testable, repeatable, empirical evidence

1 2 3 4 »
  • is this ONLY based off of naturalistic assumptions?

    in other words, if "naturalistic science" (ie science that excludes anything supernatural from the start) is the ONLY means by which we ought to understand the universe, then how can a naturalist EVER come to the conclusion something "supernatural" (ie that which exists beyond nature) exists?

    someone please explain. if the explanation does not dance around the major issue then i will simply concede and go "dude!!!"



    Like this post to subscribe to the topic.
  • Jared: Ho and why would one have assume the supernatural?

    The only reason can be that there are things that we can't explain, right?

    BUT: These things are actually happening in the NATURAL world, so, if we assume that the things that happen have supernatural causes, then we can at least examone and research what is happening, with science, right?

    If we then, like it is the case in 99.99999999999999999999999% of presented cases find that there is no supernatural explanation necessary, but that natural explanations nicely suffice to explain the Phenomenon, that leaves the tiniest of margins where there is no obvious natural explanation. Are we then in anyway shape or form justified in assuming that, just because right now there is no natural explanation at hand and obvious, there must be powers that act in the natural world, but for some inexplicable reason can not and will not be observed and examined by science?

    I guss you know my answer to that, without me stating it!

    And: Who is excluding anything?

    If you can tell me/science how to verify the supernatural, how to examine it and test it, then science will do so.

    So, any suggestions?

    That does not mean that science rules out supernatural, it just says: It is, by definition, nothing that is confirmable and therefore is not something to bother with. The only thing science can do is: Looking at supernatural claims and examine if it can find natural explanations, instead of taking the claim at face value, and strangely enough, as mentioned before, science comes up with explanations that are natural, see for example James Randy and his people and their 1.000.000$ Challenge.

    If that to you is being biased then that is your problem!

  • Jared,

    Since we live in the natural world, obviously our tools to understand it come from the natural world. It is not up to the scientific community to find a way to test the "supernatural" world, it's up to the one making the claim that such a realm exists to prove it. So far, no evidence exists that proves the supernatural, it's simply something made up by people to explain that which they don't understand. As Anteron said, if your supernatural world affects our natural world, then there would be a method to test these affects. If your supernatural world does not affect our natural world, then it's a useless, unprovable concept that I can discard out of hand.

    You're basically flipping the burden of proof with your comments by saying it's up to science to prove these claims don't exist, otherwise you will continue to believe in them. Can you please comment on the question all theists have been dodging since I brought it up months ago. Can you please disprove my claim that an invisible dragon lives in my garage? If you cannot do so, by your logic, you will need to believe my claim.

    You only accept claims by which you can prove through natural means in almost every part of your life, so why change the way you think for this specific example? Why are you trying to force an unprovable claim? Is it because it's a comfortable one? Do you have too much to lose if you accept reality?

  • Another point to consider Jared is that a supernatural phenomenon will still have naturalistic effects that CAN be tested to validate or invalidate the phenomenon. For example if a psychic claims they can see an aura around a person but that this aura can not be tested directly by any energy science knows about -the claim itself can still be tested.

    If this psychic can see the aura then that aura should project a short distance from the body right? (lets assume a foot or 30cm) We could then construct an experiment to see if the psychic can see the auras of hidden humans that are blocked from view. Simply placing a panel in front of some people just tall enough to block them but not their auras from view would allow anyone that actually sees an aura to accurately locate the hidden people 100% of the time. Since the auras would project above the panel. If the psychic fails this test even once we would know they can not actually see an aura. If they locate the hidden people 100% of the time we would be able to construct new tests to discover the nature of the aura & presto we have testable, repeatable, empirical proof of the supernatural. It is that easy.

    This is how a "naturalist" can come to the conclusion something "supernatural" (ie that which exists beyond nature) actually exists or not, and so far no conclusive evidence has ever been presented thus far.

    So a reasonable person thus far should conclude nothing supernatural has ever been presented conclusively. Note that this does not discount the supernatural as a possibility but that so far no one has succeeded in proving it. This is why skeptics always ask for testable, repeatable, empirical evidence . This is why when you made the claim a few months back that you witness miracles all the time we should have been able to document such an event for further study and when you deemed that unreasonable we could just reject your claims of miracles. If you had witnessed miracles and they could be documented it would have validated your claims. It would seem a theist should be eager to prove to skeptics what they claim but this never seems to be the case Jared.

  • Anterton,

    If you can tell me/science how to verify the supernatural, how to examine it and test it, then science will do so.

    So, any suggestions?

    That does not mean that science rules out supernatural, it just says: It is, by definition, nothing that is confirmable and therefore is not something to bother with.[/b]

    That by definition is considered “bad science” out of the pool of options you think a supernatural explanation is not something to bother with? That is called a confirmation bias which people should never have. This actually leads me into the next response.

    Alex,

    supernatural phenomenon will still have naturalistic effects that CAN be tested

    [/b]

    okay, so lets just say I have an opposing theory. If your SO sure supernatural phenomenon CAN be tested, what if my theory is that ANYTHING supernatural that gives a natural effect is ONLY caused by the supernatural thing that’s source is intelligent? Meaning because it is intelligent some of these test may very well be “hit and miss” BUT according to you there should still be a naturalistic effect that CAN be tested. Does this mean the supernatural exists?

    BTW your whole testing the psychic and aura phenomenon was WAY different and much more simplistic than your circus hoop test that you tried to get me to accept. Which you said if I passed it would STILL not convince you. As I said it has nothing to do with evidence, im not sure why you brought it up. But this does lead me to my next point..

    Jason,

    If your supernatural world does not affect our natural world, then it's a useless, unprovable concept that I can discard out of hand

    [/b]

    Okay but be honest. There have been MANY claims made by people about the supernatural that had affected the natural world and you STILL have yet to believe. So its kind of a “switch around” a claim is made that god exists and you want proof that effects the natural world BUT when a claim is made that the natural world was effected because of god, you then question if god was the cause or not is that not a bit incoherent? Feel free to correct yourself if you think you made a mistake in your wording unless of course the real issue is admitting that God is a very rational explanation given certain scenarios :0)

    But as for your dragon,

    I am not totally sure how others have answered this but it appears to be some kind of trump card and depending on what we are talking about, it actually is. But here is the thing.

    I personally would have some stipulations for believing this thing exists and they would be hardly different than what I use to believe in the God that I follow.

    Answered prayer, filling me with his spirit, being led by the spirit, performing miracles, literally seeing lives changed, the constant confirmation that his spirit is dwelling inside and remembering the very day and location of when it happened etc.

    My friend if your dragon had performed similar things in your life that you cannot deny you saw, then you are NOT an atheists/naturalist based on this claim. You can reject it in the end but you know what happened and who am I to say your mistaken, lying or delusional? What I am lacking is NOT evidence but rather experience of your dragon..which is really the biggest issue in all this..

    NOW. Lets say there are also certain conditions and requirements like sincerity, honesty, openness as opposed to hard heartedness, scoffing and slandering. What if your dragon resists the proud and promises to show himself forth to them that truly cares to give him the chance?

    Remember we are dealing with an intelligent being and if you say that being is living in your garage then tell me where you live!

    So yes depending on what we are discussing your dragon argument is a little hard to get around but if you tell me he holds those kinds of descriptions then I would begin to think there is more in your garage then your imagination…

  • First of Jared:

    Read, or copy and paste my name correctly, Please?

    Second: If the supernatural has no effect on the natural world, then how is it even there or relevant?

    How about defining what you mean by existing, because, if something does not establish itself in anyway shape or form, how does it exist?

    But if it affected the natural world, then we are back to what I said: These effects are testable and explainable in 99.999999999999999% of the cases.

    So, again: Science can only try to disprove the supernatural and does a god job at it.

    It can not, because that be bias, assume that the supernatural is the explanation and stop there.

    And that is what you try to suggest, while you are smearing the real scientific position of not presupposing anything as biased against your limited worldview!

    And if you had such special experiences that are undeniable, then you have had them. But to make the claim that the only explanation how you had these is something supernaturakl, is the problem.

    It is an assumption, nothing else. An argument from ignorance.

    I do not doubt that you some experiences, or that someone told you about their facinating experiences, but have you, or could you even, go about testing these in any way that approaches a scientific level?

    That is what I doubt! Your assumptions.

    And your answer to Jasons Dragon conundrum really only makes you look foolish.

    Sure, the dragon promisses you, through Jason, if you strongly enough believe in him that you will be, one day, after you have died, able to see him.

    He did the same to me, and he appeared right in front of my eyes in a vision. How do you explain that?

    Jason knows about it, cause he told the dragon to send me the vision!

    How would that be possible if the dragon does not exist?

    And: Why would you have to see him, or know where he is? You just have to belive hard enough and he will show himself to you, but to really see you have to wait til you are dead.

    He will answer your prayers, and he will fill you his spirit, if you are just believing strongly enough. He did all that for me. I believe in the dragon in Jasons Garage!

    Who does not and why do they not? They all know deep inside that the drgon exists, don't they Jason?

  • Science can only try to disprove the supernatural and does a god job at it.

    well no, as we have seen there is a different kind of approach and standard to be recognized in order to determine supernatural things so science does not "disprove" anything it only fails to confirm because its CANT

    to make the claim that the only explanation how you had these is something supernaturakl, is the problem.

