Science doesn't deal in proofs -
I don't know what you mean about that. Maybe its a matter of semantics but science is all about dealing with proof.
but when someone claims that something supernatural has interacted with the natural world, they assert its involvement in the natural world, and that claim is then beyond the merely 'supernatural',
I don't understand. I don't think anything can be beyond
and the total absence of evidence to support such claims, is something science can comment upon.
Well, first, there is not a total absence of evidence for a creator. Far from it. That evidence may not be conclusive, but it is a misrepresentation to say there is none. (And I would be happy to discuss them if you wish.) Second, you said yourself "The supernatural, by very definition, is outwith the purview of science."
If it is outside the purview of science then science cannot say anything about whether it exists or not. And to date there is no scientific, mathematical or philosophical conclusive evidence that god does not exist. If you think you know of such evidence then let's have it.
No. Science deals with the natural world. It is the basis of science that nature can be tested, poked, prodded, and that we can derive laws & rules and the like.
Right, but this in no way means that there is a basic scientific principle that says, in addition to nature there is nothing else. That is the basis for Newton's laws which always specify that they apply only in a closed system.
Don't confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
I haven't. And neither of them is based on the very principles of science that you yourself have used to define science. A presumption of naturalism of any ilk is untestable and unprovable. Science cannot be applied to principles of materialism. It is fine to believe in naturalism if you want to but it cannot be justified based on science.
It isn't based on 'faith' though.
You can call it faith or you can call it something else. It remains an untestable presupposition. If you believe it then you are taking it on faith....or whatever word you wish to use.
Science can indeed be tested, and provides repeatable results, that can be interrogated & replicated by others.
Okay. Sort of. It clearly has limits beyond which it cannot go. Heisenberg proved that.
Science enables us to put a man on the moon. If you want something equivalent from the supernatural, you'd better get bending some spoons.
No, the Kalam Cosmological Argument will do just fine. Once you've explained it away then I'll worship at the same alter as you.
For all his lofty academic credentials, Platinga is a mere apologist, not a seeker after truth.
That is a shockingly poor misrepresentation of the man who pretty much single handedly transformed the modern study of philosophy.
He starts from the basis that his religious beliefs are correct, and proceeds to assert & defend them.
That is proof enough that you have not read him or grossly misunderstand him. He, in fact, does the exact opposite. He challenges secular ideas strictly from the secular playing field. But the ironic, maybe even hypocritical thing about your statement is that is THE defining hallmark of naturalism which says, there is nothing supernatural and science must start from that vantage point.
For an intelligent man, he certainly says some very stupid things.
Such as? Find one. Just one.
No shit, Sherlock.
Please tell me how it would be possible to falsify something that is unfalsifiable?
That ball is in your court as well as mine. Naturalism is an unverifiable presumption.
Please provide evidence that Three-toed Snortiblogs don't exist. What about the Tooth Fairy? If something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave any evidence, so how do you provide the evidence to prove it doesn't exist?
I don't know where you're going with this. What is the point? But as I mentioned before, there is evidence for god. Probably not conclusive, but it is there. Again, I'm more than willing to discuss it.
And anyway, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Again, I don't know what to say about that. Even things with evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It might be wrong.....but it can still be done. And in the context of this discussion, which centers around a sense that a supernatural guidance occurred, how does this apply? You evidence that it was not supernatural is no better than his feeling that it was. Science cannot change that.
The burden of evidence rests with the person making the positive claim.
So I believe it rests with you. The OP had a feeling. You explained it away with "shit happens". You made the positive claim which in is essence is that nothing exists outside of what science can test for. And you have no proof to support your assumption. But if you wish to turn it around and say that the OP claimed that god exists, fine. But you'd be wrong. He didn't. He claimed he had a feeling. You'll have a hard time disproving that. Still and yet, if you wish to turn it around and say that I have claimed the existence of god, then again, I think you are wrong (I say I think because maybe I did and don't remember). That's fine too if you want me to make the claim so that I can defend it. I don't mind.
In the absence of such evidence, the rest of us are entitled to point & laugh if we choose. I've chosen to offer an alternative set of explanations, that doesn't require unevidenced entities/powers. A rational explanation. I can point & laugh though, if you want.
You can point and laugh and belittle all you want. That is relevant only to rudeness.
No it's not. You might choose to be offended by it, but in & of itself, it is not offensive.
I'll concede that we live in the land of the offended. But to equate a belief in god with believing in pixies is insulting. It does not matter how you or I view it. It is intended to insult and it is intended to belittle. How can it be taken any other way?
No, I don't have a religion. If you can't work out why, ask a friend.
What? Ask what friend? So again, call it what you will. But if you believe in the presuppositions of naturalism as you have said that you do then you have a belief that cannot be proved or disproved by scientific method. You have no evidence for it. No experiment can prove it right or wrong. And to add to that you accept it quite dogmatically and you resort to insults when it is challenged. Sounds like religion of the worst sort to me.
There is no science to support claims of supernatural entities, even those with names.
And, yet again, there is no science that disproves them either. Including pixies. So you can't keep hiding behind science which in this case serves neither argument.
As for the highest levels of philosophy, you're joking, right?
Well, no, I'm not kidding at all. Maybe you can explain why you ask? Is there a critical name or a text or a concept that you think I may have missed?
I had no intention of being condescending.
I'd like to believe that. But you can't really, rationally, call someone who believes in a creator god (which is most of the world's population) a believer in pixies without being insulting and condescending. Again, how can it be taken otherwise?
Unlike you, I didn't ascribe any intention to the poster I was responding to,
When did I ascribe "intention" (whatever that means) to the OP? Not a rhetorical question. Maybe I did. If so, I'd like to know if it was wrong to have done so.
Now, maybe, just maybe, we can rein-in the personalisations.
That would be nice.
I'd suggest sticking to commenting on what is said, not how you choose to hear it being said, especially given that you can't actually hear what I say.
That's fine. But that does not absolve the writer in any way, as Farmer suggested to me above. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.