Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

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?

First, I want to point out the bold to Mister Agenda. It would seem I understood your position perfectly. 

Second, you throw around the word fallacy a lot. What did I say that you think is a logical fallacy. 

Many words are defined by what it is not. 'Darkness', 'evil', 'cold' off the top of my head. Scientific inquiry can only investigate what originates in the natural world by natural processes and leaves natural effects.  If something is not part of the natural world, by the very definition of science, it cannot be scientifically investigated.  

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

At best (and consistent with both definitions of science and supernatural) you can investigate the effect to see if there are any natural causes. We don't have the tools to investigate the supernatural and even if we did, they would--by definition--not be scientific tools. And what is this about the supernatural being undetected? We can detect it by it's effect. For example, say someone is crucified. Then comes back to life 3 days later and he says God raised him from the dead--and say you were there the whole time. Are you going to say that the supernatural was undetected? There are a whole host of things that we know about only because of the observed effect--gravity comes to mind. 

How do we know there is not a forthcoming natural explanation? The plain answer is you don't. That's why I brought up context. The context provides some probability inputs. For example, Jesus and the crippled man. What is the probability that the man, sometime during his life, naturally spontaneously regenerated a key part of his back and was able to walk with no physical therapy? It's low but not zero. What is the probability of the man regenerating a key part of his back naturally at the very moment Jesus says "so that everyone here knows that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, I command you to take up your bed and walk"? There's too many leading zeros to write that percentage  on this entire page. 

If you want to question every miracle on the grounds that a naturalistic cause might be discovered, fine. You are not irrational to do so. But your objection does nothing to make the concept incoherent and certainly not to undercut someone believing in the supernatural and supernatural events as part of a larger worldview.

---

But "Mysterious ways!" KevinM1! It's the "Mysterious ways!" all the time.

*Sigh*

So... SteveII and/or RoadRunner79 have drifted past the whole "Something from nothing." and 'Uncaused cause." thing, then?

Not at work.

There are no example in this universe of something from nothing. It is simply impossible. 

QM indeterminate particles are not an example of something uncaused. RR posted previously:

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/