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?

[instantc]

I disagree, evidence is frequently 'piled up' to prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Obviously, but there is no scale by which we can determine at which point something is proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is something we all have to decide for ourselves. There are probably commonly accepted guidelines regarding the standard of proof in different disciplines, but the value of those guidelines lies merely in the fact that many people find them reasonable.

Setting that aside, I agree with you that this guy is probably not serious about his position but merely playing word games.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 1556 by no evidence no belief]

Sonofason has written:

prophesy is nothing supernatural. Prophesies come true, quite often as you have shown.

no evidence no belief wrote:

Oh, ok!
Just for a moment I thought you realized that you were writing on a thread about evidence for the supernatural. My mistake...

Yes, that is correct. It is your mistake. You see, the author of this thread did ask in his opening statements this question. He asked:

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

There is no such thing as supernatural. If something exists, it exists in nature, and along with nature. If something exists, it is quite natural that it exists. Let's consider some definitions.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/defini ... sh/natural

With this definition we see, that which exists in nature is quite natural. It is my contention that God exists in nature.

With this definition we see, that which is caused by nature, and not made with human hands is natural.

However, in a sense we can certainly accept the fact that those things that are made by the hands of men are also indeed natural. Lets see the definition that supports this notion.

natural - of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/defini ... sh/natural

So let us ask ourselves, is it natural for people to make tools? Well, it seems to me that human beings are a quite natural occurrence on this particular planet. It seems to me that making tools is in agreement with the character and makeup of human beings. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that tools made by human hands are quite natural, and that the first definition that I employed has a particular flaw, for it suggests that tools made by human hands are not natural.

We exist in this supposed natural world, and we make tools. Therefore, tools are a natural occurrences and do exist in nature.

God also exists in nature. If the first definition of natural is at all to be believed, then because God exists in nature, God is natural.

The universe was not made by human hands, and it does exist in nature. Thus we can see that the existence of the universe is entirely natural

God was not made by human hands. At least that is what I am presupposing. Therefore God also exists in nature. If the first definition of natural is at all to be believed, then because God exists in nature, God is natural. He is not supernatural. By the second definition of nature we can see that the works of God are completely natural. For if God exists in nature, He is natural, and if He should do works that are in agreement with the character or makeup of His being, then His works are also quite natural. There is nothing supernatural about God. But there is only one God. This becomes a little more complex when we realize that God is not only capable of existing in nature. He is also capable of existing outside of nature. Jesus is the manifestation of God in the flesh. He truly was God directly existing in nature. But God created the universe, which implies He can exist without nature. And this aspect of God, I suppose, could be quite supernatural. But given the nature of God, existing outside of nature is quite natural, and so by definition 2 of natural, God is not supernatural at all. The existence of God, in all of His fullness, is quite natural.

no evidence no belief wrote:

you're obviously oblivious of this simple fact.

I believe I have just shown that not to be the case.

As long as you agree that israelites wishing for things to get better is no different from Mike Tyson wishing for things to get better, and that neither of those is even remotely supernatural, then we are on the same page.

I'll say it again: As long as you yourself openly declare, and promise not to recant, that bronze age barbarians scribbling on sheep skin their hope that things will get better is NOT (I repeat, NOT) evidence of the supernatural, then we are on the same page.

I agree. Nothing supernatural ever happens.

Sonofason had written:

The prophesy that I pointed out, which by the way were the words of God...

no evidence no belief wrote:

Wait. WHAT???? You JUST admitted that those scribblings are NOT supernatural, and now out of the blue you wish to assert that they were written by a supernatural invisible man in the sky?

Please IMMEDIATELY provide evidence for this invisible skydaddy!

I have never heard of such a thing as "an invisible skydaddy". Care to explain?

no evidence no belief wrote:

Please check your firewall! Somebody just hacked into your computer and wrote from your debatingchristianity account that he agrees that there is nothing supernaturla about bible prophecies!

