Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

You're ahead of RAZD, but I'll explain how I've done this.You've read about the creation stories I've mentioned. Here's how to do a "Fisherian" statistical test on them in relation to my theory.We take the bluegenes "they are human inventions/figments of our imagination" hypothesis as the null hypothesis. Then, if you want to use an alternative hypothesis, the most challenging is probably "one or more of them is true".Then we take 100 of the stories, and examine each one in relation to our modern scientific knowledge in areas like cosmology, geology and biology.The result, I can tell you, is that all the stories are demonstrably false, and the null hypothesis passes with 100% score on that particular test, indicating high confidence.On your other point. There was nothing wrong with cell theory when it was first stated as universal. Its future could not be predicted, but it has no problem adapting to the few exceptions made.It was based on good observations, and could afford to be brash.My theory is the same. Speculating as to whether an adjusted version would arise if it were falsified in its present state is irrelevant at this point. It would become relevant when and if the existence of something that can be described as a supernatural being is verified beyond all reasonable doubt.BTW, your alternative "humans invent gods" is a verifiable fact, and even if it weren't, couldn't be a scientific theory because it would be unfalsifiable (who could demonstrate that no human ever invented a god?).Also, I must say, that you're demonstrating in a few posts a far more concise and comprehensible criticism of the theory than RAZD seems to manage in a book's worth of words, even though I disagree with you entirely!

That might possibly be the case if the claims were made by non-natural entities.If they're made by humans, though, then see my sub-title.We, and our claims and beliefs, are always subject to scientific examination.

But that's really the point, Jon. With claims about the supernatural, unlike other claims, it has not yet been established that there's a real difference between the two.

The reason you're confused is that Straggler is telling you that he does not consider supernatural beings to be imperceptible by definition.You quote him in another post saying: Note the "If the supernatural concept under consideration" bit.You seem to be taking this as meaning that "immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable" is part of his definition of all things supernatural, rather than the description of just one specific supernatural concept he's discussing.