I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

You are correct. Supernatural can be falsified but not verified. Because the hypothesis is unverifiable.I believe that at least one supernatural being is capable of causing a water to wine transformation yet if I put that forward as a potentially true hypothesis I would think I was a fool, charlatan or conman.

I didn't actually say that. I said "testing doesn't mean proving".We cannot know whether or not a supernatural hypothesis of any kind will ever be verified, all we can say is that none ever have been. But that doesn't mean that they aren't classed as verifiable. Verifiable and falsifiable are hypotheticals relating to the nature of claims. ("There is dark matter" would probably be considered verifiable but not practically falsifiable, and "there isn't dark matter" to be falsifiable but not practically verifiable, for example). Would you like to verify that hypothesis? Or are you a fool, charlatan, or con-man?Your general view that supernatural hypotheses can never be verified should be stated as a hypothesis itself, rather than as a iron cast conclusion. It can be supported by the observation that no supernatural hypothesis ever has been verified. You would be using the scientific method to test your hypothesis against observed reality, and making a reasonable inference about the supernatural, and why should that mean you are fool, charlatan or con-man? If you put forward a supernatural hypothesis merely on the basis of your Faith, I'd be inclined to agree. But you wouldn't be doing that in my scenario.

Why?Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable?If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations?

You have spent this entire thread making a distinction between that which is "accepted" and that which is "believed". You have based this distinction on whether or not there exists a detectable cause. I quote: You then raised the issue of religious experiences and when I asked if these had a detectable cause or not you cited religious experiences as the subjectively detectable cause of religious experiences......So the question here is - Are those who embrace God as the cause of these subjective experiences expressing a "belief" or an "acceptance"?

You case is no different than a whole bunch of actual examples and whether or not you realize it is put forward merely on the basis of your Faith.How is your scenario any different than any other claimed miracle? We can see the wine just as we can see the Virgin Mary in the grilled cheese but where is there any test for the supernatural>

Why can't you tell me how one tests the supernatural?

From a non-believer's viewpoint it's a belief. From a believer's viewpoint it could be either a belief or an acceptance. Those who "know" their god exists, those who claim to have "evidence" for their god, they accept the existence of their god in the same way they (or I) accept gravity. Those who admit there is no objective evidence for their god will likely also admit that their beleif is only a belief and they will likely make a distinction between believing in their god and accepting gravity.

Asked and answered. But here is the answer again - Using the methods of science. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, verification, falsification etc.Why on Earth do you think these same methods cannot be applied? Why?Why can't scientific methods be applied to anything which is detectable?If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to make himself empirically detectable to us why would we be unable to apply the methods of science to those empirical observations?

So basically this "accept" or "believe" distinction you have been making this entire thread is just an expression of what one's initial beliefs are.That seems pretty epistemologically useless.

It's different because we can verify that an event has happened that breaks established physical laws. Other similar claims (Jesus doing the same trick on a small scale, for example) cannot be established to have happened. The virgin in grilled cheese is perfectly in keeping with natural chemistry. That's where the "fools" in your "fools, charlatans or con-men" come in. Only fools can see an ordinary event like that as a miracle. It's not only ordinary, but if enough grilled cheese is made, it's inevitable. It would be impossible to establish, but it would make more sense to claim a miracle if the shape of a woman in a headdress had never appeared in grilled cheese!Here's another important distinction. There's a massive difference between a "we don't currently know exactly how it happened" situation in chemistry, like the origin of life, and a situation that actually breaks physical rules. That's why I had to make up an example, because there isn't actually any phenomenon that has been definitely established that smashes our physics apart in the way that the lakes to wine example would.

Again, you just post word salad, utter nonsense.How is supernatural distinguished from natural?Until you can tell me what scientific methods are used to do that I will just wait for someone else to post.

But you have not shown a situation that breaks the rules, only a made up situation that we cannot explain under our current knowledge.As with Straggler, when you can convince me of a way to distinguish between something that is simply unexplained and something that is supernatural I'll just wait.

No. Can't you distinguish between currently unexplained (the formation of the rings of Saturn) and breaking the rules (a body of water spontaneously and instantly transforming into something it does not have the physical potential to become). The scientific method. If you can use it to demonstrate positively that something cannot happen by natural physical processes beyond all reasonable doubt, and you can verify that it has happened, then you've identified the supernatural beyond all reasonable doubt.The problem isn't that we can't say with high confidence that lots of things (like the Great Lakes to wine scenario) can't happen, it's just that any interventionist supernatural beings that there may be haven't obliged us by doing any of them. They seem to always keep within the parameters of naturalistic possibility, which is very restrained of them.

No, I can't see a difference.Remember, as a theist I take that position. Ah, straight out of the YEC playbook.Abiogenesis could not have happened.Only a fool, a charlatan or con-man would claim to have identified the supernatural even in your scenario.

Oh dear! What position? That miracles couldn't be identified by observation isn't a position derived from theism. It's you who is thinking like a creationist, not surprisingly, because you are a type of creationist. YECs may have Faith that abiogenesis could not have happened, but that has nothing to do with demonstrating positively that it can't by the scientific method. The formation of chemical self-replicators on the early earth doesn't break any scientific laws. The transformation of the great lakes into wine does.You don't seem to be able to differentiate between a completely unsupported claim (abiogenesis can't happen) and a very well supported claim (the great lakes couldn't transform spontaneously and instantaneously into wine). That claim is based on the type of mistake I've just described, isn't it?