The Supernatural exists

Since my opponent did not establish specific rules for this debate, I will use R2 to challenge his arguments. (Paragraph 1) My opponent hopelessly failed to prove that "supernatural things" exist. (Paragraph 2) I would never say that anything truly defies nature. We have consistently found natural explanations or hypotheses for what were once "mysteries". The Sailing Stones of Death Valley are one example. [1] While it is true that I cannot say that "supernatural things" do not exist, I can nevertheless categorically state that there is no irrefutable proof for the existence of "supernatural things". My opponent on the other hand, states with absolute certainty that "the supernatural exists", as can be seen in the title of the debate, despite a complete lack of evidence to support such a claim. (Paragraph 3) My opponent is not debating "most people" in this debate. He (or she though I will continue to use "he") is only debating me. So I am not subject to the "slippery slope fallacy" he applies to an assumption for which he has provided no statistical sources. Claiming something "exists beyond the visible and observable" does not make it immune to scientific scrutiny. Which begs the question: If the supernatural is not visible or observable, then how were all the alleged witnesses able to note and observe it? At the end of this paragraph, my opponent basically states that all that is necessary to establish the existence of the supernatural is imagination, though later in his argument, he contradicts this claim. (Paragraph 4) Here, my opponent basically says that if science cannot see the duck, or hear the duck, but many people insist that the duck is there, then science must be dismissed in favor of a higher law. My opponent makes this statement despite the fact that science has proven itself time and time again, while the "higher law" has never been proved to be more than completely unsupported "say so." (Paragraph 5) To say that the Bermuda Triangle has no scientific explanation is untrue. There are a number of scientific, viable explanations for disappearing ships and planes in that area. [2] Ships, planes, cars, people, etc, disappear consistently all over the earth. Out of millions of flights, sailing excursions, car trips, mountain hikes, etc, there are bound to be a great many disappearances. In fact, very few unexplained disappearances would be much stranger than many disappearances. At the end of the paragraph, my opponent claims that he "clearly demonstrated that supernatural things do exist." This is clearly not true. (Paragraph 6) Here, my opponent is guarding the debate against any demeaning comparisons I might make. By so doing, he contradicts that which he stated in paragraph 3. While, in paragraph 3, he basically states that all that is necessary to establish the existence of the supernatural is imagination, in this paragraph, he differentiates the supernatural from the imaginary, despite the fact that the "imaginary" is borne of the imagination. The contradiction is clear. (Paragraph 7) Here, my opponent continues to contradict himself. He insists that the supernatural is not imaginary, and yet has failed to provide proof to the contrary. (Paragraph 8) Further continuance of the contradiction. Also, my opponent states that, "Improbability is not evidence of inexistence." Not sure how improbability can be classified as evidence, but it is very true that a lack of existence is not established by improbability. However, improbability nevertheless denotes the improbable. (Paragraph 9) My opponent excuses his lack of support for all the claims he has made in this debate in reference to the supernatural by stating that we can never know all the answers. So, if he does not know, why does he categorically claim the supernatural is real? (The List) My opponent claims that everything in his list exists, so the burden of proof lies upon him to substantially support it. However, I will briefly address each item. (1) Just because someone is unable to idently a flying object, does not mean it is of extraterrestrial origin, and even if it is, it is most likely a meteor. There is zero irrefutable proof of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting this planet. Even if there were proof of extraterrestrial visitors, they would not be supernatural, just more advanced. (2) Placebos are psychological, not supernatural. (3) The microphone in Peter Popoff's ear that enabled his wife to help him lie to hundreds of people was no miracle. There is zero evidence that faith healers ever actually healed anyone, and a great deal of evidence that they did not. In relative terms, many things medical science can do today would have been called a miracle a hundred years ago. In reference to the intervention of an omnipotent, omniscient being: That is a higher knowledge, which is not necessarily defined as "supernatural", anymore than what is done today could be called supernatural a hundred years ago. (4) Ghosts make no logical sense. Biblically speaking, ghosts are extremely rare, and do not haunt; hauntings do not exist in the Bible. Scientifically speaking, there is zero irrefutable evidence of hauntings. Moreover, it would be illogical for ghosts to wear clothing; the clothing does not possess a spirit, and yet nearly every alleged ghost is said to be clothed for their time in history. Then there is Marilyn Monroe who died in the nude. Whatever unsupported excuse folks make for ghosts being clothed cannot be applied to her, and yet she is clothed according to all who claim to have seen her ghost. One self-proclaimed medium saw Marilyn's ghost in a sexy pink outfit. [3] (5) Pyramids are architectural, not supernatural. All supernatural qualities attributed to them are nonsense. [4] (6) The narratives vary too greatly to be accepted as truth. As for death itself, there is nothing supernatural about it. (7) Religiously speaking, prophecies are highly controversial. As they apply to Nostradamus and the like, they are pure nonsense. [5] (8) See response to paragraph 5. (9) Oswald did not cast magic spells on his bullets. [6] (10) Controversial. I will allow the readers and voters to decide who is "hopelessly ignorant." [1] http://www.sci-news.com... [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] http://www.express.co.uk... [4] http://www.amazon.com... [5] http://skepdic.com... [6] http://www.slate.com...