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

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think we've about covered it. So I'll sum up. Whether anyone wants it or not.

Why would someone admit something that isn't true 

 

...And since science is carried out by humans (despite its near divine status on this forum) if people can't comprehend it then science can't answer it.

...Unless someone wanted to define "natural" as "that which humans can know through empirical means." I think that would be a little unusual for science-type people, but not without precedent.

And a heap of straw man and silliness that's corrected over and over

---

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

So such evidence exists

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

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

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?

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

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

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

But lots of scientists agree with me about consciousness.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

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.)

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural ( i can just keep repeating this really )

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.

No they will be evidence this persons model needs work 

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.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

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,

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural .And experiences don't demonstrate the supernatural 

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.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

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.

You have failed to give any evidence just lots of "i don't know therefore the supernatural "

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.

Ignorance does not demonstrate the supernatural 

OK, I'll drop it now.

Do so because your awful at arguing for it