You asked for examples of supernatural explanations making accurate predictions, which I provided. If you refuse to evaluate that evidence because of your bias against this organization, then you no longer have a valid point. We are at an impasse here.
Then we are at an impasse. I have visited AIG in the past and every time have found their "science" to be malarkey and wishful thinking. Sometimes it is outright deception. So, we are going to have to look at the point from another perspective.
We use science. We apply it. People crab about relativity being wrong, but then why is it successfully applied to telecommunications? We rely on general relativity and its predictions about time for our telecommunication satellites to function. Science uses theories of light refraction to make computer chips. If the science was wrong, computers would not function. Science uses germ theory to combat illness. We no longer try to exorcise evil spirits to affect people's health because it is a monumental failure. At least, most of us recognize that.
How does anything rely on creation predictions in a similar fashion?
If that assumption is thrown away, and the evidence includes potential catastrophes, then there are things to indicate that they were close together 4000 years ago.
? things? What things? Everything I have seen indicates otherwise. According to most YECs I've talked to, the Flood allegedly laid down the strata in which fossils are encased. If that is true, where are the human fossils? Why is Stonehenge (build in the 25th century BCE) not buried? Why was it not disturbed by the massive earthquakes that would accompany a fast continental drift?
Sorry, burnish, but this is baloney.
It got more than a few things right. The interesting thing is, Eygpt had the most advanced institutions in the entire world, including medicine, at the time. Many of their techniques are detailed in the Ebers Papyrus. You'll find that much of their medicine involves spell casting and rubbing dung into your wound. Now, it is written that Moses was educated in all of knowledge of the day, yet you won't find a single iota of their medical practices in the bible. The bible in fact repudiates much of their superstitutions.
So not including a neighbor's superstitious claptrap counts as getting things right? For one, the bible does not repudiate superstition. It just promotes a different brand of it. What is a prayer but casting a spell? Begging the supernatural to alter reality is working magic. Numbers 5 includes instructions how to make a magic truth potion.
And for two, the point that the hebrew religion made no major or minor contribution to general knowledge or understanding of the universe still stands.
I haven't glossed over anything; I provided evidence and you refuse to look at it.
I've seen your evidence before and it is bogus. You have avoided the point that whenever natural explanations have gone up against supernatural ones, natural has won. Radios are not powered by angels or faeries. Lightning is not sent from either Zeus or Thor. Mental illness is caused by chemical or structural problems in the brain and not by demonic possession.
That which cannot be empirically proven.
I took that to be your meaning. I was looking for examples.
It is halfway the point because you are basing your point on the assumption of the uniformity of nature.
That is how theories work. You look for cases where they fail.
You didn't, though. We can never know if there is uniformity in nature no matter how many times we observe something. Why should the future be like the past? Because of the past? Therefore, the constancy of our observations cannot rule out agency because we don't know if it has ever changed or ever will change.
Your agents appear to function as laws, so there is no reason to posit them in the first place. They are unnecessary and do not add to the explanation.
I'm not using either, or any argument to prove agency here. My entire contention is that you cannot disprove it by describing how the Universe works, and this is partly the reason.
I don't need to disprove it because there is no reason to consider it in the first place. The only reason you consider agents in the first place is because of tradition. If we believe mermaids created the oceans since the dawn of time, you would be arguing with me we cannot rule them out. Yet, there is no good reason to believe mermaids exist in the first place. So we end up spinning our wheels arguing about pointless agents that have been designed to be impossible to disprove because their promoters are emotionally attached to them. Thank you and your ilk for holding back human progress.
And that is the problem with your position and with the idea of disproving entities. You keep pushing an imaginary solution and then saying it has to be considered. But if that is true, then every imaginary hobgoblin also has to be considered. And an infinite number of imaginary people can be construed that are impossible to disprove. Do you say the same for Thor? Quetzacouatal? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Must they really be considered until disproven? If not, you are not being consistent
You can just boil the question down to its most basic forms, such as: "Was the Universe designed?". To put it another way, you cannot rule out a designer until you describe origins.
That is a dodge.
And if you are correct, then you cannot rule out a whole team of designers. Nor the contractors they hired to build the universe. Nor the subcontractors. Nor the code enforcement agents. Nor the financiers. Who financed the universe, burnish? Until you describe origins, you cannot rule them out.
You could rule out God by explaining how something came from nothing or describing the eternal first cause of everything.
Unlikely. I kind of feel like I can rule god out by asking how god came from nothing or what it's first cause was. when you say, "nothing, god just always was," I do not get the impression I am talking to an adult.
Because there is ample evidence the Universe is not eternal and has a beginning.
Explain this to me. I have no idea what any of that means. I suspect you don't either. Geodesically incomplete? Unless you actually understand the physics, you are just linking something that appears to agree with you and attempting to baffle me with bullshit.
You stated something you couldn't prove, and so did I.
No, no. I said something with strong evidence for it - brain damage, brain diseases, etc. - that has some cases that warrant more investigation.
You said something utterly unprovable by definition.
How so? If a man can have 129 iq and pass college courses and live a normal live with 5 millimeters of cerebral tissue on his spinal cord, how does this not minimize the idea that you need a brain to have a mind?
Then I guess you won't mind me removing all but 5mm of your brain?
Because our spirit uses the brain to interact with the world and if the conduit is damaged then the connection will get screwy.
But you've not yet demonstrated a spirit. You have posited something without cause to. It is a gaps argument based on primitive tradition.
I'm pointing out that according to the dictionary, there is nothing wrong with ascribing a mind to something non-physical. A being doesn't necessarily need a physical body.
But the dictionary does not show that this is so. Until you can demonstrate a bodyless personality, you are up shit creek.
edit - forgot blue text in OP.