Well, who ever this guy is, he's apparently 100% correct.

Sonofason had written:

Your tone is unwarranted. You have not demolished anything.

no evidence no belief wrote:

I have completely demolished the notion that the perfectly natural human impulse to hope for things to get better is in any way supernatural.

And I quite agree. There is no such thing as the supernatural. So then if I agree with you're statement here, what exactly did you previously demolish? I never did make a supernatural claim? So again, what exactly did you demolish?

no evidence no belief wrote:

In your post you both said that the prophecy was not supernatural AND that it was authored by a supernatural being, therefore I have demolished the argument made by at least one of the two split personalities that seem to coexist inside your skull.

It seems to me that I never made such a statement. I never suggested that God is a supernatural being. God is quite natural. So let's be honest here. When exactly did I say that a supernatural being authored anything. Please provide a quote of my exact words, because I am sure you are quite mistaken.

Sonofason had written:

I actually have many prophesies I could share, but due to your tone, I have decided not to share them with you.

no evidence no belief wrote:

Well, that's your prerogative.

Yes, indeed, it is my prerogative.

no evidence no belief wrote:

Most Christians I speak to find it imperative to obey 1 Peter 3:15, but it's ok if you don't love Jesus enough to honor his sacrifice on the cross.

When exactly did any Christian say it's "ok if you don't love Jesus enough to honor his sacrifice on the cross?"

[Star]

Son, it seems to me you're taking all your supernatural claims, plopping them into the natural category, just to give them credibility.

Surely, you can understand a difference between an intelligence which allegedly breaks the laws of physics, and non-intelligent nature which doesn't, especially when there's no evidence for the former, and all evidence for the latter.

The line between reality and fantasy isn't a fine one.

[Danmark]

There is no such thing as the supernatural.

Correct. So the question then becomes what events really happened. Since there is no supernatural, we must find natural explanations for events or reject the events as false reports. We also have to factor in the quality of those reports. For events that defy everything we know about nature, we require extraordinary evidence of the reliability of the reports.

When those reports are based upon triple and quadruple hearsay and worse and conflict with other reports of the same time period and are reported 50 years after the event; the combination of multiple hearsay, conflicts in reporting, and the content itself defying what we know of nature, the analysis becomes easy:

DID NOT HAPPEN.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1556 by no evidence no belief]

Sonofason has written:

prophesy is nothing supernatural. Prophesies come true, quite often as you have shown.

no evidence no belief wrote:

Oh, ok!
Just for a moment I thought you realized that you were writing on a thread about evidence for the supernatural. My mistake...

Yes, that is correct. It is your mistake. You see, the author of this thread did ask in his opening statements this question. He asked:

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

There is no such thing as supernatural. If something exists, it exists in nature, and along with nature. If something exists, it is quite natural that it exists. Let's consider some definitions.

natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/defini ... sh/natural

With this definition we see, that which exists in nature is quite natural. It is my contention that God exists in nature.

With this definition we see, that which is caused by nature, and not made with human hands is natural.

However, in a sense we can certainly accept the fact that those things that are made by the hands of men are also indeed natural. Lets see the definition that supports this notion.

natural - of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/defini ... sh/natural

So let us ask ourselves, is it natural for people to make tools? Well, it seems to me that human beings are a quite natural occurrence on this particular planet. It seems to me that making tools is in agreement with the character and makeup of human beings. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that tools made by human hands are quite natural, and that the first definition that I employed has a particular flaw, for it suggests that tools made by human hands are not natural.

We exist in this supposed natural world, and we make tools. Therefore, tools are a natural occurrences and do exist in nature.

God also exists in nature. If the first definition of natural is at all to be believed, then because God exists in nature, God is natural.