    It is an assumption, nothing else. An argument from ignorance.[/b]

    NO, im making the claim based on my experience, your the one telling me its not what i think. in all reality your the one arguing from ignorance??

    I do not doubt that you some experiences, or that someone told you about their facinating experiences, but have you, or could you even, go about testing these in any way that approaches a scientific level?

    i suppose but it may depend on what you mean by "scientific" also i cant help but think that even if something unexplained manifested you would still just say "that dosnt prove it was god"

    and on and on we would go...

  • Jared, I will respond to you in detail later. In the meantime, I suggest you watch the video I posted in my thread regarding evidence for God. It answers much of what you are asking.

  • Maybe, Jared, you should watch this video:

    http://www.npr.org/2014/06/20/321798967/why-do-we-believe-in-unbelievable-things

    But it seems more and more likely that it simply is not worth discussing with you, because you have everything, including logic and deduction backwards.

    If you claim to have an experience, that is nothing to have a dispute about, it is something I and mostly everybody else will accept.

    BUT:

    When you claim to KNOW the explanation and the reason for your experience and claim there is NO other explanation then: God did it, that is when we have to part ways, because there is NO way or possibility that you can make any reasonable claim to be sure of your claim, and if you were you would not be able to show how you arrived at that assumption!

    Because you can not do that in any way shape or form, there is nothing else to do, logically and reasonably, then to reject your claim of knowledge about the cause and assume that you have just pulled it out of thin air!

  • Okay but be honest. There have been MANY claims made by people about the supernatural that had affected the natural world and you STILL have yet to believe.

    Sure, there have been unfounded, unproven claims that the supernatural has occured, just like there have been claims of alien abductions, Big Foot sightings and Elvis still lives. You can make claims until the cows come home, but the tough part is actually proving that your claims really happened. Not just proving the claim itself, but proving the source of the claim is supernatural.

    So its kind of a “switch around” a claim is made that god exists and you want proof that effects the natural world BUT when a claim is made that the natural world was effected because of god, you then question if god was the cause or not is that not a bit incoherent? Feel free to correct yourself if you think you made a mistake in your wording unless of course the real issue is admitting that God is a very rational explanation given certain scenarios :0)

    Of course I question the cause, why would you not? If someone claims their cancer was cured because they prayed to God, why on earth would I take that at their word? You cannot attribute actions to a being that you still have not proved even exists. You have this weird idea that saying something strange happened is proof of your God, but it's not, it's just another claim. The assertion God exists is a claim that needs to be proved. The assertion that your God cured your cancer is not proof, it's another claim that needs to be proved. There are many ways in which cancer can be cured that are explained by the natural world, so why would I assume a supernatural explanation for something that has a natural one? When you see a paper on your doorstep, do you assume aliens beamed it there, or that a paperboy placed it there early in the morning? When natural explanations exist, you do not assume a supernatural one.

    But as for your dragon,

    I am not totally sure how others have answered this but it appears to be some kind of trump card and depending on what we are talking about, it actually is. But here is the thing.

    I personally would have some stipulations for believing this thing exists and they would be hardly different than what I use to believe in the God that I follow.

    The claim is very simple, I have an invisible dragon living in my garage. I have several friend who were verify his existence, but even though you cannot see, touch, hear or smell my dragon, we all know he exists because we really, really believe it and feel his presence in our hearts. Is this claim enough to make you believe me, or would you need something else?

    Next, you have listed several pieces of evidence that make you believe that your specific God of your specific sect of Christianity exists. For evidence to be considered valid it must represent the BEST possible explanation of the claim you're trying to prove. In this case, you're attempting to use these events to prove the existence of an invisible, supernatural, universe creating entity specific to your sect of Christianity. So, let's go through them one at a time and see if an invisible, supernatural, universe creating entity specific to your sect of Christianity is the BEST explanation for them. We need to first determine if there are any natural explanations for them before assuming a supernatural one.

    Answered prayer,

    I find this claim dubious because I think you are exaggerating. Are you literally saying that every single thing you have ever prayed for has come true immediately, or are you simply saying some of the things you've prayed about have sometimes eventually come about? This claim would be very simple to test scientifically. You would simply need to pray for something in private, telling no one else of your prayer. It would need to be something that could not happen naturally or at least is very unlikely to happen. Then we simply sit back and see if your prayers are answered. The problem is, this test has never passed scientific scrutiny, so are you claiming that your prayers are different from everyone else and your God answers them all? Until I have more information about your prayers, it's hard to comment much on them, but unless you're claiming that things you've prayed for have literally materialized out of thin air, there is clearly a natural explanation for good things happening to you.

    filling me with his spirit

    So, you're saying your religion makes you feel really, really good inside. Your beliefs give you a euphoria and you have no doubt that God exists and blesses you. Firstly, how do you explain the billions of other people with thousands of different, sometimes contradictory beliefs to yours, who make these same claims and use them as proof of their God? Are they lying, or are you? Clearly you cannot all be correct, but you can all be wrong. A Muslim will make this exact claim as you and be just as certain that his feeling come from Allah. Why do you disregard his God claim? What makes his claims less believable than yours? You both come to the table with the same amount of evidence, so who should I believe and why? Even if this was evidence of a supernatural entity, clearly it cannot be evidence of your specific Christian God.

    Secondly, science already has an explanation for this phenomenon. It's well understood, well studied and accepted as a common experience from the brain. It doesn't mean you're crazy, stupid or weird, it just means it's extremely easy to convince yourself of things that aren't real.

    So, with this in mind, would I trust proven science that has established testable, repeatable empirical evidence, or would I trust baseless assertions of a supernatural entity? You yourself trust the real world, natural explanations for claims outside of your religion every single day. There is no good reason to make an excuse for that kind of logical thinking in this case.

    being led by the spirit

    So, by this I assume you mean those euphoric feelings in your brain cause you to perform actions that you are convinced are instructions by your God? This is not evidence, it's another claim. The claim is that your God leads you through some magical force you call "the holy spirit". So, prove it. You cannot prove one extraordinary claim by simply making another extraordinary claim. Every claim must stand or fall on the merits of is own EVIDENCE. Giving us dozens, or even hundreds of pieces of unprovable "evidence" does not suddenly equal one piece of solid, provable evidence.

    performing miracles

    First, we need to confirm what your meaning of the word "miracle" is. To me, a true miracle would be an event that cannot be explained by natural means. Something that would be so rare as to be practically impossible. For instance, someone's cancer suddenly being cured would not be a miracle. Cancer goes into remission all the time for various reasons. Someone growing a limb would be a miracle.

    Second, for such a miracle to be truly confirmed, it would need to be tested under laboratory conditions in order to eliminate all possible natural explanations. My guess is that you witnessed something you couldn't explain and considered it a miracle. This is simply an argument from ignorance. You don't know for sure what you saw and are simply trusting other people that everything happened as you think it did. Again, you need to prove that your specific God of your specific sect of Christianity was the cause of such a miracle, which you haven't done.

    People of all religions claim miracles are performed by their Gods. Are they lying or are you? Again, you cannot all be right, but you can all be wrong. Even if you prove a miraculous event occurred, how do you prove it was your God and not Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or aliens from another dimension? The answer is, you can't and until you can, this is not evidence of your specific God.

    literally seeing lives changed

    This is by far the weakest of your "evidence" and I think you must know it too. So, you've seen people whose lives were crap take on your religion and turn their lives around? Again, people do this with every religion as well as no religion, so how is this an example of evidence of your specific God? Is there anything your God does that everyone else's God doesn't also do?

    the constant confirmation that his spirit is dwelling inside

    Yes, it's called confirmation bias. You're convinced that your God exists and your religion is the true one so you are constantly reaffirming this belief. I hate to keep beating this drum, but how do you explain all other theists who make this same claim? What further evidence to you bring to the table to prove the source is your God that these other theists don't have?

    and remembering the very day and location of when it happened

    Yes, of course you remember the day and location of an important day in your life. I still remember October 21st 1995 as the day of my baptism, which at the time was an important day to me. Most people remember dates and locations of important events, this is not even close to proof of the supernatural.

    My friend if your dragon had performed similar things in your life that you cannot deny you saw, then you are NOT an atheists/naturalist based on this claim.

    Sure, my dragon is awesome, he performs great feats all the time. Might I say though that believing in a dragon does not make me less of an atheist. Atheism is the disbelief of God claims, not dragon claims.

    You can reject it in the end but you know what happened and who am I to say your mistaken, lying or delusional? What I am lacking is NOT evidence but rather experience of your dragon..which is really the biggest issue in all this..

    Sure, you're lacking an experience of my dragon. So, what you're saying, is you need evidence of my dragon's existence before believing in him. However, if the standard of evidence for believing in my dragon is simply the kind of stuff you outlined above, your standards are weak and could be met for any claim ever.

    NOW. Lets say there are also certain conditions and requirements like sincerity, honesty, openness as opposed to hard heartedness, scoffing and slandering. What if your dragon resists the proud and promises to show himself forth to them that truly cares to give him the chance?

    So, possessing qualities that practically every human possesses would be evidence to you? Your proof of the supernatural is that your entity matches your morality? That's pretty weak and certainly not evidence of the supernatural.

