Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
Well, something doesn't have to be scientific to be rational.
No of course not, but since the question revolves around what evidence is available, and Scientific evidence always comes up, I thought I'd rule that out right away in the OP so that I didn't have to do it on an individual basis throughout any ensuing conversation.
People can introduce any other types of evidence if they choose to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
And "science" doesn't reject the existence of the supernatural, it merely demands that all claims should be subjected to the same rigor. Or at least most traditional science does so. There are, after all, many scientists who believe in god and I find it doubtful that all of them perform some dualistic mind-exercise every time they do work.
Nor are all definitions of god non-physical.
Yes, it does. Science is applied though Methodological Naturalism, it only accepts that there is the Natural world and does not accept supernatural explanations because they are not useful. The vast majority of scientists adhere to Naturalism.
If you accept the supernatural, you are, by definition, rejecting Scientific explanations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
In short, you have added so many caveats to your question that it has become fairly uninteresting to answer.
Ouch, except that I don't agree. I used one definition, and I ruled out one source of the evidence that an answer might rel;y on. Hardly 'so many caveats'.....