And by that, I mean a scientific explanation of how one could accomplish such a thing.
And such an explanation is impossible.
By the known laws of physics.
There is no way now or in the future to instantly turn water into wine. There definitely wasn't a way in the first century. So either it was a supernatural event that superseded natural laws, or it was an illusion.
There's a much more simple explanation than that, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it: it just plain didn't happen. Perhaps that's what you mean by "it was an illusion", but that's not quite the same thing.
I don't see how it's a tangent...
It's clouding the issue because I wasn't talking about specific events in the Chrsitian holy book, about Christianity in general, or even about "God" in particular.
The very definition of supernatural is "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena." So if you're saying something (like God) can be proved to exist by natural law, then he is not supernatural by definition. I don't understand how that can even be up for discussion, so evidently I am missing something...
This post, perhaps: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885580#target?
Clearly, if we don't agree on the meaning of the terms used, any discussion becomes a quagmire of misunderstanding (and in that case, the proper response is to clarify what you mean instead of tell people that "they don't get it"; this not directed at Matthew obviously).
I've also said (here: http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/605278/885571#target) that I don't think it's useful to arbitrarily assign labels and stick to their original meaning if our insights change.
As I said before,
it's only true if you arbitrarily and ab initio limit the meaning of your words so the statement becomes a truism.
But ok, I'll rephrase what I said. You say "X is supernatural" where "supernatural" means "completely outside the scope of the natural world, for now and for all time, independent of our understanding of that natural world." Then the statement "the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through nature" is a truism. I say that if a phenomenon that is called "supernatural", if it exists, is not supernatural (by your operative definition of the word), but only appears to be so because our knowledge of nature is incomplete. Hence my emphasis on "/known/ laws of physics".
So I'll turn the burden of proof around: show to me that God, if he exists, is not "natural" and can never be explained or understood, even in principle, by "nature". You are not allowed to ab initio stick a label on God that says he can't be, because then you're assuming your conclusion to be true from the beginning, leading to circular logic. Arguing semantics is not useful.
Ultimately, of course, it doesn't matter. A rose, by any other name, and so on.
Now, I don't think you can formulate an experiment that would irrevocably proof that God exists any more than you could devise a test that would proof that I am the best chess player in the world. But that has nothing to do with whether you call said "God" supernatural or not. It does have everything to do with why I don't think invoking "God" (or in general, the supernatural) is meaningful when trying to answer an empirical or scientific question, but that's a separate issue.
And, once again, this isn't about disproving anyone's beliefs.