Do we have evidence against the supernatural?

This is where you lose me completely. Could you direct me to the peer-reviewed literature on fairy interactions, etc.?You are going to have to come up with a more coherent definition of "supernatural" if this discussion is going to go anywhere.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Yes. Very unclear. God is usually considered to be supernatural, so IF GOD EXISTS, is He/She/It a "being which interacts with the natural world" or not? I would think that creation of the natural world and destruction of it via flood, etc. would be considered interaction with it, would they not?I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make between hypothetical entities. What is the fundamental difference between a god and a fairy?As for the "afterlife", exactly what is it that is "super"natural about that?Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about. Without a clear definition of "supernatural", I'll have to do my impression of Lam and say "ARG! Goodbye."

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That's what I'm asking you."Of or relating to existence outside the natural world" tells me exactly nothing. How is it different from the natural world? How can we detect the difference?You've thrown out all the examples you've been given - fairies, gods, etc. - so what are you talking about when you say "supernatural"? That's exactly what I'm getting at. How can I provide evidence against a hypothetical entity if you can't tell me anything about that hypothetical entity? Or even what type of hypothetical entity you mean? Where am I supposed to look for evidence? Again, that's a completely arbitrary distinction. Why define one thing "outside" the physical world and another "inside" it? Ever hear of mediums? Out-of-body experiences? Some people do believe we can interact with the "afterlife". Sorry, but your test doesn't work.You're talking as if the "supernatural" is something that is monolithic, that everybody understands and agrees on. It isn't. Unless you can tell us what you mean by the supernatural, there's no basis for discussion.The question is "Do we have any evidence against the supernatural?" Unless you specify what the "supernatural" is - rather than what it is not - you might as well ask "Do we have any evidence against 1538302753?"(Standing by to type "ARG!" )

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

To me, this is the crux of the whole debate: How can you define something only in terms of what it is "not"?Before we could detect them, x-rays were "not physical". Does that mean they were spiritual? Even today, x-rays are "physical" only in the effects which we can detect.Give us a definition - or even a description - of what the "supernatural" or "spiritual" is. Until then, everything is the not-yet-understood physical.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.