Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[downbeatplumb]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.

No supernatural event has ever been discovered. To continue to believe in them is like believing there is a unicorn just round the corner, not thinking it is a vague possibility but believing there is one. Without evidence for unicorns the rational thing is to not believe in them.