    Remember we are dealing with an intelligent being and if you say that being is living in your garage then tell me where you live!

    Yes, clearly this is just an example, so let's assume you know where I live and could come to my garage and see the nothingness in it. In fact, let's assume my dragon is standing right next to you now, do you believe he's really there?

    So yes depending on what we are discussing your dragon argument is a little hard to get around but if you tell me he holds those kinds of descriptions then I would begin to think there is more in your garage then your imagination…

    So, if I make a bunch of unfounded claims about the dragon that I cannot prove, you will believe it? Then sure, he possesses all that stuff you said above.

  • Jared,

    Just to elaborate a bit on the example of my pet dragon, there is only one aspect of it that is different from your beliefs in your God. You sincerely believing your claims, while clearly I am simply asserting the dragon claim to make a point. However, even with that being said, the point is that you cannot disprove the assertion that my dragon possesses all the qualities you attribute to your God. If I say my dragon is an all powerful entity, you have no way to prove I'm lying, so if you're willing to accept the claims regarding your God, you have no choice but to accept the claims regarding my dragon. Since it seems clear that you feel using the scientific method is unnecessary to prove your God, to put us on equal footing, I am also under no obligation to use the scientific method to prove my claims.

    So you see, if this was the line of logic we all used, we would have no choice but to believe every claim a person makes, even if they contradict each other. Obviously this would be an insane way to think and is completely useless in the pursuit of truth which is why should not accept claims that are unprovable in the real world.

  • You can make claims until the cows come home, but the tough part is actually proving that your claims really happened. Not just proving the claim itself, but proving the source of the claim is supernatural.

    I don’t think I need to remind you what the name of the thread is. So instead of just picking at this statement, I will just let YOU tell me what we all need to do in order to “test” the supernatural because you repeatedly used phrases like:

    There are many ways in which cancer can be cured that are explained by the natural world,

    For evidence to be considered valid it must represent the BEST possible explanation of the claim you're trying to prove

    Just to name some. My point in all of this was to show that your NOT arguing objectively. Given the fact that there are no known objects that locate supernatural beings, it is very reasonable to ponder if some ones is actually having these experiences but you simply appeal to naturalism to “disprove” the claim so if your going to fault me for assuming the supernatural when there is no answer then I fault you for assuming naturalism but lets be clear here.

    Concerning your dragon you said,

    my dragon is awesome, he performs great feats all the time.

    you're lacking an experience of my dragon. So, what you're saying, is you need evidence of my dragon's existence before believing in him.

    Yep, and I gave the criteria specifically said I personally would have some stipulations for believing this thing exists and they would be hardly different than what I use to believe in the God that I follow

    This means that I don’t have to be baptized into the dragon church before I “accept” his existence but rather he demonstrates his existence even if I am skeptical. This is the major difference in all of this. Like I said I lack experience of it. BUT if you told me something was happening to you I am willing to believe it because similar things happened to me too.

    So it’s the other way around, your simply lacking experience of God. Because of this I don’t fault you for doubting or having skepticism. But I absolutely fault you for hardheartedness and defiance.

    As you asked, So, possessing qualities that practically every human possesses would be evidence to you?

    Well 1 I think that would only cause you to see the reality of the experience given the fact that these are basic humans needs being met and 2 you need to pay attention to what I said.

    I said, Lets say there are also certain conditions and requirements like sincerity, honesty, openness

    These are minimal requirements and every person has to show these things in order to accept anything.

    So lets just look at the fallacy of your thinking.

    You make statements like

    for such a miracle to be truly confirmed, it would need to be tested under laboratory conditions in order to eliminate all possible natural explanations

    [/b]

    you are defeating your own logic when you say this!

    You accept numerous things that science has not ran through laboratory conditions so you should think of another standard because EVERY unexplained claim has yet to meet it.

    Which leads me to my next point, this is called scientism. Your just putting the claim on the back burner until “science explains it” which again you’ll ONLY accept if it has natural explanations “ran through a laboratory meaning your bias has won the battle of being objective and only demanding naturalistic explanations cancels any chance of knowing about something on a supernatural level but then you turn around and demand evidence? How does that even begin to make sense?

    And when you say For evidence to be considered valid it must represent the BEST possible explanation

    Okay, best to who? If your only going to accept naturalistic explanations of something then really your just playing what I like to call the “Epistemic guessing game”.

    I say that iv witnessed the power of God heal the sick instantaneously and you just bat it down with a kind of “it could have been any number of things but it wasn’t god” answer. Dude! There is NO cure for diabetes and for it to be gone at all is miraculous but more specifically the entire scenario only points to the power of God as being the BEST explanation!

    So I as I said since you accept plenty of unexplained phenomenon without being dismissive and you seem to accept a claim only if it has a naturalistic explanation, then im forced to think your not being objective when you dismiss a claim without evidence. It’s a “forced” analysis and is NOT science.

    Its like the logical fallacy of Moving the Goalpost, only in this case there is no goalpost…

  • I don’t think I need to remind you what the name of the thread is. So instead of just picking at this statement, I will just let YOU tell me what we all need to do in order to “test” the supernatural

    Find one example of testable evidence that breaks the known laws of physics. There have been many claims of this, but not one single shred of proof to back it up. Though this would not be conclusive proof of the supernatural, it would certainly be a good start, but you can't even get there, so your claims are all useless.

    Given the fact that there are no known objects that locate supernatural beings, it is very reasonable to ponder if some ones is actually having these experiences but you simply appeal to naturalism to “disprove” the claim so if your going to fault me for assuming the supernatural when there is no answer then I fault you for assuming naturalism

    There are also no known objects that locate unicorns...should we blindly believe in those because I can't prove they don't exist? You don't assume something exists when there is no evidence of it, that's naive and stupid. It is not "reasonable" to assume someone is experiencing something which no one has been able to prove, that is gullibility. I can fault you for assuming something unproven, but it is no "fault" to assume a natural explanation since that is the only method proven to exist. Prove the supernatural exists first, otherwise obviously natural explanations are the only ones acceptable. It's not up to me to prove your assertion..that's your job and until you do it, I am well within my rights, logically speaking, to discard your claims out of hand. Unicorns are not assumed to exist until they can be proven first.

    Yep, and I gave the criteria specifically said I personally would have some stipulations for believing this thing exists and they would be hardly different than what I use to believe in the God that I follow

    Yep, and I pointed out that your "evidence" for your God is weak and doesn't prove anything. My whole point was to say that I can use your evidence for your God to prove my invisible dragon. That being the case, clearly your evidence is not good enough and does not come close to proving your God.

    BUT if you told me something was happening to you I am willing to believe it because similar things happened to me too.

    Then you are gullible. I don't think you really mean this because this line of reasoning means you necessarily need to believe every claim ever made. You have no good reason to disbelieve any other religious claims, many of which contradict yours. Since you cannot hold two contradicting beliefs, you're clearly lying with this statement. The reason is because I believe you're smart enough to know that my dragon is a trap and you realize that if you admit what it would really take for you to accept my claim (actual testable evidence of the dragon) it highlights the reasons why it's illogical to accept God claims.

    So it’s the other way around, your simply lacking experience of God. Because of this I don’t fault you for doubting or having skepticism. But I absolutely fault you for hardheartedness and defiance.

    Spending 20 years as a Christian and not experiencing one single event that cannot be explained by natural means tend to have that affect on a person. From what you've told us, you haven't experienced anything that cannot be explained by natural means either, you just want to believe so bad that you accept poor evidence. Why would I not defy that which cannot be proven? Your claims are unfounded and unbelievable, thus I reject them. That's how simple logic works.

    I said, Lets say there are also certain conditions and requirements like sincerity, honesty, openness

    These are minimal requirements and every person has to show these things in order to accept anything.

    This is known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You're basically saying if someone doesn't believe your unprovable claims they just aren't "sincere" enough, or "honest" enough, or "open minded" enough. This is bullshit. If your claims are true they should be able to be proven, otherwise there is no good reason to believe them.

    You accept numerous things that science has not ran through laboratory conditions so you should think of another standard because EVERY unexplained claim has yet to meet it.

    Umm...like what? I do not accept anything that has not been proven scientifically. The reason you would need a "miracle" to be proven under laboratory conditions is to make sure there is no trickery being used. Watching a magician perform a trick on a gullible person could convince that person that they just witnessed true magic. Thus, repeating this trick under laboratory conditions would expose the real nature of the trick, showing it not to be magic.

    As for unexplained claims, they are simply "unexplained" until they meet their burden of proof. They don't suddenly get to be considered magic because science hasn't explained them yet.

    Which leads me to my next point, this is called scientism.

    Ah, the latest buzz word from Christian apologists. If you want to know what reality says, I recommend not watching videos from people who use this word as if it means something. It's a junk word made up to make it seem like the scientific method is somehow a bad thing.

    Your just putting the claim on the back burner until “science explains it” which again you’ll ONLY accept if it has natural explanations “ran through a laboratory meaning your bias has won the battle of being objective and only demanding naturalistic explanations cancels any chance of knowing about something on a supernatural level but then you turn around and demand evidence? How does that even begin to make sense?

    Yes, I don't blindly accept claims like you do. It's called being logical. The scientific method is the ONLY method we currently have to prove claims. If you want to prove some other magical realm you call the "supernatural" then that's up to you to find a way. As I started with, prove that an event breaks the laws of physics and you will get the attention of the scientific community. Since that has never happened, it's safe to say there is no good reason to believe in your magical claims.

