Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

A mistake of category, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property

As I said above, if you are defining the ‘supernatural’ as the inverse of ‘natural’, ascribing it the property of ‘able to be evidenced’ is an error.  You cannot have evidence of a thing that is not able to be in evidence. The natural world is evident to us, which is why we are able to collect evidence about it.  If the supernatural is “not-natural” then it can’t be evident.

OTOH, as I said above:

If you’re saying that the “supernatural” is really just an extension of the natural world, then we’re talking about a single category of things. Naturally caused things.

So, that wouldn’t be a category mistake. 

In that case, we can expect some physical evidence for these extra-natural...(?) causes, and correctly apply our evidentiary hierarchy to draw reasonable conclusions about those claims.  Unfortunately though, you’re still faced with the problem that an alleged “extra-natural” event like the virgin birth is a claim that contradicts an overwhelming body of high-quality, scientific evidence to the contrary. All available evidence indicates that human semen is necessary for conception. Heresy, at the very bottom of that hierarchy, certainly wouldn’t even come close to overcoming or overriding that fact.

Whether or not a category mistake is being made is going to come down to how you’re defining “supernatural”.

Ok... so you appear to be saying, that it would be incorrect to even ask for evidence or the supernatural (as many atheists do) depending on ones definition.  As I have said, I don't get too caught up on the terms supernatural vs natural. And I believe that you are the one who brought up the term supernatural.   What I would consider supernatural, would be something outside of the natural universe.  In any case, if the thing, which is being described if it can interact with the natural universe, it would seem that it can have evidence of that interaction.  Something could be seen or experienced, which that information could be transmitted to others and be evidence for what is not able to be seen.  Or there could be other evidence left behind, which could be evaluated.  If there is evidence for something, and you reason that natural forces are incapable of producing this effect, then that leaves you with either some unknown natural occurrence, or something outside of the natural which caused the effect.  Either way, you are reasoning from the evidence as to a cause.  For some if God does exist, then they would define him as part of the natural.  For them supernatural seems to mean that it a priori does not exist, and if it does exist, then it is considered natural.   As I said, I'm not too concerned with quibbling over semantics here. 

If what you call supernatural can interact with the natural world, then it doesn't seem to be a category error, to evaluate the evidence from that and reason to a conclusion.  If you have evidence and can reasonably exclude the natural, then that would leave you with the supernatural or non-natural as an explanation.  From what you are saying, you wouldn't have any evidence to begin with, and any claims would not be from evidence.

---

@Lady

And to just to clarify; this seems to be different from your original premise that more evidence was required. That either evidence is not coherent with the supernatural, or that it should only require sufficient evidence, the same as anything else.