Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

No, those are functions of our sensory system. The brain them processes the information from our senses. And yes, of course, the senses can be fooled: our senses do not pick up perfect information and the subsequent processing is frequently 'best possible guess'. But that is precisely why we look at all sensory modalities, make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses. In other words, we use the scientific method.

That this doens't seem amenable to a 'supernatural' is *your* problem, not mine. For me, it just means that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.

The scientific method isn't applied to the supernatural.  If you don't know what it's function is, then how can you claim to use it?  The scientific method is used to study relationships between two or more variables within the natural world.

So back to the pressing question.  What would you consider to be evidence?

If you're locked it to something as being an "incoherent concept", then there would also be no point since you've already come to a conclusion.

It's not a "problem" for me, because I'm just as content as to not provide evidence if what said evidence would have to be isn't clearly defined.  If it is defined, then it's worth my consideration to possibly come up with evidence, but I can't know that until you clarify.

No, the scientific method can be used to analyze and test any observed patterns whatsoever. There is no a priori restriction to some 'natural world'. In fact, the order is exactly the opposite: the natural world is that for which the scientific method works.

I already gave what I would consider to be evidence. i am also not 'locked into' the concept of a supernatural being incoherent. I have simply never seen a coherent definition of the concept.

It is a problem for you because the scientific method can apply to *any* observations and *any* patterns found from such observations. So, for science to be unable to study a subject, there has to be *no* observable patterns and *no* way to test those patterns. At that point, I wonder what it means to even make a claim that there is something there to study.

---

Out of curiosity, what logical fallacy can you identify in the quoted post?  Additionally, what's the problem with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I never asserted that I would provide evidence.  Additionally, I never offered anything as evidence.  His statement assumes that I did or that it was insufficient.

To this point is is something that is on the table for consideration, but I'm not going to go in circles about something being evidence if it can't be viewed objectively.  If not, there's no point to it, because it can simply be implied that the evidence wasn't acceptable.  If it's defined ahead of time, then I have criteria for any evidence I would need to assert if I choose to.

A claim made without evidence can be discarded as nonsense without evidence.