And it seems to be a minimal standard to me.<quoted text>
I'm inclined to agree that natural causes should be considered before supernatural causes. But insisting that supernatural causes have to be testable to verify their existence seems extreme to me.
Let's analyze this a bit more closely, shall we? Is this movement a movement of energy? matter? anything detectable? If it is energy or matter, how do you deal with the resulting lack of conservation of energy in *this* plane of existence? If it is not energy, in what sense is there motion?If there are supernatural beings, they must be capable of free movement between our time/space existence and another plane of existence.
And what, exactly, are these 'fair criteria'? How do you account for the extra energy of heat or sound? That again would be a violation of conservation of energy. How would you account for a sound wave being generated? By what process? Why in our hearing range? Temperature changes also show a dramatic energy shift. Again, that would be a substantial violation of conservation of energy.Paranormal investigators use thermal scanners and sound recording equipment, and have developed fair criteria to determine whether or not an event is natural or supernatural. The methodologies are constantly being evaluated and improved to look for fraudulent practices in the field environment.
Of course, you can regain conservation of energy *if* you decide to consider the 'supernatural events' as actually being natural events subject to physical laws. Either way, we know the physical items in the environment obey such laws and that is a fundamental problem for anything regarding a supernatural.
Vague or anecdotal evidence is known to be fallible to a high degree. That is true even for 'natural' phenomena. Without a *very* good reason to supernatural, it *would* be insufficient evidence. In particular, dramatic claims (a non-physical existence) require dramatic evidence.I find that the charge of "insufficient evidence" is too much of a convenient argument. It appears to be a philosophical and emotional escape hatch for the atheist who doesn't wish to find himself or herself cornered by evidence that is difficult to refute.
If 'subjective value' is a significant effect in analyzing the evidence, then the evidence is insufficient.It allows for too much "subjective value" which is emotionally based at the core, while grasping for whatever naturalist philosophies will support the atheistic worldview.
Let's do it this way: what sort of experiment would suffice to show that a supernatural does NOT exist? What sort of experiment would suffice to show it *does* exist?