This is a weird one and an argument that, as usual, falls apart completely under even the most cursory evaluation, but hey, it’s religion, what do you expect? I ran into a theist whose main argument for the supernatural is that man cannot be 100% certain that the natural world is all that there is. Remember that “100% certain” bit because it’s important. He thinks that because we cannot trust our senses with 100% certainty, we cannot be absolutely positive that our views about the world are perfect in every way, that we have to allow that there are things that we cannot sense, therefore God.
No, I’m not kidding. I tried to engage him for a while until I realized it was a waste of time. Essentially, I pointed out that he couldn’t argue for the supernatural because he couldn’t even define what it was, the supernatural is inherently defined by what it isn’t (ie. it isn’t natural) and that, in the absence of evidence for anything supernatural, without even a singular example of something that is supernatural, it’s not even something that ought to be suggested as a possibility. That’s something else that I’m starting to point out more often, the idea that people who believe in irrational things can’t even show that these irrational things are a reasonable possibility, they cannot show that the characteristics they assign to God are valid, that the existence of ghosts and unicorns and leprechauns cannot be suggested by any objective evidence, essentially they’re just making something up because it appeals to them on an emotional level, when there’s no reason a rational person would even consider these ideas at all. Of course, he entirely ignored that bit and went back to his “you can’t be 100% certain that the natural world is all that there is, therefore the supernatural exists!” and I gave up.
Worse yet, this guy’s own arguments entirely do away with his belief in the supernatural. Like virtually all theists, this guy says his belief in God comes from personal experience. But he cannot be 100% certain of his own personal experience, doesn’t that call his belief into serious question? But of course, he’ll never acknowledge that because his own beliefs are held for emotional, not rational reasons and pointing that fact out to him is likely to elicit an emotional, not a rational response.
I find it strange to see so many minor variations on apologetics, people who will twist and turn ideas in the most absurd and ridiculous ways to put a personal spin on things. These ideas are typically very, very, very poor, yet when skeptics like me point out the weaknesses, we’re met with outrage and anger, often threats of physical violence, because these irrational believers don’t want to hear about their failures, they’re emotionally invested in being right, even if they’re wrong. This is why debating with theists and allowing them to spew their absurdity really doesn’t help anyone. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see how ridiculous theistic apologetics are to begin with and those without that common sense cannot be convinced that there are problems, no matter what you say.