Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[possibletarian]

So I think that for many reasonable people, there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural. Among this evidence is

This should be good...

1) the obvious fact that people know very little of the world.

Okay we have many things to discover.. therefore lets see what you conclusion is and if it can be justified.

2) The fact that science seems to have no clue as to how we should approach some really big questions about reality -- e.g. what is consciousness? and why is there something rather than nothing?

What is not knowing the answer to something evidence of? 'We 'don't know' is the answer and gives us ..gives us absolutely no reason to invent a non~material world. It also raises other questions like have you ever known a consciousness apart from a physical ? , Is nothing even possible ?

(And I know some people are attached to their theories and don't agree that these are mysteries.

For good though out reasons i would say, don't forget even science used to believe much in a creation (of types) and have moved away from it because that is not where experience and evidence leads them.

But lots of scientists agree with me about consciousness.

agree about what bit ?, that they don't know what it is, sure , but again you claiming this is evidence for a non~material world which they likely would not agree with.

And in Krauss's book about why there is something rather than nothing he actually admits in the last chapter that he doesn't know.)

okay let's see where you go with this perfectly reasonable conclusion by Krauss

So if a person has a model which is skeptical of complete naturalism, and open to the idea that the supernatural is real, then these mysteries would be evidence (not proof) of the supernatural.

Even if you are sceptical of naturalism how would these lead to evidence, 'we don't knows' are just that.

Obviously to people whose models hold solely to naturalism, who have faith that all unanswered questions will have natural solutions, the lack of answers in those problems *doesn't* constitute evidence for the supernatural. They interpret the lack differently.

An unanswered question is not evidence for anything why on earth add the non~material ?

So far we haven't seen evidence for anything, simply unanswered questions, lets see where we go now.

Then there are the many many people in history who say they have had supernatural experiences. Some are fakers, some are obviously mistaken. But if we declare tout court that they are all wrong, we are doing so because a priori we have declared that only naturalism is possible. We don't know what those people experienced,

*bold mine* exactly, we don't know, so we don't need to add any inference of out of mind or non material worlds, we do know however that it was experienced through an organ that we can show is prone to delusion, can have artificially altered states, and that the experience changes according to religion, drugs, place of birth etc. This would indicate a there's much more likely to be influence from the material world. Again why conclude or consider it evidence for a non~material world ?

we haven't had the same experience. Again, for anyone whose model allows the supernatural or skepticism about pure naturalism, their testimony is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. I know that a lot of people -- especially on this forum -- have no qualms about calling anyone who disagrees with them a liar or an idiot. But I think that is having too much faith in our own judgment about things we can't know for sure.

*bold mine* It's not about faith in our own judgements it's about what we can reasonably conclude from the evidence available, sure if we are taught that such things are other worldly, we are likely to accept that, that does not mean it's evidence or proof for anything though. someone who does not have that prior belief asks for reasons to infer a non~material explanation.

So I think there is lots of evidence for the supernatural, if a person hasn't ruled it out already. If you have ruled it out already, there is no evidence.

Science does not rule anything out, it asks for evidence that does not rely on a prior belief (naturalism is not science) , also if you sincerely believe there is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, why not just say you believe ? You have become something of an expert in not saying anything at all substantial, of not committing yourself to anything , even things you say there is plenty of evidence for. It's like you have re-defined none committal as open mindness , then simply claimed everyone else should be like you.

Anyway, people are extremely limited, it's the height of arrogance to imagine that we can understand more than a tiny fraction of the world, and over-confident conclusions about things we don't really know are just self-promoting fantasies.

If we don't know, yet claim without evidence a non material world to is a fantasy !
Arrogance is not saying 'We don't know' it's saying without proof or reasonable evidence that we do

OK, I'll drop it now.

Okay dokey