- the only possible source of evidence for the source of a supernatural event must itself be supernatural, and once again you've begged the question.  I know you think you can get around it inductively, but I don't believe you can.  Nothing you've presented suggests otherwise.  Zero information is zero information, no matter how many times you add it to the mix.

Why can't we have natural effects that infer supernatural causes? The whole enterprise of science infers causes from their effects. List of effects:

1. The contents of the NT
2. The first century church (independent of the NT)
3. Individual personal experience as predicted by the NT
4. Other people we trust personal experience
5. Personal miracles (private, specific events that seemed to have a purpose against all odds)
6. Natural theology arguments

Because when one infers a cause, one is making a connection between the cause and effect, but in supernatural causation, there is no demonstrable connection between the cause and the effect by definition. The very way you've defined the supernatural rules out any reasonable inference. What exactly would such an inference be based on? It seems there are only three or four possibilities, a) prior belief, b) assumption, c) empirical knowledge, or d) supernatural knowledge. The first two are not a justification for the inference, the third is ruled out by the definition, and the fourth brings us back to a case of begging the question. Exactly how are you proposing these inferences are being made? It does no good to present a laundry list of examples in which such inferences were made unless somewhere in that laundry list is an example where the inference was justifiably made without recourse to either supernatural knowledge or mere assumption. The enterprise of science differs categorically in that it invokes the relevant connections between cause and effect in its explanations, something not possible under the definition of supernatural which you are employing (in addition to which, the epistemology of science rests on two key assumptions, that there exists a real world independent of our minds, and that this real world is knowable via the contents of our experience; the attempt to make inferences to the supernatural doesn't draw on either of these assumptions, but rather simply makes a third, namely the existence of the supernatural, which is the very assumption under debate, so can't be introduced as an epistemological assumption but must be argued for on independent grounds which themselves are shared).

I'm not going to respond to your list unless you can be more specific about any particular example. Your listing natural theology arguments as an effect seems to indicate you're just spewing potential cases in a shotgun pattern in the hopes that you might hit something.