    And when you say For evidence to be considered valid it must represent the BEST possible explanation

    Okay, best to who? If your only going to accept naturalistic explanations of something then really your just playing what I like to call the “Epistemic guessing game”.

    Perhaps this is my fault. Perhaps I should have spelled this out for you. When I used the term "best possible explanation" I am using what is known as "Occam's razor". You use this method every day of your life for every claim you run across, only discarding it when your religious beliefs are threatened. Simply put, it means "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." Like the example I gave you regarding the paper on your door step, you accept the theory that assumes the least amount of assumptions.

    So, if you tell me you saw a miracle, I have two options to believe. Either, magic has occurred (which has yet to ever be proven to exist), or there was some trickery present (either intentional or not). Since magic assumes belief in unproven claims, the more logical choice is to assume trickery until such a time as magic can be proved. Again, you use this logic for everything outside of your religion. It's a very useful tool to keep us from being fooled.

    I say that iv witnessed the power of God heal the sick instantaneously and you just bat it down with a kind of “it could have been any number of things but it wasn’t god” answer. Dude! There is NO cure for diabetes and for it to be gone at all is miraculous but more specifically the entire scenario only points to the power of God as being the BEST explanation!

    So, you must have seen a real doctor diagnose this person with incurable diabetes right before this miracle, then diagnose directly after to make sure it really was gone, right? Otherwise, why would you believe it? The reason God is not the best answer is because God is unproven. An unproven entity is by definition not the best answer to anything. Any number of other explanations are more likely than an unproven one. Not only that, but if you're going to accept unproven answers to your questions, why is your specific God the most likely? Why not any other God of other religions? Why not aliens? Why not literally anything else? Prove your God first, then use him as a cause.

    So I as I said since you accept plenty of unexplained phenomenon without being dismissive and you seem to accept a claim only if it has a naturalistic explanation, then im forced to think your not being objective when you dismiss a claim without evidence. It’s a “forced” analysis and is NOT science.

    Whoa, what are you claiming I accept without being proven? I accept nothing that is not proven by the scientific method. Why would I not dismiss a claim that has no evidence? You're naive if you truly think this way.

    Its like the logical fallacy of Moving the Goalpost, only in this case there is no goalpost…

    No, it's really not. The goalpost is clearly defined. Prove your claims and I will believe them.

    Please answer me the question I asked you several times in the previous post. Why is your God more likely than all other Gods when you bring exactly the same evidence as any other theist?

  • Even Hermione gets, what you, Jared are incapeable to understand:

    "There is NO cure for diabetes and for it to be gone at all is miraculous"

    First of all: I do not believe that claim, because there are forms of diabetes that occur and disappear by themselves all the time.

    But, Jared, and that is where your problem lies and we have been over this more then once and you just keep repeating your assertion:

    You have no way to demonstrate that this alledged miracle has anything to do with your god, or any god for for tha matter.

    And that what this is about: Not us claiming it can not be, but simply not believeing a claim that can not be demonstrated.

    Is that really so difficult to understand the difference between the two positions?

    Take the Gumball analogy:

    The number of gumballs can either be even or odd.

    You claim it to be even, and I say: "Why should it be even, I do not believe that it has to be even. Give me a good reason why the answer can only be even!"

    Am I at that point making the claim it can only be odd?

    No!

    If I would, you could obviously ask me: "Why do you claim it to be odd? Give me your reasons for the claim!"

    BUT I M NOT CLAIMING THAT!

    I just want to know why you claim that the number is even, if you have not gone, opened the glass and counted the gumballs.

    That is the way to knowledge.

    Applying that to your claim that only god can have healed the diabetic person:

    You claim: The only explanaion for this is: God did it!

    I say: "What is your reason to make that claim?"

    You now turn around and say: "What is the reason for your claim that god did not do it?" putting a claim into my mouth that I never made and turning the burden of proof, as you continously do in the discussions here.

    I only want to understand your line of reasoning, but your line of reasoning up to now has been hampered by two major fallacies:

    The one is the turning of the burden of proof, and the other is the argument from ignorance which goes:

    "If you can not come up with any other explanation for what I present, I am justified in claiming: God did it!"

    This is the definition and you use it again in this sentence:

    "There is NO cure for diabetes and for it to be gone at all is miraculous but more specifically the entire scenario only points to the power of God as being the BEST explanation!"

    And to accuse us of moving the goalpost is ridiculous!

    BTW: I do not know of any reported case right noiw, but I would assume there are cases where an atheist, maybe even an atheistic mass murderer has been miraculously healed of diabetes, cancer or high blood pressure.

    No praying, no worship, no believe in god.

    Do you now make the claim that god has healed this person just on a whim?

    Why?

    Because that is what you have to claim, if you say: In the cases I have observed god is the BEST explanation.

    You are taking on ALL unexplained healings all over the world, be it in Islamic, atheistic or buddhist or any other cases, or do you seriously claim that only christians are healed miraculously?

    And scientism again is ridiculous:

    All we say is: A claim made on something that has no way of being observed or tested can not be convincing, as I have just demonstrated.

    WE are asking: Why is god in your opinion the BEST explanation, and how have you ruled out for example the healing powers of the mind and of the body?

    What have you done in the case that you "present" here, to be able to rule out other causes?

    And your answer is: Nothing, I just jumped to conclusions from my own ignorance!

    I WANT ane NEED to see gods work confirmed.

    You are biased!

    All I do is ask you how you are reaching your assumptions and conclusions.

    Science can demonstrate how it gets to its claims to anyone who is interessted, can you do the same with claims?

    BTW: Who is to say that the cause of the magical healing that you claim to have wittnessed was not an invisible dragon?

    Can you logically explain to me how you ruled that out?

    And if you now say: WE have not prayed to a dragon, but to god/Jesus and the person was healed, I hope you realize yourself that that is not a logical explanation, especially for any of the aforemnetioned cases of atheistic miraculous healing, which certainly have been done by an invisible dragon, haven't they?

  • Find one example of testable evidence that breaks the known laws of physics. There have been many claims of this, but not one single shred of proof to back it up. Though this would not be conclusive proof of the supernatural, it would certainly be a good start, but you can't even get there, so your claims are all useless.

    Okay. So your admitting that by use of only natural testing we could not successfully test supernatural things and apparently your also still assuming naturalism? Do you not see the problem with this? The way to solve the issue of testing supernatural things is to test it on a supernatural level. Your just dismissing this out of hand. That’s not my fault.

    You don't assume something exists when there is no evidence of it, that's naive and stupid

    [/b]I agree. I would never tell someone to do that.

    It is not "reasonable" to assume someone is experiencing something which no one has been able to prove. Then your not being fair to science.

    I can fault you for assuming something unproven, but it is no "fault" to assume a natural explanation since that is the only method proven to exist.[/b]

    Sure, but as we have seen over and over there are many things naturalistic science cant explain. This is my point.

    Prove the supernatural exists first, otherwise obviously natural explanations are the only ones acceptable

    [/b]This does not make sense. The endeavor is proving the supernatural by your request if we were ever to finally test the supernatural then we would only find natural phenomenon. That’s contradictory and indeed impossible..meaning we will never know if unicorns exist if they are metaphysical in nature..

    I pointed out that your "evidence" for your God is weak and doesn't prove anything.

    [/b]

    You fail to see what I was pointing to. YOU’RE the one making these bold claims about your dragon, like doing things that any casual person could possibly see. So I said the same of my God. your dragon thing is inconsistent when we are talking about evidence I guess..

    BUT if you told me something was happening to you I am willing to believe it because similar things happened to me too.Then you are gullible

    NO I am not.. You’re the one saying it and im saying “okay where do you live” don’t make the claim if it isn’t true.. there is nothing about my interest that makes me gullible..

    You have no good reason to disbelieve any other religious claims, many of which contradict yours. Since you cannot hold two contradicting beliefs, you're clearly lying with this statement

    I have NEVER said I do no believe in religious/spiritual experiences made by other religions. I disagree with their doctrines in many cases but not necessarily there experience claims. I may weigh them a little but I would never just dismiss them. THAT would be foolish..

    From what you've told us, you haven't experienced anything that cannot be explained by natural means either.

    [/b]Yes I have.

    Your claims are unfounded and unbelievable, thus I reject them.

    [/b]

    So, are they unbelievable because they are unfounded or are they unfounded because they are “unbelievable”? you may be stepping in to circular reasoning here..which leads me to my next point..

    You're basically saying if someone doesn't believe your unprovable claims they just aren't "sincere" enough, or "honest" enough, or "open minded" enough…If your claims are true they should be able to be proven, otherwise there is no good reason to believe them.

    But im “Gullible” and my claims are “unbelievable”? are you honestly being objective here? You’ve in the past accepted that have had an experience. Why based on that should I assume naturalism?

    for unexplained claims, they are simply "unexplained" until they meet their burden of proof. They don't suddenly get to be considered magic because science hasn't explained them yet.

    I don’t disagree with this but you still need to be fair. Weighing the gravity of the matter and the likelihood of something happening should not always be assumed to have a natural explanation especially when it comes to ones personal experience you need to consider the claim its self. God may be as likely an answer as anything but not always.

