The supernatural exists.

Yes, disproving naturalism is not a proof for supernaturalism. This is called the argument from ignorance, because you are shifting the burden of proof, and appealing to not something...not X therefore Y. You further the ignorance fallacy by claiming that if something can't be explained by naturalism, therefore supernaturalism is the explanation. Just Google the argument from ignorance fallacy, real fast, and you will see that you committed a textbook example. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim not the one rejecting it. I reject the claim that the supernatural exists, therefore you, the one making the claim, have to demonstrate that it does without using a false excluded middle. I also said you could argue any version of the supernatural you wish; I didn't say you could argue against the not supernatural. Either way, I was being nice and letting you attack naturalism, but you flawed with respects to that too, so here's the false excluded middle. In the law of the excluded middle, either a proposition is true, or its negation is true. You have tried to prove supernaturalism's negation is false. See the error? You have not tried to prove your claim is true, you've only tried to prove another claim is false. The law of the excluded middle in our case would be either supernaturalism is true, or naturalism is true. The excluded middle would not be either supernaturalism is true or naturalism is false. True and false are actually a false dichotomy. True and not true, or false and not false would be true dichotomies. Speaking of false dichotomies, supernaturalism and naturalism are a false dichotomy, because supernaturalism isn't claiming that EVERYTHING is supernatural, and naturalism is claiming that EVERYTHING is natural. In fact, in most versions of supernaturalism, supernatural things can interact with or have affects on the natural world, which means not everything is supernatural, and therefore is a false dichotomy to naturalism (everything is natural). But if you wish to argue that everything is supernatural, I would love that debate as well. Also, you fail to realize that there is no excluded third (another name for the excluded middle) as subnaturalism could exist as well. If you agree there is a natural and a supernatural, why is there no subnatural? Ever wondered that before? Why does there only have to be something beyond nature? Couldn't there be something behind/under nature? Then it gets you thinking...well if I can't logically prove a subnatural and think it's kind of silly, how is it different from the supernatural in any way? Now imagine that I were trying to prove that subnaturalism is correct, because supernaturalism is false. Now do you see your error? Please tell me that you have no reason to believe that subnaturalism is a thing. Then if you would like, I'm serious, anyone can try this...throughout this debate, just replace supernaturalism with subnaturalism and the argument doesn't change. You say "One of the necessary preconditions is that our beliefs are the result of good grounds rather than blind mechanistic causes." Good grounds are contingent on our brains just like your "blind mechanistic causes" and are therefore natural. You keep polarizing the inner-workings of the brain and constructs like reasoning. They work in tandem. Your brain chemistry is a tool to reach these "good grounds" of which you speak that are the preconditions for rational thought. These good grounds exist in nature, because reasons--grounds--are natural constructs that are results of a cognitive process that we actively employ to distinguish things that match with reality and things that don't; all of which are contingent on our brain's ability to react to non-deterministic information. You then say "under naturalism...the beliefs are not arrived at through grounds" Naturalism includes constructive cognitive processes that match beliefs with reality by using both brain chemistry and non-deterministic informational input, which leads to authentic reasoning under the laws of nature. And you continue "[under naturalism] it is impossible for the beliefs and desires to influence our behavior." All because of your deterministic brain fizzing idea that ignores the brain's reactive fizzing to previously unaccounted for stimuli that isn't deterministic. Our beliefs derived from natural processes of matching beliefs with reality inform our actions...naturally. You said "A pool ball gets no say in how hard it is hit by the cue ball and at what angle, but it nevertheless behaves deterministically according to the laws of collision." Yes, when brains receive information they cannot function without the laws of physics/chemistry, just like the pool ball can't move without the laws of collision...but the problem with your analogy is--if our brains are the pool ball and the stimuli is the cue ball--the pool ball has no agency. All of the pool ball's actions are passive unlike the active agency of the brain. So when an active agent is subjected to stimulus, a greater amount of results can occur due to the agent's ability to imbue the stimulus, and more importantly, actively react to the imbued information. So if we were all passive brains in this natural world, then maybe your deterministic physical law following would make sense. So, then you say "[under naturalism] The belief is arrived at, not by virtue of the semantic content of the original statement, but by the blind mechanistic causes that happen in the air, the ear, and the brain. " You just lumped air and brain together as if both are the same when it comes to reacting to "blind mechanistic causes". Air has no agency, it's passive. Brains have agency, they're active. Mechanistic causes that happen in the air may lead to a predictable result, but the brain has agency and can therefore imbue stimulus and, as an agent, actively and semantically arrive at a belief. Then you said "So even given outside input, the belief is still arrived at purely by brain chemistry, given naturalism." This is a contradiction. You're saying that a belief is arrived at when given outside input AND purely by brain chemistry. You slipped here. How can it be purely brain chemistry if it also uses outside input? The next thing you said was my favorite and I'm glad you took the bait when I mentioned blind can't detect light. "By "blind," I did not mean "inability to have visual perception." I was using "blind" as a metaphor representing non-sentience." And there it is. You first mentioned in round 1 "blind mechanistic events in the brain..." So I will take your definition of blind and apply it to what you had said. "non-sentient mechanistic events in the brain..." I don't know of anything the brain does that isn't sentient...including being sentient enough to detect light. Calling mechanistic events in the brain "blind" is irrational because of this. You then give countless examples of non agents "acorns...gravity...atoms, molecules, and electrons..." When gravity pulls an acorn to the ground, the acorn doesn't choose to fall, and gravity doesn't choose to pull it." Yeah and if any of those things were agents, and didn't behave passively, you might be able to argue the same for the brain, an agent. You claim "The problem is that Con didn't explain how [beliefs contributing to our behaviors] is possible on naturalism." Yes, I did. Matching beliefs with reality is done by our brain. We are agents who can actively do things with respect to our beliefs, like the kid who imbues the santa information and chooses to act by going outside and looking for him. Yes the unavoidable laws of physics/chemistry are still in play, but the idea of agents matching beliefs with reality is not blind mechanistic behavior. Our beliefs inform our decisions. I never said that for EVERY true belief success there is a false belief success. There are false belief successes, but they aren't the norm. Demonstrate supernature.