> Therefore, in this view the fundamental difference between scientific claims and spiritual claims is that scientific claims are based reasoning from observation while spiritual claims are based on reasoning from revelation. Even if you happen to not believe in supernatural revelation, you can still accept the validity of this perspective.

No. Scientific hypotheses must be subject to test. This means the examples you cite, such as the inherent truthfulness of logic, are not scientific matters. They may not be spiritual questions either (I'd call them philosophical ones), but it is a requirement of scientific conclusions that they be falsifiable. This means, as you hint at, science cannot be used to prove itself. Anyone who is serious about science understands this important point.

Really, the body of knowledge we refer to as science is probably better explained as knowledge that we have come to via the scientific method. Rigorous, controlled experimentation and tests are required components of the method. To just call science reasoning based on observation is way too general.

Saying "This is obvious, so it must be true" is not scientific, regardless of how true or obvious it is.

> Furthermore, there are spiritual claims that are testable as well as others that are untestable. The most obvious case would be if a miracle happened. That would be decisive proof of the supernatural, although not necessarily more than that.

Provide an example of a miracle that would prove the supernatural.

If a bunch of physicists witnessed and recorded something that seemed impossible, do you think they would attribute it to the supernatural? Or, rather, would they assume it was a natural event simply not yet accounted for by physics?

The natural world is far more fantastic and bizarre than our everyday human experiences would ever suggest. Were I to witness a miracle, I doubt I would recognize it as evidence of the supernatural.

Stephen