    Which again leads me to my next point.

    Scientism, It's a junk word made up to make it seem like the scientific method is somehow a bad thing.

    [/b]

    No one is against the scientific method, at least not me. But there is a major problem naturalists have. They simply assume naturalism and have faith science will figure something out even though the answer may be supernatural and so they “kick against supernatural claims” when reality says there are some things science can never explain. If this is what you believe then you are guilty of this..

    I am using what is known as "Occam's razor". You use this method every day of your life for every claim you run across, only discarding it when your religious beliefs are threatened

    No I think I am well in my logical senses to think that God is a plausible answer to certain things science cannot explain like deaf ears opening, I don’t see why not. But further your only assuming Occam’s razor based on your lack of experience as I have said I don’t really blame you but if an experience can be had, it may not be discoverable through naturalism as I have been saying. Therefore though my experiences, I have plenty good reason to assume the supernatural AS WELL as the natural.

    So, you must have seen a real doctor diagnose this person with incurable diabetes right before this miracle, then diagnose directly after to make sure it really was gone, right?

    Well, yes. I admit your “on the spot” demands are not quite the same but diabetes does not just come and go. I think 2 days later if a reasonable time to have a positive doctors report. I don’t see why not.

    why is your specific God the most likely? Why not any other God of other religions? Why not aliens? Why not literally anything else? Prove your God first, then use him as a cause.

    So if I can prove aliens did it would that be natural or supernatural? It’s the same in the end. Its was not something in nature and the healing of a ailment is a means by which God uses to prove his existence and some believe and some don’t.

    what are you claiming I accept without being proven? I accept nothing that is not proven by the scientific method.

    [/b]

    Thats not true. I think what you mean is you don’t accept claims that exist outside the scientific method which goes back to the OP is this because you presuppose naturalism?

    Please answer me the question I asked you several times in the previous post. Why is your God more likely than all other Gods when you bring exactly the same evidence as any other theist?

    [/b]

    To be honest there is kind of a long answer to this and im not totally convinced that you would accept it and also I think your question is irrelevant. Weather its my God or any others I fail to see how if in the end im wrong and it was Vishnu the whole time that means naturalism is true…

  • Anteron,

    Take the Gumball analogy:

    The number of gumballs can either be even or odd.

    You claim it to be even, and I say: "Why should it be even, I do not believe that it has to be even. Give me a good reason why the answer can only be even!"

    Am I at that point making the claim it can only be odd?

    No!

    If I would, you could obviously ask me: "Why do you claim it to be odd? Give me your reasons for the claim!"

    BUT I M NOT CLAIMING THAT![/b]

    right but the issue is that in the gumball contraption IT HAS TO BE EITHER/OR unless you want to posit a 3rd option so deductively you ARE saying the opposite.

    so claim you "lack evidence" is a position that is actually the affirmation of the opposite. your challenging me based on what you already believe to be true..

    I just want to know why you claim that the number is even, if you have not gone, opened the glass and counted the gumballs.

    i HAVE done this and that is why i hold to may position and over all im saying you need to do the same. have you "opened the glass" or are you still at affirming doubt?

  • No, Jared it isn't! And that is why you fail!

    I am witholding taking a position until there is reason to take one.

    It is a straw man that you cling to, to continue arguing.

    Taking a position is only justified when there is suffient basis for making a claim!

    And no, I have not opened the glas. I say: There is enough basis for doubt of your claim, without the claim: There is no god existing.

    But to base the claim, that something you have not presented evidence for, is the cause of anything, is by definition the argument from ignorance!

    Do you care if you believe true things, Jared? Or are you like Thenofilius LOvegood, the one who believes any claim as long as it is not disproven?

    If so, a logical and reasoned discussion with you is impossible!

    You are the one making the claim, so you are the one who has to provide me with something to convince and I am the one who judges if the arguments or the evidence you present is sufficient to convince in either direction.

    Up to now it has convinced not one bit that your claim that the number of gumballs is even/That god exists is true. I still withold judgement.

    And that is what you do not understand!

  • Taking a position is only justified when there is suffient basis for making a claim!

    so your not saying that you disbelieve in a god?

    but you also say that you do not believe in a god either?

    is there a 3rd option?

    Up to now it has convinced not one bit that your claim that the number of gumballs is even/That god exists is true. I still withold judgement.

    this makes no sense. it is either/or! it takes just as much mind power to consider that the gumballs are even as it does to "stand unconvinced" meaning that the possibility of the gumballs being even is as plausible as them being odd. either way there is no 3rd option. you cognitively have to analyze it this way in order to determine if your going to 1 choose to accept if the number is even 2 accept if they are odd or 3 withhold judgment but 3 is STILL rejecting my claim which is taking a position.

    over all i would never expect you to accept my claim based on my words alone, but to count it out yourself or a lest see it as a viable option.

    thats what it means to be objective..

  • Is:

    "I do not believe there is a god" the same as

    as

    "I do believe there is no god" ?

    In my world it isn't.

    The first one is a lack of believe, the non-acceptance of a claim, the second one is making a claim itself.

    I belong to the first sentence as an agnostic atheist, towards a creator god.

    Yes there are only two options:

    There is a god, or there is no god, but...

    If I do not accept the claim there is a god, does not mean that I make the claim that there is NO god.

    I just say: I have never been presented with any evidence or argument that would convince me.

    And if your god is, as he must be if he miraculously heals incurable diseases, omnipotent and I assume omniscient, he should know what it takes to convince me, and that it hasn't happened leaves only two possibilities:

    Either he doesn't want to, which makes him, seeing that my salvation hangs in the balance, an immoral prick that is, even if he would exist, not worth any worship or love, or, and that is obviously the assumption I tend to:

    He does not exist.

    Is that something that I claim to be true?

    Why should I take that position when it is more then enough to say: I am not convinced that he exists, just as I am not convinced that the number of gumballs/Salt crystals on a spoon is even, if the probability that they are are odd is just about as high, if not, as in the case of your god, because he is a logical impossibility, even higher!

    You are continuously setting up a straw man. A position that I quite simply do not take.

    And how is accepting a claim without any evidence or reason objective?

    Let us go to something that you can test, at least not easy.

    Take a spoonful of salt.

    Now, you are claiming that the number of salt crystals on this spoon are even.

    I tell you: I do not accept that claim, because have no way to know and demonstrate to me that you are correct.

    Am I, who does not know if the number is even or odd, and does not make a claim on that, somehow just by telling you give me a good reason why you can make the claim that the number is even, make the claim the number are odd.

    How do you get to that?

    And getting back to what you wrote:

    over all i would never expect you to accept my claim based on my words alone, but to count it out yourself or a lest see it as a viable option.

    What else have I been writing about. Test it, count them.

    So getting back to your healing "evidence":

    Give me a logical way to determine that, beyond a reasonable you can show that the cause for the healing i9s your god, and not something natural and ordinary.

    But you can not do that, so I am rejecting your assumption!

    If I would not, I would have to accept any far fetched claim someone comes up with, which BTW you have ignored again, because I claim that if an atheist is healed "miraculously" it is Jason's dragon, it is the BEST explanation anyone can come with.

    You really should get back to the question you have been asking about natural and supernatural:

    Explain to me how you determine between supernatural claims.

    You claim god, I claim an invisible dragon is the cause for the miraculous healing of people.

    Which of these claims is more valid and how do you determine that?

    I claim: Fairies have caused the Big Bang, you claim god created the world:

    How do you go about about determining which of these claims is true?

    If you can do that, without an appeal to common sense or fallacious arguing, or simply CLAIMING that your claim is better because more people believe in it, because accept it: I really really really believe in the fairies and the dragon and their magical powers, then you might have a way to convince me you are right.

    Show me that my position is untenable and why!

  • Okay. So your admitting that by use of only natural testing we could not successfully test supernatural things and apparently your also still assuming naturalism?

    I said, show some verified, testable evidence that proves the laws of physics have been broken. If you cannot even do this, how can you possibly justify belief in non-natural events? Your entire premise comes down to "you can't prove me wrong, na na na na na na", which you're right, I can't prove magic to be non-existent. However, if this type of evidence is satisfactory for you to place a belief in a claim, then you just opened yourself up to accepting every claim ever. How do you differentiate between false claims and true ones using this kind of logic? Since no one can prove a negative, you are now obligated to believe everything from mystical creatures to all kinds of unprovable claims. This type of thinking is completely useless for that reason. The time to believe a claim is AFTER is can be proved, not before.

    Do you not see the problem with this? The way to solve the issue of testing supernatural things is to test it on a supernatural level. Your just dismissing this out of hand. That’s not my fault.

    You still haven't proved that a "supernatural level" is even a thing that exists. That very much is your fault because you're the one making the claim. If you're claiming a thing exists, then prove it. If you're then claiming you can't prove it because no such method exists to prove it, that's on you. Maybe you're satisfied believing anything you're told, but I require evidence for a belief.

    You don't assume something exists when there is no evidence of it, that's naive and stupid

    I agree. I would never tell someone to do that.

    You're telling us to do that right now. You're saying it's logical to hold your unprovable beliefs that you assume exist without being able to prove them. That's naive and stupid. Even if all your "experiences" were real, you still cannot prove your God, you can only prove an unexplainable phenomenon occurred, which makes you naive to believe a theist who claims to be able to explain these phenomenon without providing any evidence to you.

