Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 885 by Rkrause]

When it comes to the 'supernatural', I can't even get a consistent definition.

That leads me to believe it is imaginary

I'd like to know how they have determined the "supernatural" can't be tested now or ever.

Simply because it's never been detected doesn't mean it can't be detected.

They are begging the question.

They'd have to know something about the supernatural to make such a claim. How do they know the "sn" is undetectable?

Maybe if it existed, it could be easy to test.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 885 by Rkrause]

When it comes to the 'supernatural', I can't even get a consistent definition.

That leads me to believe it is imaginary

I'd like to know how they have determined the "supernatural" can't be tested now or ever.

Simply because it's never been detected doesn't mean it can't be detected.

They are begging the question.

They'd have to know something about the supernatural to make such a claim. How do they know the "sn" is undetectable?

Maybe if it existed, it could be easy to test.

IMO, there is no such thing as the 'supernatural'.. there is only the natural, too narrowly defined.

[no evidence no belief]

seriously guys!

Something's gotta give!

PLEASE provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs!

COME ON!

Just give up NENB as I have already pointed out Science isn't looking into the existence of a god so your looking for "scientific evidence" is a failure and since that is the only evidence you will accept your whole argument is flawed.

What are you talking about!? OF COURSE science is looking into the existence of God! Science is looking into the existence of everything!

Besides, I'm not looking for scientific evidence only. Have some anecdotal evidence? Have a personal experience? Do you believe there is a prophecy in the Bible? Bring it on, and we can talk about it.

For example prove to me cars exist but I will only accept evidence from 13th century writers.

I cringe at the absurdity, weakness and nonsensicality of this analogy. I literally have goosebumps imagining the amount of shame I would feel if I had been caught saying something so colossally preposterous.

Sorry but this thread should have been shut down a long time ago. Just because you don't accept any evidence except what you declare as evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist.

Buddy, do you have a feeling in your heart that Jesus loves you? Or that God exists? Or that Armageddon is forthcoming? Or whatever?

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

When I was in middle school, I had a class mate that insisted he had a super-hot girlfriend outside of school, and had her photo in his wallet. So we asked him to show us the photo of the girl, but he refused. He said that his girlfriend was so hot that if he showed us the photo we wouldn't believe she was his girlfriend. Turns out he was making the whole thing up.

You remind me of that classmate. You claim that you have evidence, but refuse to show it because you allege that the evidence is such that we wouldn't be able to accept it.

Just show us the evidence! Then everybody can see whether I dogmatically reject it simply because it's not the type of evidence I like, or whether I reject it because your evidence for your beliefs is no more valid than the evidence for Santa, Batman, Allah, Leprechauns and Gollum.

If your evidence for Yahweh is no better than the evidence for Allah, Santa and Spiderman, and you do NOT believe in Allah, Santa and Spiderman, then, for the sake of consistency, you shouldn't believe in Yahweh either, right?

[instantc]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

[Danmark]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

Doesn't his 'or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa' neutralize the point you are trying to make?

Absent differentiating evidence both are beliefs in an imaginary being. "We" do not know for 'certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents.' Most may believe this, but . . .


Eight-year-old Virginia O'Hanlon wrote a letter to the editor of New York's Sun, and the quick response was printed as an unsigned editorial Sept. 21, 1897. The work of veteran newsman Francis Pharcellus Church has since become history's most reprinted newspaper editorial, appearing in part or whole in dozens of languages in books, movies, and other editorials, and on posters and stamps.




"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

_ http://www.newseum.org/yesvirginia/

[instantc]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

Doesn't his 'or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa' neutralize the point you are trying to make?

I don't see how it does, since we have very good positive reasons not to take the story of Santa Claus seriously, as we know for certainty where the story comes from and what its true motivation is. Almost any experience based claim stands prima facie on better grounds than truth claims about Santa Claus. Thus, it is an intellectually lazy analogy and a worthless argument in my opinion. A proper analogy might make a point here, but this one gives apologists a free pass and makes the atheist in question look quite silly.

[Danmark]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

Doesn't his 'or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa' neutralize the point you are trying to make?

I don't see how it does, since we have very good positive reasons not to take the story of Santa Claus seriously, as we know for certainty where the story comes from and what its true motivation is. Almost any experience based claim stands prima facie on better grounds than truth claims about Santa Claus. Thus, it is an intellectually lazy analogy and a worthless argument in my opinion. A proper analogy might make a point here, but this one gives apologists a free pass and makes the atheist in question look quite silly.

I agree there are distinctions, as there are in any analogy. Analogies make poor arguments. Their main use is simply to explain, not to prove. Here the analogy is instructive since, to use your words, we have very good positive reasons not to take the story of a god/Jesus [traditional Christian orthodoxy] seriously.

[no evidence no belief]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

What reason is there for taking an adult's belief in taking donkeys more seriously than a child's belief in flying reindeer?

I'm not saying "They should be taken equally seriously". I'm just asking: What reason is there for taking one more seriously than the other.

Is there some intrinsic fact about the fabric of the universe that makes talking donkeys more plausible than flying reindeer?

I'm not drawing a conclusion. I'm just asking a question. Please list the reasons why talking donkeys should be taken more seriously than flying reindeer.

