Can we at least agree on this?

[notachance]

There is no empirical evidence in support of any supernatural claim in the Bible.

The only evidence is hearsay anecdotal evidence.

That hearsay evidence in support of supernatural claims in the Bible is miniscule when stacked up against the overwhelming empirical evidence AGAINST any supernatural claims in the Bible.

For example, the only piece of evidence for Genesis is an old book written by anonymous authors who could not POSSIBLY have been alive at the time the event allegedly happened.

To the contrary there is overwhelming empirical evidence against genesis: Accurate, testable, empirical, measurable evidence that allows us to make accurate predictions, and the validity of which is supported by the fact that the same data-acquiring-method (the scientific method) is also responsible for getting us to the moon, performing heart transplants, creating computers, doubling life expectancy, inventing antibiotics and millions of others things which are measurably and irrefutably valid.

So, can we at least agree that the evidence against the veracity of supernatural Bible claims is more solid than the evidence in favor of it?

[LiamOS]

Once again, you missed all the points completely, misrepresented me horrendously, and ignored the bulk of my post.

But in for a penny, in for a pound I guess, so I'll give it another shot:

Proposition: Spiderman exists.
What this proposition entails: {A human-spider mutant exists, ..., New York City exists, ...}
Arbitraty, but related, fact: New York City is known to exist

Since New York City is known to exist, our proposition is more likely than it would be if New York City would not be known to exist.
Therefore the existence of New York City is evidence* of Spiderman's existence.


*Where evidence constitutes a fact or set of facts which make a particular conclusion more likely.

[Flail]

My point was that ultimately, the knowledge that at least one part of a given part of a hypothesis is true(Regardless of how frivolous) makes it more likely than it initially was. In the case presented - Spiderman, for whom NYC is a home - the existence of NYC does so. I believe this, in the sense I've previously explained, constitutes evidence for Spiderman's existence.[/b]

Here is the thing Aki, NOBODY CARES about the likelihood of the entire "new york exists and spiderman lives in it" hypothesis.

We are trying to determine the likelihood that spiderman exists. Period.

You are saying that if you combine the probability of something very unlikely with something somewhat likely, then the probability of the set is lower than the probability of the original unlikely thing, but to a lesser degree than it would be lowered if you combined the probability of that unlikely thing with something that is less likely than the original somewhat likely thing you had initially combined the unlikely thing with. And that constitutes evidence that Spiderman is real.

At no time in the history of the universe did anybody ask you to compare the probability of a set containing the existence of spiderman and a likely thing, with a set containing the existence of spiderman and a random less likely thing. You know why nobody asked you that? Because it would be a colossally stupid thing to ask of you!

First off, the addition of likely things to an unlikely thing does NOT change the likelihood of the unlikely thing itself. Sure, it lowers the likelihood of the set to a lesser degree than the arbitrary addition of less likely things, but nobody cares about that, because it's the most irrelevant thing in the universe.

Sure, something unlikely is less unlikely than something even more unlikely.

So what!

Something being less unlikely than something which is more unlikely does not constitute evidence for the veracity of anything.

The fact that you can think of something (spiderman living in atlantis) that is even more unlikely than the thing in question (spiderman living in New York) doesn't constitute evidence of the thing in question being true.

To say that the probability of spiderman existing is increased by the fact that the probability of {NYC exists; spiderman is real} is lower than the probability of spiderman existing, but not quite as low as the probability of {atlantis exists; spiderman is real}, is absurd.

It's like a defense lawyer saying that his client accused of murdering ten people is rendered less guilty by the fact that if you add the number of people he killed with the number of people OJ Simpson killed, it adds up to a lower number than if you add the number of people he killed with the number of people Stalin killed.

Agreed..and it is a common attribute of both fiction and deceit that wraps a lie with familiar surroundings.

[notachance]

Once again, you missed all the points completely, misrepresented me horrendously, and ignored the bulk of my post.

But in for a penny, in for a pound I guess, so I'll give it another shot:

Proposition: Spiderman exists.
What this proposition entails: {A human-spider mutant exists, ..., New York City exists, ...}

WRONG.

The existence or lack thereof of spiderman does NOT entail new york existing or not existing.

The fact that fiction is based on non-fiction, or set in a non-fiction setting, or surrounded by non-fiction does NOT, I repeat does NOT have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the fictitious nature of a claim.

Each claim should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of independent claims that happen to be near it.

Dude. Seriously.

