I've read through some of the posts and it seems to be spiraling in a hundred different directions at once.
Perhaps I am wrong here, but as I understand it, you are asking basically -
"Is there any evidence for things that are supernatural in nature?"
But if that's what you're asking, it's a self destructive question.
If we had evidence for something supernatural, that evidence would have to be natural (ie we see it, we touch it, we measure it). If we have natural evidence for something, then the thing that we have evidence for is itself natural. So the presence of evidence would disqualify something as being supernatural.
We can have belief in something which is supernatural. We can have theories about something which is supernatural. We can have faith in it, or ideas about it, or reasoning behind it, etc. But these things are not evidence.
The opposite question - "Do we have evidence against something supernatural?" Has the same flaw, plus another one.
You are asking us to prove the negative. That's nearly impossible. For example, "do we have evidence against Bigfoot?" What would evidence against bigfoot be? We'd have to clearcut the entire pacific northwest and go inch by inch checking under rocks to prove that it wasn't there.
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 10-03-2005 01:17 PM