Do we have evidence against the supernatural?

I think the evidence would be of this form:

• The concept of an afterlife has a human origin;
• There was no empirical evidence to support that concept;
• It is known that scammers offer prizes that seem too good to be true.

No. No. No. We make physical notations, and we say that the notation is a representation of the number 465. Then we interact with that representation. But we don't interact with the actual number 465 (if there even is such a thing).

Or perhaps we would simply modify what we mean by "natural" to include this new thing.

Why would that be required?Quasars and pulsars were accepted as part of nature before any plausible explanations were given. I seem to recall that pulsars were originally called LGM (little green men) because they were unexplained. I don't see why it would not fit into nature.If there were merely assertions of such a being, with no actual physical evidence, in that case it would not fit into nature.

Certainly not. It is going to depend on what sort of god this is. If it is a deistic god that started everything up, then stepped back and allowed nature to take care of itself, then you can reasonably say that this is a supernatural god. But if you have a god who continually and repeatedly meddles with nature (creating a global flood, manually controlling the direction of evolution, impregnating a virgin), then you have a god that is very much a part of nature, perhaps even a pantheistic god.The trouble with YECs is that they want it both ways. They want to insist that their god is supernatural, yet they also want to insist that their god meddles with nature.The creationists are, in effect, painting themselves into a corner. You can think of a room, and somebody painting the floor. The painters are the scientists, who are spreading naturalist paint over all that they discover. The supernatural is the part that is left as unpainted. YECs complain that science ignores the supernatural. But science is not ignoring anything. Science is systematically painting the entire room, and "supernatural" simply refers to the part that they haven't yet got to. At some future time, human consciousness will be given a scientific explanation. After that, there will be very little left in the supernatural (i.e. unpainted) part of the room.

Sure.In your earlier response (Message 11) you said:

• The concept of no afterlife has a human origin;
• There was no empirical evidence to support that concept;
• It is known that scammers offer that seem too good to be true.

It always seemed to me that the idea of no afterlife was the default assumption. I assume that when children see their pet cat or dog die, they do not expect any afterlife for that cat or dog. And I assume that when they first stumble upon a case of human death, they likewise do not expect there to be an afterlife.I admit that I have no evidence to back up this opinion. Certainly, some cultures have a concept of an afterlife. Others have a concept of reincarnation, which is a modified concept of afterlife.I'm not sure how you would ever investigate what is the default assumption. By the time children have reached an age where they might think about the question, they have already been indoctrinated by the assumptions of the culture.Apologies if this isn't much of a response. That's why I didn't reply initially.