    Sure, but as we have seen over and over there are many things naturalistic science cant explain. This is my point.

    There are some things science cannot answer right now, but that means the answer is "I don't know", it does not mean any answer is fair game. You cannot simply claim the supernatural by finding gaps in scientific knowledge, that's the "God of the gaps" argument and it's a logical fallacy.

    This does not make sense. The endeavor is proving the supernatural by your request if we were ever to finally test the supernatural then we would only find natural phenomenon. That’s contradictory and indeed impossible..meaning we will never know if unicorns exist if they are metaphysical in nature..

    Sure, so then the time to believe in unicorns is NEVER because you can't prove it. If you're saying there exists a realm of space and time separate from the natural universe that we can never test and never experience, then your claim is useless and unprovable, thus it can be discarded out of hand. If you're saying this realm interacts with our natural universe, then those interactions can be tested and verified, which is the proof I'm asking for. Like I said from the outset, prove the laws of physics have been broken and I will listen, as will every scientist around the globe.

    You fail to see what I was pointing to. YOU’RE the one making these bold claims about your dragon, like doing things that any casual person could possibly see. So I said the same of my God. your dragon thing is inconsistent when we are talking about evidence I guess..

    The point is, SO IS YOUR GOD! My dragon has as much evidence as your God, so why is my dragon unbelievable and your God is not? There is not one single shred of evidence you have brought to the table that cannot be explained by natural means that I can test to find out if what you think you experienced is actually what you experienced.

    NO I am not.. You’re the one saying it and im saying “okay where do you live” don’t make the claim if it isn’t true.. there is nothing about my interest that makes me gullible..

    It's not your "interest" that makes you gullible, it's your acceptance of a person's extraordinary claims at face value. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which you haven't provided for your God and I didn't provide for my dragon. Clearly we both know my dragon claim was made to make a point, so obviously I made a claim that I don't believe is true. The point was to show how ridiculous it is to accept an unproven claim without testable evidence.

    I have NEVER said I do no believe in religious/spiritual experiences made by other religions. I disagree with their doctrines in many cases but not necessarily there experience claims. I may weigh them a little but I would never just dismiss them. THAT would be foolish..

    So, you're saying you believe in the magical claims made by people of other religions that contradict your own? That is an impossible view to hold. You cannot logically believe a claim that contradicts your belief. The foolish thing is to accept claims without evidence. I can't imagine you're actually this naive in real life, I don't see how you could survive.

    From what you've told us, you haven't experienced anything that cannot be explained by natural means either.

    Yes I have.

    Cool, put up or shut up. Prove anything you're claiming. Show me the scientific papers that prove that you witnessed something that broke the laws of physics. All the "evidence" you gave me earlier can be explained by natural means, so where is this evidence that proves otherwise? We have science to explain your warm, fuzzy feelings about your God, we have science to explain how "miracles" can fool people, so why would I believe anything you're claiming?

    So, are they unbelievable because they are unfounded or are they unfounded because they are “unbelievable”? you may be stepping in to circular reasoning here..which leads me to my next point..

    I thought I was pretty clear. Your claims are unfounded on any real evidence and thus are logically unbelievable. A logically thinking person would be unable to accept your claims based on the unfounded nature of them. Is this clear enough for you?

    But im “Gullible” and my claims are “unbelievable”? are you honestly being objective here? You’ve in the past accepted that have had an experience. Why based on that should I assume naturalism?

    Yes, you're gullible if you accept someone's word for it that a supernatural event has occurred. Without testing this event, you have no way of knowing it's real and yet you still believe it, that's gullibility. I'm objectively looking at your lack of any proof and saying "show me the evidence". Until you do so, there is no reason to believe you. I said I thought you were being sincere when you say you thought you saw something you couldn't explain. You're being gullible by accepting a supernatural explanation without evidence. You have no evidence in the supernatural, you have all the evidence in the natural world...that's why you should accept it. It's pretty easy logic to follow.

    I don’t disagree with this but you still need to be fair. Weighing the gravity of the matter and the likelihood of something happening should not always be assumed to have a natural explanation especially when it comes to ones personal experience you need to consider the claim its self. God may be as likely an answer as anything but not always.

    God is not proven to exist so by definition it is not "as likely an answer" to anything. You cannot attribute events to an entity that cannot be proven to exist. Of course a natural explanation needs to be assumed, it's the only one that can be proved. You have this backwards. First, you prove something exists, then you use it to explain things.

    No one is against the scientific method, at least not me. But there is a major problem naturalists have. They simply assume naturalism and have faith science will figure something out even though the answer may be supernatural and so they “kick against supernatural claims” when reality says there are some things science can never explain. If this is what you believe then you are guilty of this..

    Firstly, nobody has "faith" in science. People trust the scientific method based on thousands of years of it being proven to be correct. We have no such evidence that any other method works. Secondly, the answer may be anything if you don't need evidence to support it, but that thinking is USELESS. Until you can prove something, there's no good reason to believe it. Science has limitations right now based on our current technology, but that is constantly changing. So, to say there is anything science will never explain is just false. We don't know what the future holds, so to make claims before you have knowledge is just naive.

    No I think I am well in my logical senses to think that God is a plausible answer to certain things science cannot explain like deaf ears opening, I don’t see why not. But further your only assuming Occam’s razor based on your lack of experience as I have said I don’t really blame you but if an experience can be had, it may not be discoverable through naturalism as I have been saying. Therefore though my experiences, I have plenty good reason to assume the supernatural AS WELL as the natural.

    Firstly, please don't make claims like "deaf ears opening" until you show me the scientific papers to prove this event happened the way you claim. Until you get one of these "miracles" proven in laboratory conditions, no one has any reason to believe them any more than believing Penn and Teller have magical powers. Secondly, you have no good reason to assume the supernatural because you haven't confirmed your experiences as being supernatural. Again, if you're so convinced of this, get a real, scientific test done on it and blow the minds of all those unbelieving heathens.

    Well, yes. I admit your “on the spot” demands are not quite the same but diabetes does not just come and go. I think 2 days later if a reasonable time to have a positive doctors report. I don’t see why not.

    Ah, so the truth comes out. So, someone prayed over a person and something happened days later that you cannot confirm had anything to do with the prayer. Yup, sounds about right. This is what all "miracles" come down to once you start to get the real details.

    So if I can prove aliens did it would that be natural or supernatural? It’s the same in the end. Its was not something in nature and the healing of a ailment is a means by which God uses to prove his existence and some believe and some don’t.

    The point of mentioning aliens is to show that there is just as much evidence to support that as there is your God. You have no way of knowing any of the stuff you claimed here. This is just talk.

    Thats not true. I think what you mean is you don’t accept claims that exist outside the scientific method which goes back to the OP is this because you presuppose naturalism?

    What the hell are you talking about? You said I believe things that are unproven and I'm asking you what you think those things are.

    To be honest there is kind of a long answer to this and im not totally convinced that you would accept it and also I think your question is irrelevant. Weather its my God or any others I fail to see how if in the end im wrong and it was Vishnu the whole time that means naturalism is true…

    Give me your best reason for disbelieving other God claims that are just as verifiable as yours and accepting your God claims. It's very relevant because you're not claiming to be a deist, you're claiming to believe in the Christian God of your specific sect and I'm asking how you can be so sure you're right? If you're wrong and it's Allah, you're dead, so your entire life was a waste of time. Thus, how can you be so sure you're not wasting your life?

  • I said, show some verified, testable evidence that proves the laws of physics have been broken. If you cannot even do this, how can you possibly justify belief in non-natural events?

    Okay that is a positive claim toward an unexplained event. You now need to give verifiable science for why its natural and when you cant the next best claim could be a supernatural explanation but That’s when you say “science will someday figure it out” proactively eliminating God as any option and not considering the claim at all.

    IF God is a supernatural being by definition then you would be wrong in your approach to figuring out his existence! This has been my point.

    Since no one can prove a negative, you are now obligated to believe everything from mystical creatures to all kinds of unprovable claims. This type of thinking is completely useless for that reason. The time to believe a claim is AFTER is can be proved, not before.

    You still haven't proved that a "supernatural level" is even a thing that exists.

    You're saying it's logical to hold your unprovable beliefs that you assume exist without being able to prove them. That's naive and stupid. Even if all your "experiences" were real, you still cannot prove your God, you can only prove an unexplainable phenomenon occurred,

    If you're saying there exists a realm of space and time separate from the natural universe that we can never test and never experience, then your claim is useless and unprovable, thus it can be discarded out of hand

    [/b]

    Only if you’re a naturalist!

    You do realize there is no evidence that naturalism or the scientific method is true right? The scientific method presupposes its own analysis and its circular reasoning to make the scientific method your primary reason for why you believe anything including the scientific method. Given that its meaningless to claim you have proved a positive. Therefore you cannot positively say there is a natural explanation for any anomaly.

    You cannot simply claim the supernatural by finding gaps in scientific knowledge, that's the "God of the gaps" argument and it's a logical fallacy.

    What you call God of the gaps I call scientism. Accept for some reason you eliminate god as an option??

