From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 1/20/26 5:18 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
      
   [snip a lot, since I'm pretty much jumping in the middle.]   
      
   > We are talking about the supernatural. If material properties could be   
   > identified then it would no longer be supernatural. I'm not sure why   
   > you seem to struggle to understand that.   
      
   How do you define "supernatural"?  In particular, how can it be   
   distinguished from "make-believe"?   
      
   >> How does that relate to "forensic evidence" that you talked about?   
   >   
   > Scientific conclusions are supported by forensic *and* circumstantial   
   > evidence whereas religious beliefs are supported only by   
   > circumstantial evidence. The justice system uses forensic when   
   > available but often relies mainly or solely on circumstantial   
   > evidence. That reliance on circumstantial evidence does not undermine   
   > the reliability of its conclusion; the same principle applies to   
   > religious belief.   
      
   I'm not comfortable with using the term "circumstantial evidence" for   
   religious beliefs. "Evidence" carries the implication that it can be   
   generalized from one person to another, but that doesn't happen reliably   
   with religion. A fundamental aspect of religion is that it is personal.   
   What person A says about their god cannot be applied to person B's god.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)