[Mithrae]

My point was that ultimately, the knowledge that at least one part of a given part of a hypothesis is true(Regardless of how frivolous) makes it more likely than it initially was. In the case presented - Spiderman, for whom NYC is a home - the existence of NYC does so. I believe this, in the sense I've previously explained, constitutes evidence for Spiderman's existence.[/b]

Here is the thing Aki, NOBODY CARES about the likelihood of the entire "new york exists and spiderman lives in it" hypothesis.

You may be correct there, but you were the one who brought it up.

To refresh your memory, you challenged me to "pick a miracle claim in the Bible, list all the evidence in favor of it, and then I'll list all the evidence against it..." I nominated the predictions found in Hebrew Daniel as being a topic I could discuss with some competence. Ignoring this, you offered me $10 to C&P some words about Jericho and answer your spiderman questions with nothing but a yes or no. Declining, I pointed out that you were raising questions about the concept of the 'supernatural' (or an act of God, in this case) and asked you to clarify what you meant. You then offered $150 in betting money that I didn't have enough intellectual honesty to answer your spiderman question with a yes or no. Can we see any problems here, kids?

If nobody cares about your flawed analogy, perhaps that could be a lesson for you to learn in the future? Though of course, you don't realise that it's flawed, do you?

• - Stories about a super-hero, viewed as fictional by the audience, with many different plots set against the background of a city - and that city can be shown to exist.
  
  - Stories about a nation's origins, viewed as historical by the audience, one of which involves the destruction of a city - and that city might be shown to have existed and been destroyed in a manner consistent with the story.
  
  You don't actually see the difference there, do you? Yes or no.

  No, I don't see the difference.

In that light, I find Aki's persistence little short of admirable.

At no time in the history of the universe did anybody ask you to compare the probability of a set containing the existence of spiderman and a likely thing, with a set containing the existence of spiderman and a random less likely thing. You know why nobody asked you that? Because it would be a colossally stupid thing to ask of you!

First off, the addition of likely things to an unlikely thing does NOT change the likelihood of the unlikely thing itself. Sure, it lowers the likelihood of the set to a lesser degree than the arbitrary addition of less likely things, but nobody cares about that, because it's the most irrelevant thing in the universe.

You do remember what your analogy was, right? No-one's talking about adding new things (likely or unlikely) to a scenario under consideration. Unless you were originally implying a question about adding New York to the consideration of Spiderman's existence?

The setting of New York is part of the Spiderman stories. While you obviously already hold your preconceived notions that New York exists and that Spiderman does not, for an investigator with no prior information confirmation of New York's existence would go a little way towards increasing the likelihood that the stories are true. The fact that you apparently don't even understand the role of perspective in forming and discussing an analogy is disturbing, considering how frequently you attempt to hang a whole discussion on yes/no analogy questions. Aki made a comparison with Atlantis and used probability sets to help explain why that was the case; you're the one who's trying to split your own flawed example into two separate issues.

--

Thankyou. I do disagree with the definition, since virtually anything is possible to explain by natural means.

Ok, let's get this straight: I am saying that if something can be explained by natural means, then it's natural, and that if it cannot be explained by natural means, then it's supernatural.

And you disagree with that????

Are you saying that if something can be explained by natural means... then it's supernatural?

Are you saying that if something CANNOT be explained by natural means... then it's natural?

You might want to re-read that post, especially the last sentence. How something happened or happens is almost always the subject of speculation and investigation then theories and often still isn't agreed-upon as fact even in scientific enquiries. I may not have explained that very well, but I'm not sure if I can make it any simpler.

Virtually everything could be explained by natural means; Daniel accurately predicted the interactions of Persia, Greece and Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms for a period of over three centuries, but surely that was only because a secret band of wealthy ninjas he knew were controlling world events behind the scenes! Likewise anything could be explained by supernatural means; there's no 'laws of nature' or consistent manner in which things behave, it's all just God making everything happen that way from instant to instant.

That something might be explained in one manner (natural or otherwise) doesn't mean that it did happen that way. If Jesus walked on water, there's a good chance that something supernatural was going on. But maybe he just had a carefully trained pair of dolphins hidden away in the next bay for just that occasion. As I said, if it makes you happy to define the 'supernatural' out of existence then you're entitled to that opinion, and this thread is obviously meaningless.

But if your comments regarding 'evidence' about the 'supernatural' imply any concern for investigation and consideration of possibilities, you'll probably need a definition which works.



