Sorry to be coming into this so late, RAZD, but I gather that the issues are quite familiar to you by now...
RAZD writes:
Straggler's much hyped "inductive reasoning" is really nothing but his own intuitive thinking (guessing), and his much ballyhooed "objectively evidenced basis" is nothing more than confirmation bias that has not yet shown that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination while ignoring other possibilities.
I suppose you've probably been over this too many times already (I'm sure Straggler thinks you have), but I hope it won't be taken as off-topic if I ask: what would it take to show (to your satisfaction) that a "supernatural entity is a product of human imagination"?
I suspect that this would actually be quite simple to demonstrate, and that it has probably been demonstrated countless times -- cargo cults in the South Pacific being a fairly recent and reasonably well documented category. Do you consider the creation of gods from imagination to be something demonstrable, or not?
And are you actually trying to make a point that specific supernatural entities, as described in particular cultures and scriptures, must all be considered to have some non-zero probability of not originating from human imagination?
If that's the case, and if I understand you correctly, this would entail that you are proposing we should acknowledge the possibility that any of the countless supernatural entities (indeed any combination thereof) have in fact been described on the basis of something other than imagination -- which in turn would entail any variety of suspensions or violations of natural laws.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor correction to a quote
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.