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

Because they predicted so. The hypothetico-deductive method in action.The theistic claim in question was that those closest to GOD would be imbued with supernatural healing powers.Lo and behold priests all around the world are suddenly and verifiably able to heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and so on and so forth. The Pope is verifiably able to resurrect the dead.In such a scenario to say that the theistic supernatural claim in question remains as objectively unevidenced as it does without the regrown limbs and raised dead bodies, to say that scientifically verified occurrances of these events have no evidential relevance to the claim at hand, is clearly idiotic. An act of obstinacy gone mad.Especially from someone whose threshold for evidencing supernatural claims usually lies as low as accepting voices inside peoples heads.

So in our scenario we have a video recording of GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) undertaking supernatural feats in laboratory conditions.In the scenario described we have physical evidence of the supernatural. What does my personal knowledge have to do with whether that video recording really is of GOD or not? If it is GOD, as it is in the scenario as defined, then we have physical evidence of the supernatural. My knowledge has no bearing on the scenario described.You continue to conflate "I will never accept evidence of the supernatural" with "evidence of the supernatural can never physically exist" Neither my beliefs nor your filing system preferences have any relevance as to whether physical evidence of the supernatural can exist.Stop conflating the acceptance of evidence with the possible existence of evidence.Let's look at something you said to Numbers earlier: So the recording of GOD from our scenario ends up in your "unknown" folder. But even if I'm long dead and you never move that recording from your "unknown" folder, evidence of the supernatural still exists because that recording of GOD undertaking supernatural feats still exists.Your acceptance of, and the possible existence of, evidence are not the same thing. Stop conflating the two.

The reason that it is not sound is because sound reasoning requires sound premises. Starting with a sound premise is part of the reasoning process. Thinking that you can know something that you can not support with any empirical evidence is faulty reasoning.

Fixed.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

No, in your scenario you have a recording that you claim is GOD.It is reasonable to ask you yet again how you know it is GOD.I am not saying the evidence of the supernatural cannot exist, I am saying I cannot see anyway evidence of the supernatural could exist.

Within the context of trying to understand reality, what other kind is there?

There is always something that is beyond our capacity to define it.

You're conflating. Premises are essentially separate from the reasoning based on those premises. You can reason badly on good premises and you can reason well on bad premises.Reasoning based on the premise that gods exist can be perfectly sound - only the conclusions are suspect because the premise is suspect.

Fixed again.Reality, of course, is that which is realempirical or not.If the phenomenon you seek to investigate is wholly and entirely non-empirical, then trying to determine whether it is real or not by applying empirical standards is crappy investigatingor simply dishonest.You can't use a ruler to measure the brightness of the Sun.

The premise must be falsifiable in order to be worked on by the reasoning process. This is the first boundary if you are bound by logic.

I agree that reality is what it is regardless of whether or not we can 'prove' it. The only part that we can 'know' is real is the part that we can 'prove'. If the phenomenon is wholly and entirely non-empirical then there is nothing to investigate and no way to investigate it.

The truth of the premise is assigned by a separate reasoning process. For a given reasoning "session" (e.g. a syllogism) the premises and the reasoning itself are independent.

One is either doing science or not. Why? can you distiquish something supernatural causing a tree to fall from a tree falling naturally? So your criteria is based on apriori conclusions that it is not supernatural but rather unknown. The cause of the supernatural is unknown. You are simply concluding ahead of time that there is no supernatural. Which is a popular position, but does not a convincing argument make. It is the argument strategy, reductio ad absurdium and the fallacy of incredulity.

A separate reasoning event but the process is the same.

So we have established that a recording of GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) undertaking supernatural feats could conceivably exist.We have established that it's not definitionally impossible for physical evidence of the supernatural (e.g. the video recording of GOD in the scenario) to exist.But we have also established that your personal filing preferences would mean that this recording of GOD undertaking supernatural feats would never ever end up in your "supernatural" folder. Even if it was the real deal. Even if it were GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) on that recording it would still never cause you to open your "supernatural folder".So it' not that the supernatural cannot be evidenced. It's that you would never accept any evidence even if it existed anyway.Those are quite different things jar. Let's not conflate the two eh?