Edit: I'll help you out, 'cos I'm such a nice guy. Given the biblical context, how about this?
A biblical phenomenon can be considered 'supernatural' if it can be most reasonably viewed as the result of divine intervention

- With that definition, Jesus walking on water would be 'supernatural,' even if there are weak alternative naturalistic explanations

- With that definition, a series of plagues befalling Egypt just after Moses had warned Pharoah of the consequences if he didn't let his people go would be 'supernatural'

- With that definition, it would still be 'supernatural' (most reasonably viewed as the result of divine intervention) even if a volcanic eruption in the Aegean had been the immediate physical cause of the plagues

Of course if you don't like that suggested definition, you'll have to provide a better one. For my part I've said often enough in the past that I personally don't know enough about the nature of the universe to be comfortable with specifically designating anything as super-natural.

This is your thread, so you'll have to find a definition for your terms which makes it meaningful.

[LiamOS]

WRONG.

The existence or lack thereof of spiderman does NOT entail new york existing or not existing.

I'm rather afraid that it does. Where does Spiderman live?(Rhetorical) New York City, of course.
Therefore, if there is an unfortunately mutated spider-human hybrid in Chicago, that's not Spiderman.
If a man with the exact same genetic makeup(initially, at least) as you existed, but had never experienced the same things as you, would you consider him to be the same person?

This is the second time you've started your post with something to the effect of "YOU'RE WRONG", and if you do so again, I'd really appreciate you actually being correct. You're misunderstanding of my position does not make me wrong.

The fact that fiction is based on non-fiction, or set in a non-fiction setting, or surrounded by non-fiction does NOT, I repeat does NOT have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the fictitious nature of a claim.

YEAH, I KNOW! I NEVER SAID IT DID!

Each claim should be judged on its merits, not on the basis of independent claims that happen to be near it.

I've said I know that, but you just keep ignoring me and blindly repeating the same things over and over.

Dude. Seriously.

Mate, you clearly can't understand my argument, which is depressing because it's not very complicated at all. I'd really, really appreciate it if you could go back over my argument and try to see it from different perspectives to get an understanding of it, or at the very least stop repeating yourself as if I haven't read your unrelated rantings of this sort:

The fact that fiction is based on non-fiction, or set in a non-fiction setting, or surrounded by non-fiction does NOT, I repeat does NOT have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on the fictitious nature of a claim.

[notachance]

WRONG.

The existence or lack thereof of spiderman does NOT entail new york existing or not existing.

I'm rather afraid that it does. Where does Spiderman live?(Rhetorical) New York City, of course.
Therefore, if there is an unfortunately mutated spider-human hybrid in Chicago, that's not Spiderman.

I see. What if Spiderman goes on vacation to Bermuda, does he ...... stops existing the instant he no longer is in New York?


Look guys, both Mithrae and Aki, I get pretty tired of these irrelevant tangential arguments.

Beyond what I said in my OP, here's the meat of what I'm trying to say in response to both your posts:

The fact that earthquakes happen doesn't constitute evidence in support of bronze age nomads having supernatural magical powers.

I feel silly for even having to say that.

I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence by having to ask you if you agree with this, and yet somehow I have the feeling that you guys enjoy this new hobby of disagreeing with Notachance no matter how obvious and simple his points are, that you will not be able to find it in you to accept such a non-brainer proposition.

I mean, that's what Mithrae started his response with! He says that archeological evidence of an earthquake constitutes empirical evidence in favor of bronze age barbarian superpowers!

Come on!

[Mithrae]

Look guys, both Mithrae and Aki, I get pretty tired of these irrelevant tangential arguments.

Beyond what I said in my OP, here's the meat of what I'm trying to say in response to both your posts:

The fact that earthquakes happen doesn't constitute evidence in support of bronze age nomads having supernatural magical powers.

I feel silly for even having to say that.

I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence by having to ask you if you agree with this, and yet somehow I have the feeling that you guys enjoy this new hobby of disagreeing with Notachance no matter how obvious and simple his points are, that you will not be able to find it in you to accept such a non-brainer proposition.

I mean, that's what Mithrae started his response with! He says that archeological evidence of an earthquake constitutes empirical evidence in favor of bronze age barbarian superpowers!

I didn't say that, though you might like to consider that your habit of (deliberately?) misrepresenting others' comments might be part of the reason why more atheists enjoy the hobby of disagreeing with your posts than theists. Quite simply, the inaccurate rhetoric, excessive hyperbole and ridiculously simplistic analogies you so consistently use in your ongoing crusade against religion deserve to have holes poked in them just as much as the most persistent and conservative of Christian apologists.

