Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[SteveII]

It is only begging the question if I am making an argument for the existence of the supernatural by miracles that I can't be sure are miracles. That's not what I am doing. I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. 

What was your original belief in the supernatural based on?

I was wondering if that was going to come up. The difference was the topic was about praying for a miracle and how do you know the brain tumor was a result of healing or natural causes. 

I would make the case that the NT miracles are different because of background information. I do plan on getting around to starting a new thread on Hume's view of miracles. I can address this then. 

Natural is within this universe and made up of the material things the universe is made out of and obey a certain set of laws. The supernatural is not contingent on there even being a universe. If the universe failed to exist, God, angels, demons, whatever would still exist. This automatically creates the line you are looking for. 

IMO, we are supernatural/natural hybrids. We rely on our bodies and the physical world to develop our minds (souls). God has said that that soul/mind will outlast this body and into a new body that will not die. We will still exist in a physical world (heaven as we call it). 

That certainly is one way that you can define nature, but it's not the only way.  If supernatural things obeyed normative laws like the inverse square law, I don't see why we would distinguish one form of regularity and order of effects from another form of regularity and order of effects, especially given that your earlier remarks were that the supernatural was what nature was not.  If one is defining the supernatural as simply things which don't have a natural explanation and are not probable given what we know of natural law, that would seem to lead inescapably to an argument from ignorance.  How do you determine that gravity is a consequence of things in this universe as opposed to merely an effect caused by supernatural forces existing outside this material world?  (Indeed, some theists maintain that all natural phenomena are maintained by God.  Who am I to argue otherwise?)

The key would be not if supernatural things obeyed physical laws, it would be if they had to obey or constrained by physical laws. 

Regarding the argument from ignorance. I think you have to distinguish between a definition of a supernatural entity and a supernatural cause of a natural event--the latter being the definition of a miracle. Your example is about what makes a supernatural cause. I think one major distinction between it and natural causes is that it has no regularity/predictability/not testable. Something like gravity is extremely regular/predictable/testable. Therefore I don't think it reasonable to infer that gravity is a direct result of supernatural causes. I am a firm proponent of Methodological naturalism (I think most Christians are) when it comes to general scientific investigation of the world. The main difference is that as a Christian, I would allow for exceptions (the possibility of a miracle) when no naturalistic cause seems reasonable or likely. Can I prove any of them to a skeptic, no.