Smiles - I think we were both guilty of circular reasoning Tom. And that is not a negative criticism of your arguments. As I have been following this debate, attempting to take it neither from the standpoint of there is a supernatural, and this is my proof (which is my natural position), nor from the there is not a supernatural, and I can find fault in any 'proof' you produce (which is closer to your natural place), and as well as finding it hard to write in short meaningful sentences, it is incredible hard, if not impossible to start from a neutral position.

Trying to challenge myself as I have read what you have put, I can only say that I have a lot of 'evidence' which is enough for me to be convinced that the supernatural is a very real part of the world we live in. I will admit that much of this 'evidence' is circumstantial and or based on the balance of probability, although a proportion would be hard to explain by any other means.

To me, the most difficult question is, is the evidence repeatable. In a scientific study one looks for a results which are consistent within a given set of parameters. So, although, for example, early man could not have given a scientific explanation of gravity, he could have shown that every time he let go of a stone it fell to the ground. Supernatural forces are not so predictable however. But, if one is take a psychological approach to the proof rather than a physical one, one does not expect consistent results, and we have to rely on things like balance of probability as the best proof that we can have.

Is it reasonable to apply this lower test to supernatural forces? For me, the answer is yes, because I believe that they are much closer to humans in their characteristics than to inanimate objects; so I only look for psychological level of proof.
Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
I like things that can be measured.
with an acknowledgment that I might be quoting you out of context.

You, I suspect are not prepared to accept this lower level of evidence, and therefore find the case to be unproved.

Hence my opening statement that we are both guilty of circular arguments.

Perhaps that is the real definition of faith, is one prepared to step from the circle of disbelief into the circle of belief.

cariad

edit - oh bother I realise I have just posted into this when I had promised myself I would keep out it. Where is a nice Dom with a gag when I need one...