Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[LadyForCamus]

Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.”  That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality. 


That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.  


So, again; rare medical phenomena happen.  How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never will be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future?  Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.


Why not? 


Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol.  You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.

Do you notice that you start by claiming the idea incoherent and then write 4 more paragraphs coherently discussing the concept? You seem to understand it fine.  Also, the ideas of supernatural, ghost, soul, fairy and Santa are all coherent no matter if they are real or not.

No. I was granting the concept to you for the sake of your example about miracles so that I could investigate the method by which you distinguish a natural cause from a supposedly supernatural cause, what ever that actually is.  In response, you gave me a fallacy, plus some bizarre reasoning about how particles behaving strangely under a microscope wouldn’t be a miracle, but strangely-behaving particles not looked at through a microscope would be. (?)

I stand by my statements earlier; that the concept of a supernatural event or object has no coherent, meaningful applicability to reality, as the word is defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. And, that there is no reason to think that anything interacting with, and leaving behind evidence in this world, is not a part of it. If it’s a part within the whole of this world, and it is evident, then it would fall under the purview of scientific inquiry.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how you determine that a cause for an event can’t be explainable by science, and I’m still waiting for you to tell me what a supernatural thing is, using positive descriptors. As I said before; you are trying to create a new and entirely separate category of things using the knowledge gaps of a category of things that already exists.  Can you please describe in detail the mechanism behind a ‘something other than natural, but we don’t know what it actually is’ cause, generating detectable, physical effects within the natural world, yet itself remaining completely undetectable?