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?

[keithprosser3]

Strictly speaking the 'argumentum ad populem' isn't always a fallacy. It is 'weak evidence' - it supports an assertion without proving it. The fallacy is to think it proves anything.

The same goes for 'ad hominem' (when used in its proper sense, not incorrectly as referring to plain rudeness or insult). Not a fallacy in itself, but not a proof either.

[Danmark]

Why are you guys having such a hard time staying on topic?

You are incorrect for reasons previously pointed out; however, . . .

What is definitely 'off topic' is your repeated claims of 'off topic.' If you persist in this thinking I suggest you bring it up to NENB who started the topic or you can appeal to the moderators.

[scourge99]

The very notion that testimony can EVER outweigh a worldview based on a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary is ABSURD.

It's not absurd if the evidence is strong enough.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than testimony about things that conflict with a lifetime of evidence and experience to the contrary.

I don't understand how anyone could believe something that contradicts their personal experiences about the world because of testimony unless they are gullible or irrational.

I think it is and I've made my case for why I think it is.

No, you haven't. Danmark has questioned your consistency on this matter and you've shown that you are a hypocrite. Danmark asked whether you would trust the testimony of other holy books, belief systems, or religions and you refused to answer directly. Its clear to me and everyone else reading your responses that you are irrationally biased towards Christian testimony of supernatural claims and not any other. Yet you claim that testimony is strong evidence regardless of the religion or holy book. That inconsistency makes you a hypocrite, or perhaps worse, a liar.

You on the other hand have merely offered your bias against testimony.

Incorrect and inaccurate . I am biased. I am biased against testimony that contradicts my lifetime of experiences and observations of the real world.

But unlike you, i am not a hypocrite who selectively accepts testimony from their preferred religion but rejects testimony from other sources. Instead, I reject all testimony, across the board, when it conflicts with my experiences and understanding of the world.

Which is itself absurd since most of what we know about ancient history comes down to us via testimony - second hand testimony at that. Shall we just rip pages and pages out of our history books?

You still don't get it do you?

I don't reject all testimony. I reject testimony that conflicts with my lifetime of experiences and observations about the real world.
For example, someone getting assassinated (Caesar) doesn’t conflict with my understanding of the world. Someone magically flying into the sky or rising from the dead does.

You seem unwilling or unable to understand this simple point, let alone make a reasonable criticism of it.

[Goose]

David Hume disposed of your argument rather neatly over 250 years ago, in his essay "Of Miracles:"

In matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and ... it is impossible [that] the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
_ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The Wikipedia article on this work of Hume's puts it more succinctly than I can:
Since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.

Still off topic. This thread isn't about establishing which religion is true. It is about providing evidence for my belief in the supernatural. If you want to know why I'm a Christian instead of Muslim, feel free to start another thread. I'm not chasing you down this rabbit trail any further.

[Clownboat]

Strictly speaking the 'argumentum ad populem' isn't always a fallacy. It is 'weak evidence' - it supports an assertion without proving it. The fallacy is to think it proves anything.

The same goes for 'ad hominem' (when used in its proper sense, not incorrectly as referring to plain rudeness or insult). Not a fallacy in itself, but not a proof either.

I'm not going to claim that you are wrong...

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Can it not be a fallacy while at the same time being fallacious by definition?

[instantc]

Strictly speaking the 'argumentum ad populem' isn't always a fallacy. It is 'weak evidence' - it supports an assertion without proving it. The fallacy is to think it proves anything.

The same goes for 'ad hominem' (when used in its proper sense, not incorrectly as referring to plain rudeness or insult). Not a fallacy in itself, but not a proof either.

I'm not going to claim that you are wrong...

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Can it not be a fallacy while at the same time being fallacious by definition?

You have slightly misunderstood the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

It is not fallacious to strengthen one's argument by pointing out that, say, the scientific community is in agreement.

It is only a fallacy if the truth of a statement is claimed to follow from the fact that many people believe in it, e.g. 'Abortion has to be wrong, because 80% of citizens believe that it's wrong'. See how that does not follow logically?

There can only be an argumentation fallacy if the conclusion is claimed to follow from a premise, when it in fact doesn't follow from the said premises. It is not an appeal to popularity fallacy to simply point out that many people agree with you, nor is every personal insult an ad hominem fallacy. 'You are an idiot' is not even an argument, and much less a fallacious one.

