>>688648
But people have posited natural causes for lightning since antiquity, long before the concept of electricity and most people never believed in Oija boards (besides your contention that it is "proven" to be subconscious in all cases is false, the people who believe in it still contend that it's supernatural and their isn't strong proof otherwise, it's just that you've settled on a convenient rationalization for how you think it works). Pretty terrible examples of metaphysical concepts being disproved.
>>688699
And yet it proves the existence of a metaphysical first mover, therefore naturalism is false. And besides, think for two seconds about the axioms underlying science, materialism, even the principles of logic. Are any of those things provable by their own standards? The inerrancy of logic can't be proven logically, it just leads to circular reasoning, you have no grounds to declare logic irrefutable if it isn't given to us metaphysically inerrant a priori, otherwise to declare that the rules of logic are certainly true is illogical.
The same is true of science, it's own axioms cannot be proven scientifically, only logically, and it is inherently bounded by the types of things it can quantify and measure, asking for a "scientific" proof of the metaphysical is nonsense since science is inherently the domain of measuring and testing the physical.
And that's leaving aside the hard problem of mind, that is that consciousness and subjective experience is obviously not material, ergo materialism is false. Every "scientific" explanation ,e.g. the mind is just "generated" by the workings of the brain, are absurd because
1) Even if they are "generated" by the brain they are still not synonymous with the material brain itself and therefore still metaphysical, since their could be no change in the energy or material content of the universe due simply to chemical interactions in the brain as opposed to anywhere else
2)This is an ridiculous just-so story to assuage the perturbed minds of materialists which has absolutely no scientific backing whatsoever, not even a plausible idea for a causal method, literally just "certain brain states tend to correlate with certain thoughts, therefore certain configurations of matter can generate metaphysical consciousness," Pure twaddle.
The bottom line is there is no logical proof which excludes revelation as a possible method of obtaining the truth, it's just your bald assertion which excludes it.
If you're generally interested and not just trying to be a pain, you might look into some Christian theology, only those who are called can come to god, and only those whose hearts are open can answer that call. Those who are determined to say that God is not real can always find a rationalization to do it, no proof could ever be sufficient to make them believe. Logic can get you to a "first-mover" but not to God, because God is love, not a being of brute matter or simple logic. So what if I can't logically prove the existence of love to someone who's never felt it? I absolutely KNOW the reality of it because I feel it, love is real, and inside you must know this as well. To let some moronic materialist's babble convince you of the non-existence of something THAT YOU PERSONALLY HAVE FELT THE CERTAIN EXISTENCE OF is just being a credulous idiot.
Love and morality are both real, and hence the moral truth of Christianity and the weight of the love of Christ for us in his sacrifice are their own witnesses.