The universe was not made by human hands, and it does exist in nature. Thus we can see that the existence of the universe is entirely natural

God was not made by human hands. At least that is what I am presupposing. Therefore God also exists in nature. If the first definition of natural is at all to be believed, then because God exists in nature, God is natural. He is not supernatural. By the second definition of nature we can see that the works of God are completely natural. For if God exists in nature, He is natural, and if He should do works that are in agreement with the character or makeup of His being, then His works are also quite natural. There is nothing supernatural about God. But there is only one God. This becomes a little more complex when we realize that God is not only capable of existing in nature. He is also capable of existing outside of nature. Jesus is the manifestation of God in the flesh. He truly was God directly existing in nature. But God created the universe, which implies He can exist without nature. And this aspect of God, I suppose, could be quite supernatural. But given the nature of God, existing outside of nature is quite natural, and so by definition 2 of natural, God is not supernatural at all. The existence of God, in all of His fullness, is quite natural.

This is the most nonsensical word game I've seen in a while.

You're just saying that it's natural for a supernatural thing to be supernatural.

I could use that same "logic" to say that a flying reindeer is natural, in that it is within its nature to be able to defy the laws of gravity. It's natural for an invisible dragon to go unseen, that doesn't mean invisible dragons exist. It's natural for Zeus to throw lightning bolts from the sky, if that's within his nature. Do you believe in Zeus?

As absurd and meaningless as your word-play is, it still doesn't nothing to dig you out of the theistic hole you've dug yourself into.

The talking donkey, the zombie invasion, the virgin birth, the earth stopping in its orbit for a day, the Nile turning into blood, etc etc etc

We don't have to use the word supernatural to describe these events/claims you believe. Let's say that all the stories you believe in are completely natural.

Do you have any evidence that they ever happened, and do you have any way of addressing the overwhelming evidence that they didn't happen?

[no evidence no belief]

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence the earth is a globe.

Better get to it, son.

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

The thread appears to have branched out into multiple topics. Let me remind everyone to stick to the OP. If another topic is raised, please start another thread.

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

You see, the author of this thread did ask in his opening statements this question. He asked:

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

There is no such thing as supernatural. If something exists, it exists in nature, and along with nature. If something exists, it is quite natural that it exists.

That's fine. You can reframe the question if you think it helps your case. But it does not because you still have the burden of showing that an event that goes far beyond what we know of nature actually occurred. The problem you are faced with in demonstrating these events happened is that the only evidence you have is double and treble hearsay at the least, AND those accounts are in conflict, AND they were not recorded contemporaneously with the events AND they are forgeries since they were not reported by those whose names were attached AND they are not recorded by disinterested historians. To this we add that these events defy everything we know about the natural world.

No matter how you dodge and weave and seek to reframe the question and redefine terms, you cannot change the ultimate problems set forth above.

[Sonofason]

Son, it seems to me you're taking all your supernatural claims, plopping them into the natural category, just to give them credibility.

Surely, you can understand a difference between an intelligence which allegedly breaks the laws of physics, and non-intelligent nature which doesn't, especially when there's no evidence for the former, and all evidence for the latter.

The line between reality and fantasy isn't a fine one.

I'm sorry, but when reality is in conflict with linguistics, then linguistics must be changed.

[no evidence no belief]

Son, it seems to me you're taking all your supernatural claims, plopping them into the natural category, just to give them credibility.

Surely, you can understand a difference between an intelligence which allegedly breaks the laws of physics, and non-intelligent nature which doesn't, especially when there's no evidence for the former, and all evidence for the latter.

The line between reality and fantasy isn't a fine one.

I'm sorry, but when reality is in conflict with linguistics, then linguistics must be changed.

No problem at all.

Please provide evidence for the natural (I repeat, natural) events described in the Bible (talking donkey, zombie invasions, earth stopping its orbit, great flood, talking burning bush, Nile turned into blood, walking on water, etc)

Again, I completely accept that going forward in our debate, the word to describe these events will be natural, NOT supernatural.

In fact, any linguistic definition, modification, reframing that you wish to propose, I preemtively accept.

Just provide evidence that these things happened, and address the overwhelmingly strong evidence that they did not happen.

Thank you.