    Your entire premise comes down to "you can't prove me wrong, na na na na na na"

    [/b]

    If this is the case then my point is that you’ve had experiences that I have never had and I cant prove you didn’t therefore you can relate to the angle im coming from.

    My dragon has as much evidence as your God, so why is my dragon unbelievable and your God is not?

    [/b]

    I haven’t ruled anything out I asked you to tell me where you live and I will make the investigation myself. If your dragon had properties that were impossible to experience or encounter altogether then I would have some kind of problem thinking that its really there IF your going to say I could have some chance to encounter him and then I don’t..

    It's not your "interest" that makes you gullible, it's your acceptance of a person's extraordinary claims at face value. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

    Like I said iv had experiences that as you’ve seen are a bit hard to explain, so why shouldn’t I grant that perhaps others have as well? And this business of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is silly. Extraordinary to who? That which was at one time considered “extraordinary” can now be seen as ordinary and God although at one time was extraordinary to me is now very ordinary. This statement is nonsense…

    So, you're saying you believe in the magical claims made by people of other religions that contradict your own? That is an impossible view to hold. You cannot logically believe a claim that contradicts your belief

    How is that at all impossible? I said I disagree with there doctrines, but I do not dismiss there experiences and in many cases, depending on what we are talking about those experiences are not that different. I said I “weigh” them but I have no reason to disbelieve in them..

    We have science to explain your warm, fuzzy feelings about your God, we have science to explain how "miracles"

    [/b]

    No we don’t. we have skeptics trying to “forcefully analyze” something and then say “I don’t know but it wasn’t God” which is not an explanation of anything! Just like this answer here

    God is not proven to exist so by definition it is not "as likely an answer" to anything. You cannot attribute events to an entity that cannot be proven to exist.

    ….give me one single shred of evidence that abiogenesis happened and I will shut up forever. Or will you rely on scientism and say we will figure it out someday?

    But remember you said “First, you prove something exists, then you use it to explain things.”

    Ah, so the truth comes out. So, someone prayed over a person and something happened days later that you cannot confirm had anything to do with the prayer

    Not “days later” and it’s a doctors report that “something happened” and its gone….this has happened countless times…your not making a case here…

    Like this just happened 2hours of me posting this:

    Danielle spent the day in the hospital with a swollen leg and chest pains, symptoms of a blood clot. After the first tests, the doctor said she has a blood clot and sent us to another hospital for treatment. While at the second hospital they ran more tests, and I ran to church to preach while the pastor's wife stayed with her. After church we met with the doctor and he said, "all tests indicated there was a blood clot before, but now all the tests are completely clear, the blood clot is gone." My God is more than enough!

    I can take connect you to the person who posted this…

    you're not claiming to be a deist, you're claiming to believe in the Christian God of your specific sect and I'm asking how you can be so sure you're right?

    Within my sect its about being doctrinally correct as for all other gods it’s a matter of putting them to the test >:0)

  • Jared:

    You do realize there is no evidence that naturalism or the scientific method is true right?

    How do we arive at knowledge?

    The scientific method has proven to work, over and over and over again.

    Without it we would not have detremined that the earth rotates aound the sun, the earth is not flat, the thearh is more then ten thousand years old, that the universe is more then 14 Billion years old!

    And you tell me that there is no eveidence that the scientific method is true:

    Your claims are getting more and more ridiculous!

  • Danielle spent the day in the hospital with a swollen leg and chest pains, symptoms of a blood clot. After the first tests, the doctor said she has a blood clot and sent us to another hospital for treatment. While at the second hospital they ran more tests, and I ran to church to preach while the pastor's wife stayed with her. After church we met with the doctor and he said, "all tests indicated there was a blood clot before, but now all the tests are completely clear, the blood clot is gone." My God is more than enough!

    Seriously? Bloodclots never disappear just like that?

    A timely relation does not represent caustion.

    But: Who is to say that it was not the great magical Dragon that made the clot disappear, just because they prayed to god, does not mean that he does feel like helping out!

    And tell me: What about the hundreds of people that died all over the world at the same moment?

    Are they all deserving to die, or, which is even better: Did your god not want this woman, because she is so sinful that she has to repent much more before god can take her up into heaven?

    Isn't that good explanation, because, if you believe in your god, heaven and an afterlife, is it not that dying is actually finally getting what you have strifed for?

    And: If your god has disolved the blodclod, was it not him that has given it to her in the first place?

    Why is he so inconsequent?

    Was he just giving her a warning shot, to make her get an healthier lifestyle, or was it just that there was clotting, and the doctors gave bloodthinners and the clod disolved, and this was conviniently left out of the story?#

  • So this is what, in your opinion, your god does as entertainment?

    Guess where I found it:

  • my point about science is that it does have to presuppose its own methods to be true in order to determine anything but in the end we cant KNOW that this is the BEST way to determine all things. take for instance how the universe came into existence....there was no "science" before science began to exist.

    my point about the blood clot is that i was saying this kind of stuff happens all the time and its always around prayer and a move of Gods spirit etc. yes there is an external "force" that is recognizable many times when this happens..

    and no i dont believe God made the tornadoes, im not sure what your even implying..

  • And if your god is, as he must be if he miraculously heals incurable diseases, omnipotent and I assume omniscient, he should know what it takes to convince me, and that it hasn't happened leaves only two possibilities:

    think about what your saying. he heals people and you dont seem to doubt my experience when all i am saying is, i guess give it a try.

    yet you say this

    Either he doesn't want to, which makes him, seeing that my salvation hangs in the balance, an immoral prick that is, even if he would exist, not worth any worship or love, or, and that is obviously the assumption I tend to:

    He does not exist.[/i]

    well, okay if thats the way you feel about it then your in the category of the unreasonable. if you were in a fire and you give off the impression that you dont even care if you get saved or not, then you'll be one of the last ones to even bother with...

    hence, you condemn yourself as the traditional response goes...

  • Okay that is a positive claim toward an unexplained event. You now need to give verifiable science for why its natural and when you cant the next best claim could be a supernatural explanation but That’s when you say “science will someday figure it out” proactively eliminating God as any option and not considering the claim at all.

    My point is, you cannot even get to the first step of proving the laws of physics have been broken. If this step cannot be reached, how do you expect anyone to believe you? It's not just God I disregard as an explanation, I disregard every other possible entity that has not shown any evidence to exist. You make it seem like I'm simply biased against God, but if your God had one shred of evidence to support his existence, I would look at it. I also reject the notion that aliens did it, fairies did it or Gandolf did it. I don't know how much more clearly I can make this...simply pointing to a supposedly "strange" or "rare" event does not prove how it happened. I can prove the cause of these events to be fairies just as easily as you "prove" it was your God.

    IF God is a supernatural being by definition then you would be wrong in your approach to figuring out his existence! This has been my point.

    Does your God influence the natural world? If so, you should be able to point to these things to prove his existence. If your God wants people to believe he exists, he should be smart enough to understand how to make that happen. So, is your God unable or unwilling to do so?

    You do realize there is no evidence that naturalism or the scientific method is true right? The scientific method presupposes its own analysis and its circular reasoning to make the scientific method your primary reason for why you believe anything including the scientific method. Given that its meaningless to claim you have proved a positive. Therefore you cannot positively say there is a natural explanation for any anomaly.

    LOL...more meaningless nonsense that theists assert to make their claims look less silly. Science is self correcting and the proof is all around you. Science sends people into space, creates the computer you're typing on, cures diseases, and makes discoveries about our universe. Without the scientific method, we're still living in caves wondering how that magic fire works. That's your proof of science, so where's your proof of the supernatural?

    What you call God of the gaps I call scientism. Accept for some reason you eliminate god as an option??\

    Can you please stop using nonsense made-up words like "scientism", it just makes you look silly. You clearly don't understand my point, so I will elaborate. When you find a gap in our knowledge and say God did it, it's a fallacy because you cannot prove independently that God actually did it. You are doing things backwards...you don't find fault in something else and have your idea win by default. You put forth positive evidence to support your own claims, which you have failed to do. Just as a hint for the future, anytime you can replace the word "God" with literally anything else and it still carries the same weight...you're committing a logical fallacy.

    If this is the case then my point is that you’ve had experiences that I have never had and I cant prove you didn’t therefore you can relate to the angle im coming from.

    You cannot prove the source of your "experiences", so please stop referring to them as if they are evidence. I've tried to explain this to you over and over but you're just too stubborn to accept basic logic. Please stop referring to these experiences as if they prove anything until you get them tested by science and prove that something unexplainable happened. Someone's illness going into remission...not evidence of the supernatural. Let me know when you witness a limb growing back..or is this too hard for your God?

    I haven’t ruled anything out I asked you to tell me where you live and I will make the investigation myself. If your dragon had properties that were impossible to experience or encounter altogether then I would have some kind of problem thinking that its really there IF your going to say I could have some chance to encounter him and then I don’t..

    I already told you my dragon is standing beside you right now. If you don't feel his presence, that's on you, you simply don't have enough faith in my dragon. In fact, I told my dragon to cure all those sick people you've been praying over, so really he's the reason, not your God. If you don't accept my dragon, you're just being closed minded and need to open your mind to other possibilities. Claiming you know your God exists and is responsible for these things you've seen is closing your mind to all other possibilities.

