<skip misrepresentations and resulting straw man argument>

Peter wrote: "Therefore, CV rejects the supernatural because it does not fit in with his philosophy (nevermind that he has not proven his philosophy)."

Do you think I should accept the claim that there is a such thing as "the supernatural," Peter? You've presented no reason that I can tell why one should accept the claim that there is such a thing. You seem to be upset by the fact that I do not accept this claim, but you've not identified what you mean by the term 'supernatural', nor have I seen you argue for it. What gives?

Peter wrote: "Thus, CV rejects God because his philosophy has no place for the existence of God."

I have no god-belief because I do not accept the primacy of consciousness view of reality. To accept the claim that there is a god as the Abrahamic religions describe it, I would have to affirm the primacy of consciousness view. But this would commit me not only to a contradiction, but also to a string of stolen concepts.

Peter wrote: "But this does not change what is--it only proves that it is impossible to demonstrate actual evidence for something when a person's entire worldview is blinded to it."

There is no such thing as "evidence supporting the primacy of consciousness" to be found in reality. To assert this, you would have to turn a blind eye to your own stolen concepts.

<skip further misrepresentations>

CertainVerdict