YOU don't. That doesn't mean that something you don't know about doesn't somewhere.
To make blanket statements and think they apply to all places for all time, you would have to know everything, everywhere, for all time and eternity. You don't. The only way to conclusively say what you're claiming is if you were omniscient, and you aren't.
If something exists in nature it is natural whether we understand it or not.
Making your life experiences the standard by which to measure and judge everything boxes you in. It does not allow for an honest, objective appraisal of the world around you. Restricting the explanations of phenomena to completely *natural* ones does the same thing.
It amounts to willful blindness, much like the person who plugs their ears and sings, *La, la,la, laaaaaaa, I can't hear you.....*
It's also working on the presumption that you are correct in your interpretation of the evidence and since you are within the system (of nature) so to speak, it is impossible to step outside it and be truly objective about what is observed and the source or reason for an event happening.
But this is not new ground. You've been told this before.
So, why don't you tell me what is "supernatural"? Isn't that what I asked you before?
To make blanket statements and think they apply to all places for all time, you would have to know everything, everywhere, for all time and eternity.
You mean like the blanket statements made by those who call themselves "believers?" Do you know everything, everywhere and for all eternity?
The only way to conclusively say what you're claiming is if you were omniscient, and you aren't
Are you?
Making your life experiences the standard by which to measure and judge everything boxes you in.
My stranded is your standard too, presuming you are human, of course, and not some bird mimicking speech.
It does not allow for an honest, objective appraisal of the world around you
And talking donkeys and snakes do?
Restricting the explanations of phenomena to completely *natural* ones does the same thing
Yeah, well, restricting the explanations of phenomena to completely *supernatural* ones does the same thing.
It amounts to willful blindness..."
I'd say.
It's also working on the presumption that you are correct in your interpretation of the evidence and since you are within the system (of nature) so to speak, it is impossible to step outside it and be truly objective about what is observed and the source or reason for an event happening.
Step "outside" where?