The Supernatural exists

In R2, my opponent offered little more than say so and opinion to support his arguments and claims. Remaining consistent, my opponent has again offered little more than say so and opinion to dismiss my arguments. Despite providing sources that effectively counter my opponent's arguments and claims, he generally repeated them all without effectively challenging the counter arguments. This redundancy leads me to wonder if he even bothered clicking on the links. Sadly, I must also be a bit redundant in my R3 response. My opponent excuses the supernatural from being a scientific construct. Yet it is observable, testable, and going by the multitude of alleged accounts, dependably repeatable. Controlled conditions in a lab are not a requisite for the scientific method. After excusing the supernatural from being a scientific construct, my opponent states: "This means Con cannot demand scientific proof, or even evidence, for things that are beyond our capacity to collect data." But those "things" are not beyond our capacity to collect data, even if it is only personal data. So yes, I can demand scientific proof. My opponent goes on to state: "Since Con thinks, whatever cannot be scientifically proven, also cannot exist...then he must also assume the Holocaust never happened as well." There is scientific evidence for the Holocaust. [1] I accused my opponent of claiming that imagination should replace science to prove the existence of the supernatural. He says I am wrong: "As I clearly did not say or mean to say supernatural = your imagination. In fact I intended to say the exact opposite." If my opponent is dismissing science, then imagination is all that is left to credit the supernatural, and he is, indeed, dismissing science. My opponent states: "UFOs are by definition supernatural." Try as I might, I could find no dictionaries on line or in my library that use the word "supernatural" when defining UFO. My opponent states: "Placebos are unexplained by science." If placebos were miracle cures, that would be true, but there is no credible record that a placebo worked as a miracle cure. Though there are questions, placebos are indeed explained by science. [2] In the case of miracle healers, it is true that many liars does not mean that all are liars. Nevertheless, there is zero irrefutable evidence that faith healers have ever miraculously cured anyone. There is indeed plenty evidence of ghosts. All bad, all worthless. "World Wonder" does not equal "supernatural." To say that pyramids are scientifically unexplained is absolute nonsense. Pyramids are edifices made of known matter, built by discernible means, all of which science is easily able to explain. In reference to near death experiences, my opponent states: "All the narratives are eerily consistent." But he fails to offer even two similar alleged experiences. For the record, here are 17 experiences on one site that are not eerily consistent. [3] My sources in R2 sufficiently cover the Bermuda Triangle and the magic bullets. My opponent employed an ad hominem tactic: "...Con has a fairly distinguishable lack of knowledge in the realm of science", as well as accusing me of a strawman fallacy without providing any evidence of that accusation. He then ended his argument with yet another ad hominem, which was absolutely dripping with irony. Let the readers make of this argument what they will. [1] https://www.quora.com... [2] http://harvardmagazine.com... [3] https://iands.org...