This is what I said in my first post:

• It's quite hard to prove a negative, and I commend the OP for putting limits on its negative claim; no empirical evidence for the supernatural in the bible. Even so, it might be better to say no conclusive empirical evidence, or no good evidence that I've seen.
  
  Regarding the above, archaeologists and historians would surely argue back and forth about the suggested date of the archaeological finds compared with the suggested date of the conquest of Canaan. And of course philosophers and theologians might argue about whether an earthquake or the like could be considered 'supernatural' if it were a predicted and extremely fortuitous event.
  
  But I think it can be both dismissive (or dishonest) to use the phrase 'no evidence' too carelessly, and isn't necessarily very meaningful in any case since it's a sword which can cut both ways.

Notice how right from the beginning our conception of what's meant by 'supernatural' was a primary issue? After four pages and your repeated insults against my intellectual honesty, you finally provided a definition which makes the thread meaningless, by eliminating things like walking on water or predictive prophecy from being 'supernatural.'

Since you've neither accepted the alternative, useful definition I gave in my last post nor provided a better one, I can only assume you're sticking to your original definition. So there's no empirical evidence supporting claims in the bible about Shinto, or claims in the bible about calculus, or claims in the bible about the 'supernatural,' or claims in the bible about Middle Earth...

Well done, Notachance. A thread truly worthy of you.

[LiamOS]

WRONG.

The existence or lack thereof of spiderman does NOT entail new york existing or not existing.

I'm rather afraid that it does. Where does Spiderman live?(Rhetorical) New York City, of course.
Therefore, if there is an unfortunately mutated spider-human hybrid in Chicago, that's not Spiderman.

I see. What if Spiderman goes on vacation to Bermuda, does he ...... stops existing the instant he no longer is in New York?


Look guys, both Mithrae and Aki, I get pretty tired of these irrelevant tangential arguments.

Beyond what I said in my OP, here's the meat of what I'm trying to say in response to both your posts:

The fact that earthquakes happen doesn't constitute evidence in support of bronze age nomads having supernatural magical powers.

I feel silly for even having to say that.

I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence by having to ask you if you agree with this, and yet somehow I have the feeling that you guys enjoy this new hobby of disagreeing with Notachance no matter how obvious and simple his points are, that you will not be able to find it in you to accept such a non-brainer proposition.

I mean, that's what Mithrae started his response with! He says that archeological evidence of an earthquake constitutes empirical evidence in favor of bronze age barbarian superpowers!

Come on!

Debate with you is clearly pointless at this stage.

Bye, notachance.

[notachance]

WRONG.

The existence or lack thereof of spiderman does NOT entail new york existing or not existing.

I'm rather afraid that it does. Where does Spiderman live?(Rhetorical) New York City, of course.
Therefore, if there is an unfortunately mutated spider-human hybrid in Chicago, that's not Spiderman.

I see. What if Spiderman goes on vacation to Bermuda, does he ...... stops existing the instant he no longer is in New York?


Look guys, both Mithrae and Aki, I get pretty tired of these irrelevant tangential arguments.

Beyond what I said in my OP, here's the meat of what I'm trying to say in response to both your posts:

The fact that earthquakes happen doesn't constitute evidence in support of bronze age nomads having supernatural magical powers.

I feel silly for even having to say that.

I feel like I'm insulting your intelligence by having to ask you if you agree with this, and yet somehow I have the feeling that you guys enjoy this new hobby of disagreeing with Notachance no matter how obvious and simple his points are, that you will not be able to find it in you to accept such a non-brainer proposition.

I mean, that's what Mithrae started his response with! He says that archeological evidence of an earthquake constitutes empirical evidence in favor of bronze age barbarian superpowers!

Come on!

Debate with you is clearly pointless at this stage.

Bye, notachance.

Aki, here's the heart of what you wrote:

My point was that ultimately, the knowledge that at least one part of a given part of a hypothesis is true(Regardless of how frivolous) makes it more likely than it initially was. In the case presented - Spiderman, for whom NYC is a home - the existence of NYC does so. I believe this, in the sense I've previously explained, constitutes evidence for Spiderman's existence.

I'm sorry man, but fiction set in real locations remains just as fictional as fiction set in imaginary locations.

You're right, debating each other is a waste of time.