If you meant it less specific than I do know. Evidence is observable, recreational facts for the existence of the supernatural. Whatever it may look like.

I think it is on you. The supernatural remains unproven to you.

It is worth thinking about what you would need to see in order to either accept or reject a factual claim-- yes a faith claim that million others are claiming.

Like scientists who venture into discovery, they create for themselves a measure or standard to determine existence of creatures, or bacteria, or matter, black holes, anti-matter, etc. I think the question of whether the supernatural exists, you should also determine for yourself what constitutes that claim.

Seeking existence of the supernatural... with naturalistic evidence? This has been argued and debated on for years, decades, centuries. May I point out the fallacy of that pursuit, with its own self defeating logic? How can you use naturalistic pursuit (study of matter, physical experiments) to prove the supernatural?

By definition, it is supernatural, something that transcends the natural. If you could use natural scientific method... then you will always find something non-supernatural.

I doubt the answer lies in "natural evidence", but in something else.

Proof is not a subjective thing. I know what you wanna say, but thats incorrect.
Yes, science determines standards of measurement - of course they do, because what they need is reliability. what they test needs to be always tested with the same parameters.

Let me say this: How should I know how to prove something that has never been proven? Why would it be on me?

Again, it is not on me to prove the claim others make. I consider things that are either proven to be true or evidential to their point or the way to truth if you can follow me (sry for my english).
The age of the universe is such a thing if I may explain. The age of the universe is proven, but it is only a way to truth, it doesnt tell me what happened before that. So its just a pathway, but certainly one to take serious.

Are you rejecting the supernatural or neutral towards the supernatural?

If you are lacking evidence, it may be that you are neutral towards it. Not necessarily rejecting the supernatural, right?

In order to reject the supernatural, you might have some counterclaim to the existence of the supernatural, right?

Many are neutral skeptics.

Continuing the thought, what do you think about my comment regarding finding the supernatural with natural evidence is self defeating?

That point is of course not unfamiliar to me, but I dont see potential to argue about it a lot.
If the supernatural cant be proven naturalisitically then find another way to prove things, I dont care how you do it.

Why believe it if you cant find evidence for it?

No I am not rejecting the supernatural, because that would mean I have proof against it, which I dont have.

Proof for natural existence is not a subjective thing, I agree. We have determined with the vigor of scientific theory that reproducible evidence is required to prove natural, observable things.

I think the supernatural is outside of the realm of this logic however.

“Why believe it if you don’t have evidence then?”

This is the core of the meaning of faith. A bit of a plot twist, all faith believers don’t have “certainty” when it comes to the supernatural, unlike the “certainty” that we have with living and physical things.

For example, I don’t need faith to believe my mom exists. I know she exists.

However, I need faith to believe in the supernatural. It isn’t blind faith, there is indeed evidence, but it’s not to the point of scientific certainty. The level of faith that determines my belief in the supernatural is accomplished by a different standard. A similar standard to how we approach other faith items in life.

I totally agree with you, but thats were our standards split. Faith is not for me and that is the point of this discussion.

I dont believe something that I dont know to be true - especially not if its of importance. I do not discuss here to tell you what you should believe, I am only here to explain WHY I do not believe in a god figure.
I set the same standards for everything in life. I always follow truth.

I personally think that humanity should always and without exception do things that way, but thats just my opinion.

Actually, I think you do govern your life with a percentage of faith, daily, weekly and monthly. Although each of those will vary to the degree of how much faith we are talking about, but there is faith nonetheless.

You believe you will wake up tomorrow, healthy and alive. Do you really know with 100% certainty you will? Is there a percentage chance that you may not? Even 1 in a trillion chance you won’t?

Do you drive a car? Is there faith that you won’t get into a car accident?

Or how about the food you eat, do you know it’s not poisoned?

You might scoff at these examples as dumb things you don’t need faith for, but I argue you have reasonable faith to believe you will wake up tomorrow, you won’t get into a car accident, and the food you eat is actually free of any poisons.

Reasonable faith is how each person lives and governs their life. I argue there is reasonable faith for the supernatural as well.