Philosophy Versus Science

[Sheldon]

Here are you claiming that "science" and the "natural realm" are contiguous? That is, in your view anything in the "natural realm" is something science can have evidence for? 

The claim that science can't examine or detect the non-natural isn't a philosophical claim. It's a religious one that's frequently trotted out by apologists. 

I am inclined to agree, and the only poster championing philosophy in this thread can't give a single example of what he categorises "evidence" that is beyond the remit of science or the natural realm. 

To date, religion has thoroughly failed to even identify what non-natural evidence might consist of, much less how anybody would ever apply it, much less anything that they'd apply it to. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to define into being some relevance for their superstitions.

I don't think it is an accident that religious apologetics retreat into unfalsifiable claims when subjected to critical examination. Most apologists I encounter don't seem to understand that implying your argument has veracity because it can't be falsified or an alternative explanation offered is fallacious. 

Belacqua Wrote: As I recall you insist on Objective Evidence. I have a broader view of what may increase the credibility of a proposition.

You set a lower bar for credulity than do I, as is your right, but what's odd is when you were asked for one example of evidence that is outside of the remit of science to examine or the natural realm, you didn't offer anything but a string of straw man claims I'd not made? 
Again for context this was your original assertion to another poster:

Quote:

Belacqua  if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

You surely must be able to offer one example of such evidence, so we can at least judge what it is you are decrying others for being dubious about.

One can apply the term evidence to just about anything, so please clarify with at least one example of what it is you think constitutes evidence, that is beyond the remit of science to examine?