Reason 1: ________________

Reason 2: ________________

Reason 3: ________________

Thanks in advance for responding clearly without attempting to equivocate.

[instantc]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

What reason is there for taking an adult's belief in taking donkeys more seriously than a child's belief in flying reindeer?

I'm not saying "They should be taken equally seriously". I'm just asking: What reason is there for taking one more seriously than the other.

Is there some intrinsic fact about the fabric of the universe that makes talking donkeys more plausible than flying reindeer?

I'm not drawing a conclusion. I'm just asking a question. Please list the reasons why talking donkeys should be taken more seriously than flying reindeer.

Reason 1: ________________

Reason 2: ________________

Reason 3: ________________

Thanks in advance for responding clearly without attempting to equivocate.

Previously you compared a child's experience of Santa Claus and an adult's experience of God. I'll give you few reasons why the two are not comparable.

First, children tend to have more vivid perception of reality than adults, therefore an experience based statement of an adult prima facie carries more weight.

Second, we know for certainty that a child's experience of Santa Claus is in reality just the dad masquerading as Santa. Thus, any other experience is prima facie more likely to correspond to reality.

In fact, if anything in the world were to convince me about supernatural, it would be these experiences of others. I find it amazing that my Christian friend, who is usually fairly rational and intelligent and has a career in academics, tells me that he heard God talking to him last night just as clearly as he hears me now. Two people who interact on daily basis both live in completely separate realities.

I'm not saying that the above is anywhere close to good evidence for the said supernatural events, but it definitely carries more weight than a child's experience of Santa Claus, which I find a worthless analogy.

[no evidence no belief]

If we take that feeling in your heart as evidence for God, then we also have to take a child's feeling that Santa will bring him a nice gift as evidence for Santa.

So either admit that your belief in the supernatural is based on no stronger foundation that a child's belief in Santa, or present some kind of cogent argument for why your evidence should be taken more seriously than the child's evidence for Santa.

We know for certainty that a child's experiences of Santa are just a tricks played by the parents. One plausible explanation for religious experiences certainly is that they could be a result of indoctrination and tricks played by the brain. To compare the two in a way you do above is just ridiculous and more intellectually lazy argumentation than any theistic argument I have ever heard.

If you want your thread to be taken seriously, make serious arguments.

What reason is there for taking an adult's belief in taking donkeys more seriously than a child's belief in flying reindeer?

I'm not saying "They should be taken equally seriously". I'm just asking: What reason is there for taking one more seriously than the other.

Is there some intrinsic fact about the fabric of the universe that makes talking donkeys more plausible than flying reindeer?

I'm not drawing a conclusion. I'm just asking a question. Please list the reasons why talking donkeys should be taken more seriously than flying reindeer.

Reason 1: ________________

Reason 2: ________________

Reason 3: ________________

Thanks in advance for responding clearly without attempting to equivocate.

Previously you compared a child's experience of Santa Claus and an adult's experience of God. I'll give you few reasons why the two are not comparable.

First, children tend to have more vivid perception of reality than adults, therefore an experience based statement of an adult prima facie carries more weight.

Second, we know for certainty that a child's experience of Santa Claus is in reality just the dad masquerading as Santa. Thus, any other experience is prima facie more likely to correspond to reality.

In fact, if anything in the world were to convince me about supernatural, it would be these experiences of others. I find it amazing that my Christian friend, who is usually fairly rational and intelligent and has a career in academics, tells me that he heard God talking to him last night just as clearly as he hears me now. Two people who interact on daily basis both live in completely separate realities.

I'm not saying that the above is anywhere close to good evidence for the said supernatural events, but it definitely carries more weight than a child's experience of Santa Claus, which I find a worthless analogy.

It's a valid analogy broadly, in that there isn't a shred of evidence for either God or Santa, and the belief in both is entirely faith-based.

Your first point, that at prima facie an adult's report of the supernatural is more credible than a child, is absurd.

Of the millions upon millions of adults that have made supernatural reports, how many have been confirmed to be accurate? ZERO. The accuracy rate for adult reports of supernatural events is 0%, with a sample of millions, probably billions.

Children are no better, and no worse. When it comes to the trustworthiness of an individual when it comes to reporting a supernatural event, both children and adults have no credibility, and there is no prima facie reason to believe one more than the other.

To say that talking donkeys are more likely than flying reindeer because claims of talking donkeys are made by adults who are at prima facie more credible, is like saying that the flying car in "Back to the Future 2" is more likely than the flying bicycle in "ET the extraterrestrial" because cars tend to go faster than bicycles.

It's true that children have more vivid imaginations than adults, and it's true that bicycles are less fast than cars, but both points are made moot by the fact that adults have a firmly established track record of unreliability when it comes to supernatural claims, and neither cars nor bicycles can fly.

Regarding your second point: You said something to the effect of "we know for certain Santa is not real". Yes, we know that for pretty much certain, based on empirical evidence. Here's the thing: The empirical evidence against the great flood is just as conclusive as the empirical evidence against Santa. We know both for just as certain.

So your second point fails, because if you limit yourself to rational thinking, the evidence is as conclusive for the non-existence of the talking donkey and the zombie invasion, as it is for the north pole magic toy factory and the flying reindeer.