For the record, Philbert didn't make an appeal to popularity fallacy, since he wasn't claiming that the truth of the Bible follows from its popularity. As far as I understood, he was simply pointing out its popularity.

[Clownboat]

Strictly speaking the 'argumentum ad populem' isn't always a fallacy. It is 'weak evidence' - it supports an assertion without proving it. The fallacy is to think it proves anything.

The same goes for 'ad hominem' (when used in its proper sense, not incorrectly as referring to plain rudeness or insult). Not a fallacy in itself, but not a proof either.

I'm not going to claim that you are wrong...

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Can it not be a fallacy while at the same time being fallacious by definition?

You have slightly misunderstood the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

It is not fallacious to strengthen one's argument by pointing out that, say, the scientific community is in agreement.

It is only a fallacy if the truth of a statement is claimed to follow from the fact that many people believe in it, e.g. 'Abortion has to be wrong, because 80% of citizens believe that it's wrong'. See how that does not follow logically?

There can only be an argumentation fallacy if the conclusion is claimed to follow from a premise, when it in fact doesn't follow from the said premises. It is not an appeal to popularity fallacy to simply point out that many people agree with you, nor is every personal insult an ad hominem fallacy.

For the record, Philbert didn't make an appeal to popularity fallacy, since he wasn't claiming that the truth of the Bible follows from its popularity. As far as I understood, he was simply pointing out its popularity.

How about when someone claims to have "evidence".
They claim that this "evidence" is the "fact" that billions of people.....

It sounds like an argument ad populum, and according to the definition I supplied, it is called fallacious.
I still doubt that his argument is not a logical fallacy, but like I said before, I am not convinced enough about this to claim either one of you are outright wrong.

I assume you believe he has provided evidence for the supernatural since you seem to find merit in his argument. I disagree with you because pointing to billions of people believing something is not evidence of the supernatural (or the natural for that matter), whether you consider this a logical fallacy or not.

We are looking for evidence for the supernatural. Is this the best evidence you have, or do you have something other than pointing out how billions of people have believed it?

He claimed this was evidence. Do you agree or not is what is important?

[instantc]

He claimed this was evidence. Do you agree or not is what is important?

He was making an odd argument about how people in this forum are not capable of convincing people while the Bible has been successful. As far as I understood he merely said that there is evidence for the fact that the Bible has convinced billions of people. He didn't say that this would be evidence for its truth value.

I wouldn't call out argumentation fallacies, unless x is claimed to follow from y, when it in fact doesn't. It is often relevant to point out the popularity of a belief and by no means fallacious as such.

[keithprosser3]

Thanks for watching my back, instantc!
re ad hominem, I have a bit of thing about the term. It gets used as a synonym for being rude or insulting but that isn't what it means.

An ad hominem doesn't have to be rude or insulting. For example in a debate about global warming I might point out that someone has shares in an oil company. There is nothing insulting or rude about saying someone has oil shares, but it is a remark aimed at the person (ad hominem=at the man) making the argument, not the argument he is making. An ad hominem remark can even be a valid point to make, as it might well be in that example.

Any bets on this thread getting to 150 pages? 200?

[Danmark]

David Hume disposed of your argument rather neatly over 250 years ago, in his essay "Of Miracles:"

In matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and ... it is impossible [that] the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other.
_ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

The Wikipedia article on this work of Hume's puts it more succinctly than I can:
Since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.

Still off topic. This thread isn't about establishing which religion is true. It is about providing evidence for my belief in the supernatural. If you want to know why I'm a Christian instead of Muslim, feel free to start another thread. I'm not chasing you down this rabbit trail any further.

You've misstated the argument and the subtopic. The subtopic has nothing to do with YOU. As formulated by NENB, it is about the lack of evidence for supernatural beliefs. You want to debate what is off topic or not, instead of tackling Hume's argument which is directly on point since it respond's to NENB's demand for evidence.

Hume points out that since supernatural claims conflict with each other, they discredit each other. Your claim that 2d, 3d, 4th person removed hearsay about what the witnesses might have said is no stronger than similar inadmissible testimony about miracles in any of a thousand other traditions that lay claim to miracles, superstition, and the supernatural. Are you unable to respond to Hume's argument?

Since testimonies tend to conflict with one another when it comes to the miraculous—that is, one man's religious miracle may be contradicted by another man's miracle—any testimony relating to the fantastic is self-denunciating.