    Like I said iv had experiences that as you’ve seen are a bit hard to explain, so why shouldn’t I grant that perhaps others have as well? And this business of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is silly. Extraordinary to who? That which was at one time considered “extraordinary” can now be seen as ordinary and God although at one time was extraordinary to me is now very ordinary. This statement is nonsense…

    Firstly, do you believe your God is the only God that exists and wants us to worship only him? If so, why would someone who worships "pagan" Gods experience your God's presence? Also, if you accept that they witnessed something, how do you know their God is not the real one? If they witness the same things as you, you have no more evidence to support your God than they do to support theirs. Your logic is messed up.

    Something deemed to be extraordinary would, by definition, be something we don't see in our ordinary world. We see sick people get better all the time, all over the world. Claiming an invisible entity exists is an extraordinary claim because it breaks the laws of our current universe. Your belief in invisible pixies does not change the fact that they are universally extraordinary. The phrase exists to say that your evidence must match the claim and yours does not even come close.

    How is that at all impossible? I said I disagree with there doctrines, but I do not dismiss there experiences and in many cases, depending on what we are talking about those experiences are not that different. I said I “weigh” them but I have no reason to disbelieve in them..

    You're asking me how it's impossible to hold two contradicting beliefs? Okay, prove me wrong...believe God both exists and does not exist right now. For you to even ask that question is baffling. If another theists' religious beliefs contradict yours and yet you accept his religious claims as real, you're contradicting yourself. You cannot both accept your beliefs and those of someone who believes the opposite. Again, are you saying that your God causes all these events regardless of the religion of the one making the claim? If so, you cannot possibly prove your religion is the right one.

    No we don’t. we have skeptics trying to “forcefully analyze” something and then say “I don’t know but it wasn’t God” which is not an explanation of anything! Just like this answer here

    If you don't understand neurology, that's on you. This phenomenon is very well understood and not in question. So, this brings us back to Occam's razor. Do I accept proven scientific explanations about your warm, fuzzy feelings, or do I believe that they are caused by magic? Since magic is an unproven claim, it makes sense to trust the claims that can be proved. If you want magic to be taken seriously as an explanation, PROVE IT!!!

    ….give me one single shred of evidence that abiogenesis happened and I will shut up forever. Or will you rely on scientism and say we will figure it out someday?

    Ah, shifting the burden of proof, you're stooping low now. 150 years ago we had no evidence evolution happened, now it's a fact. Abiogenesis is not fully understood but is being tested as we speak. Simple life forms have been able to be formed in labs and I would bet this will be understood in time. Remember, all the knowledge we now have was once unknown. For you to imply that it's somehow a bad thing to understand we don't currently know everything, is quite frankly, puzzling and weird. Show some humility like you claim your God wants. Understand you don't have all the answers.

    However, if you want, I will simply say, I don't know how abiogenesis happened...so what? Prove your God.

    But remember you said “First, you prove something exists, then you use it to explain things.”

    Yes, and no one uses abiogenesis to explain anything because we don't yet understand it. I know you think you're being clever, but these tactics just show your dishonesty.

    Danielle spent the day in the hospital with a swollen leg and chest pains, symptoms of a blood clot. After the first tests, the doctor said she has a blood clot and sent us to another hospital for treatment. While at the second hospital they ran more tests, and I ran to church to preach while the pastor's wife stayed with her. After church we met with the doctor and he said, "all tests indicated there was a blood clot before, but now all the tests are completely clear, the blood clot is gone." My God is more than enough!

    So, your definition of a "miracle" is far different from mine. You basically believe something that happens, on it's own, thousands of times a day, all over the planet is a miracle. Like Anteron said, what did the people who prayed to your God but died do wrong? Why do you accept someone's illness going away to be a miracle from God but conveniently forget the many more times this praying does not work? I know, God works in mysterious ways. Or, shit happens randomly and there's just as much reason to credit your "miracles" to the pixies in my garden as there is your God. Prove that my pixies aren't the cause of this "miracle".

    A miracle to me would be something happening that is so rare it is practically impossible. Please don't post anymore of these "miracles" that can be explained by simply chance.

    Within my sect its about being doctrinally correct as for all other gods it’s a matter of putting them to the test

    You realize this is exactly what every other religion claims, right? Why are they wrong and you're right?

  • Jared did you not read Jason's reply or did you fail to understand it?

    Jason-Find one example of testable evidence that breaks the known laws of physics. There have been many claims of this, but not one single shred of proof to back it up. Though this would not be conclusive proof of the supernatural, it would certainly be a good start, but you can't even get there, so your claims are all useless. If your claims are true they should be able to be proven, otherwise there is no good reason to believe them.

    If your claims were true, they should be able to stand on their own merit & evidence. That fact that religious claims fail to stand on their own (lacks testable, empirical, repeatable proof), means they can be dismissed.

    "Sure, but as we have seen over and over there are many things naturalistic science cant explain."

    Such as? More specifically what exactly can’t science explain? Abiogenisis? The birth of the universe? These things simply lack information as of yet- once there is sufficient information then they too can be explained. Even then we still have far more evidence for Abiogenisis & how the universe formed than we do for a supernatural deity you call god. This is the skeptics point and the one you need to address to even consider the supernatural.

    “if we were ever to finally test the supernatural then we would only find natural phenomenon. That’s contradictory and indeed impossible..meaning we will never know if unicorns exist if they are metaphysical in nature..”

    Why do you think this way Jared? Let us use your 'metaphysical unicorns' as an example. Even if such a supernatural creature where to exist it would still leave a testable trace/impact on the natural world that can be examined scientifically. Jason also posted this point above- he beat me to posting it.

    The unicorn could leave foot prints which means it has mass, weight, inertia etc. It can be seen, which means it would have to reflect/absorb electromagnetic energy such as light & heat. It would displace atmosphere/water- which means it has volume and in certain moments physicality etc. There are plenty of ways in which to test a “supernatural” phenomenon especially if it has ANY impact upon the natural world. The fact that you feel that this is not the case does not make it true or it just makes you blind to how reality works.

    “don’t make the claim if it isn’t true.. there is nothing about my interest that makes me gullible..”

    Other than you & every theist accept claims/phenomena without support.

    So, are they unbelievable because they are unfounded or are they unfounded because they are “unbelievable”?

    They are unbelievable because every theist has lost their credibility here and in the real world.

    “But there is a major problem naturalists have. They simply assume naturalism and have faith science will figure something out even though the answer may be supernatural.”

    Not true. Naturalists accept reality for what it is. Trust in a proven track record that has brought us medicine, space exploration and microwaves in a few 100 years & is far better than what dogmatic superstition has EVER done in 5000 years! That is not faith Jared- that is a proven track record. Your faith in your religion can’t ever predict when or if a miracle will even happen.

    “No I think I am well in my logical senses to think that God is a plausible answer to certain things science cannot explain like deaf ears opening.”

    This can of worms again? None of that was ever substantiated with anyone here Jared. Then to be blunt you have also destroyed your own credibility and shown your cognitive dissonance on multiple occasions –some not even related to your faith!

    Need I remind you of this discussion in the ‘Q & A With a Theist’ thread

    https://www.facebook.com/AtheistRepublic?sk=app_202980683107053&app_data=b0b0025f-4c2b-443f-b66f-5d77d8db6b3e:1

    Specifically when you contradict yourself here “After reading your discussion with Jared in Fayez’s thread “what are we doing here and what’s after death ?” it seems clear that Jared is unaware to what extent he evades questions. Jared’s last reply was “i have given reasons for me not answering things and i have stated that i am not being evasive in anyway, if you think i am feel free to ask something directly.” He then follows this up here with "i do not avoid answering questions".

    That is a contradiction Jared- it is the very definition of a contradiction! Then you want us skeptics to believe extraordinary claims without any testable, repeatable, empirical evidence when you ruined your own credibility. Consider you are not the only theist who does this either Jared so don't feel bad. I am not intending this example as an insult- it is just to make a point. Even honest well intentioned theists are flat out contradictory on issues removed from religion so how can we ever trust them?

    Such contradictions happen far too frequently Jared for theists to have any credibility left. Even if god actually appeared and gave you irrefutable proof you & every theist are like the boy who cried wolf. No skeptic would believe you anymore.

    “if an experience can be had, it may not be discoverable through naturalism as I have been saying...IF God is a supernatural being by definition then you would be wrong in your approach to figuring out his existence! This has been my point.”

    Obviously we disagree Jared. The supernatural if it existed can be proven and examined using naturalistic scientific methods as shown above. That fact is nothing supernatural has EVER been presented to be tested. EVER!

    “….give me one single shred of evidence that abiogenesis happened and I will shut up forever.”

    Challenge accepted as Barney would say from the TV show ‘How I Met Your Mother’

    Here comes the evidence....

    We are here.

    That is a single shred of evidence. You did not specify that it had to be strong evidence just that it had to be one single shred of evidence. :) Technicalities -don't ya just hate them?

    “my point about the blood clot is that i was saying this kind of stuff happens all the time and its always around prayer and a move of Gods spirit etc…think about what your saying. he heals people and you dont seem to doubt my experience when all i am saying is, i guess give it a try.”

    Jared we don’t doubt you believe you had an experience we do doubt the claim (actual experience). You & every other theist have yet to show testable, repeatable, empirical evidence on your claims.

1 2 3 4 »