Why must you continually state the position of others instead of asking for it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but, the claim is that your supernatural character has influence on the natural world. That would be unequivocally testable.<quoted text>
I'm not sure if you know it, but you ask the impossible.
"Proven does not equate with supernatural.
Supernatural would mean something that is outside the known natural processes of the universe and therefore is unable to be proven.
I think you've convinced yourself that if a thing cannot be proven, it does not exist. Is that correct?
We can triple down on your pretzel logic:
Atheist: There is no evidence for a god or gods.
You: Prove it
Atheist: Prove that I can't prove there is no evidence for a god or gods.
Infinite regress rears its ugly head, again.
Claiming that the supernatural, by its nature, is unprovable renders it impotent. If it is untestable then it has no effect on the natural world and is therefore a useless concept. Yes, you can dismiss this with the old mysterious god meme, or that the divine master is unknowable, but, what is most curious about that is how knowable the divine master is to the billions of self-appointed spokesmodels around the world. People sure do claim to know a lot about the unknowable. You are compartmentalizing your beliefs which results in nothing more than special pleading. I trust you proffer a more jaundiced eye to the claims of car salesmen and TV pitchmen.
When there is not sufficient evidence to support a claim, the default position should be rational skepticism if the goal is to minimize the number of false beliefs and maximize the number of true beliefs one holds. A central problem of faith is that if it can form a reasonable basis for believing one proposition without evidence, why does it not also form a reasonable basis for believing a contrary proposition? By what means can faith be discerned to lead to true beliefs, when it can be used with equal effectiveness to support conflicting propositions? One cannot argue that faith claims can be rationally evaluated in any way whatsoever to demonstrate their truth, because once faith claims are rationally considered against alternative hypotheses, the claims are either no longer held in favor of an alternative claim or no longer based on faith. If I maintain that there is no strong evidence for the presence of a divine master, you probably counter that you have faith to replace evidence. Ironically, many theists have the confidence to deny the existence of fairy tale creatures from other mythologies and cultures, and deities of other religions, for which there is likewise no strong evidence. The only common thread is cultural conditioning.
Hey, I get it. No one wants to die. The dream of the ego living forever is intoxicating. What is most curious is that the dream is always culturally conditioned.
I love when William Lane Craig equates his god to a flea. That's awesome. You can see the elephant in the courtyard, but not the flea. That doesn't mean the flea doesn't exist. Haha.