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

Ask jar how a supernatural hypothesis can be evdenced. Show me what I can know.A major source of confrontation here seems to be then massive difference in what people "know". Look at CS's posts for that.

But what do we actually test? We don’t test the natural. We test a hypothesis. More specifically - We test the predictions of a hypothesis.Ditto for the supernatural. We don't test "the supernatural". We test the predictions of the hypothesis in question.Which part of this is confusing you?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. You are conflating a scientific explanation with objective empirical evidence that something exists.In my scenario we have objective empirical evidence of the supernatural hypothesis in question (i.e. GOD imbuing the devout with miraculous healing powers). We have predictable testable cause and effect.But that doesn't mean the healing powers in question have a scientific explanation or that GOD has now transformed into "natural" somehow.Why do supermnatural things have to be random rather than predictable? Who says so? That seems contradictory.

All knowledge, most definitley scientific knowlegde, is both tenative and fallible.Whether pertaining to the past present or future. Can you know the past?Do you know that the world wasn't created 5 seconds ago fully formed and inclusive of all our memories? Or do you believe that?Can you know the present?Are you dreaming? Do you know you aren't? Or do you believe that you aren't?Your use of the term "know" imposes unachievable restrictions of certainty that are entirely pointless.We can know rather than believe when the next eclipse will occur in the same way that we can know rather than believe that evolution occurred. Past or future has little bearing here.We know lots of things that might be wrong. FallibilismThis is a basic tenet of scientific investigation.

I have no idea what accountability has to do with anything here. It's simply a question of whether or not supernatural agents (if such things exist) can in principle be objectively evidenced or not.The question remains - Why is it not conceivably possible for this to occur?If GOD (the supernatural creator of all that is seen and unseen) chose to come to us in material form and undertake miracles that can be witnessed by anyone, video recorded etc. etc. - Then why couldn't this conceivably happen?What "by definition" attribute of supernatural GOD makes this scenario impossible?I would have thought Christians would be quite receptive to that idea....? Instead they seem to recoil in horror at the idea that objective evidence ever could occur and prefer to stick to visions and voices type "evidence". Why is that?