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]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I believe leprechauns exist. Rainbows are evidence of leprechauns. Some ancient writings about leprechauns is evidence. Even today there are strange happenings compatible with leprechaun trickery which is more evidence of leprechauns.

Why is it that no matter how much evidence of leprechauns i bring forth, no amount is going to convince you? Do you just win by default? Isn't that dishonest?

[instantc]

Why is it that no matter how much evidence of leprechauns i bring forth, no amount is going to convince you? Do you just win by default? Isn't that dishonest?

I haven't declared a default victory of anything, nor am I interested in discussing the evidence for leprechauns.

[scourge99]

Why is it that no matter how much evidence of leprechauns i bring forth, no amount is going to convince you? Do you just win by default? Isn't that dishonest?

I haven't declared a default victory of anything, nor am I interested in discussing the evidence for leprechauns.

I'm demonstrating what seems to be an inconsistency in your arguments. You don't seem willing to address that inconsistency.

[Star]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

When we ask for evidence, the implication is that we expect sufficient evidence, or in the very least, good evidence.

History is incapable of providing good evidence for the supernatural. That would be science's domain (if it was actually real). History is usually inadequate to explain natural phenomena as well, as again, that's science's domain. If they replicate magic in a lab, publish the results for peer review, and duplicate the results independently, then I'll believe it.

Can Goose link us up to any such research? Of course, this is a rhetorical question, because he can't. The point here is, there's no evidence, and thus no reason to believe, that the supernatural exists. This includes all fairies, gods, angels, messiahs, leprechauns, ghosts, and anything else with magical powers that breaks the laws of physics.

The natural world, as seen through science, is bizarre and fascinating enough as it is. Why do we need to embellish it with foolish fantasies?

[Danmark]

I’m going trim out some the bluster and walls of Wikipedia cut and paste jobs.
Actually I think you might be knocking the strawman.

�Even though Lazarus phenomenon is rare, it is probably under reported. There is no doubt that Lazarus phenomenon is a reality but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate.�
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121643/

The article goes on to list about half a dozen of those proposed explanations but guess which explanation is curiously missing? That’s right, the one that hypothesizes the doctors made goofs. You see the medical community recognizes the Lazarus Syndrome as a real phenomenon and doesn’t merely dismiss it as Physician error. The recommendations to Physicians are, “Patients should be observed for at least 10 minutes using blood pressure and ECG monitoring after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.� Why do you think that is the case? That recommendation is given not because the Doctor may be mistaken where the person may not be truly dead because death is a process but in the rare event the doctor may have a case of Lazarus Syndrome on his hands.

You've got it exactly wrong and you are missing the point of the studies to boot.
Yes, autoresuscitation is a real phenomenon, tho' it may have been both under and over reported due to physician errors.

The problem is one you have never addressed because you have ignored my post from about 10 pages ago:

Autoresuscitation [sometimes called the 'lazarus phenomenon] has no comparison with a body that has been dead and buried for 3 days. In the dozen or so cases I have looked at, the longest time from the cessation of efforts to resuscitate and autoresuscitation has been 45 minutes. One need not be a physician to know that the definition for 'death' has long been in flux. Perhaps a century ago death was pronounced when the heart stopped beating. But physicians and scientists have long known that the ability to declare 'death' is in part determined by our ability to observe.

Brain electrical activity can stop completely, or drop to such a low level as to be undetectable with most equipment. An EEG will therefore be flat, though this is sometimes also observed during deep anesthesia or cardiac arrest.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RYe4GB ... g=PA1246&d...

The idea that 'death' is some absolute and definitive moment that can easily be defined is an example of not drinking deeply enough at the Pierian spring.

This issue the determination of death is not just an academic one, particularly in this day and age where the harvesting of human organs presents an ethical and practical challenge.

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 1586 by Goose]

Goose, it's over buddy.

If you claim the resurrection of Jesus didn't violate the laws of physics, then it may have happened but it's not evidence of the supernatural

If you claim the resurrection DID violate the laws of physics, then no amount of historical evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that it happened.

Either way, you lost. You're beating a dead horse.

Your little thread here is asking for evidence. When you are given evidence, you simply declare that no amount of it is going to convince you, therefore you win by default. That's quite dishonest debating, isn't it NENB?

I love these posts of yours. They put me in the privileged position of making you this offer:

I will give you $1000 if you link the post in which I declare that no amount of evidence is going to convince me.

At this point the situation is very simple. Either you link that post, or you do anything other than link that post.


I never ever said that no amount of evidence would be sufficient to convince me of the supernatural. You are the one debating dishonestly.

I just said very specifically that no amount of circumstantial, historical, triple or quadruple hearsay testimony would be sufficient to establish a suspension of the laws of physics.

Some anonymous superstitious ignorant guy writing in 150AD that somebody told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told somebody who told him that some guy who none of the people in this hearsay chain ever met had seen somebody walk on water is NOT sufficient evidence to counter everything we know about the laws of gravity.

Even direct eyewitness testimony is not enough. If you swore under oath, and your statement was verified to be non-deceitful by a polygraph test, that you had a conversation with a talking donkey, nobody would conclude from that that donkeys can talk.

But somehow, if it's not eyewitness testimony of a reliable witness, but instead quadruple hearsay of an anonymous unreliable superstitious barbarian from 4000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, then I'm engaging in dishonest debating if I express skepticism?

Dude seriously, why do you do this to yourself? If you don't care at all about people taking you seriously, why are you even here? And if you do care about being taken seriously, how could you possibly make such patently absurd arguments?

[no evidence no belief]

If the claimed event is something that doesn't happen very often, and on this occasion it really matters, I will want some fairly strong evidence.

And I believe we have strong historical evidence for the resurrection.

Absolutely. If the Resurrection was a strictly natural event well within the laws of physics (like an assassination or any other historical event) then the evidence you provided may possibly be sufficient, although probably not. Of course, I have no idea why you, as a theist, would argue that the resurrection was just a medical event, and therefore Jesus is not the Son of God.

On the other hand, if you wish to argue that the laws of physics were suspended, you'll have to do better than observe that somebody said so.

Either way, you're done, and you know it.

[Goose]

I’m going trim out some the bluster and walls of Wikipedia cut and paste jobs.
Actually I think you might be knocking the strawman.

�Even though Lazarus phenomenon is rare, it is probably under reported. There is no doubt that Lazarus phenomenon is a reality but so far the scientific explanations have been inadequate.�
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121643/

The article goes on to list about half a dozen of those proposed explanations but guess which explanation is curiously missing? That’s right, the one that hypothesizes the doctors made goofs. You see the medical community recognizes the Lazarus Syndrome as a real phenomenon and doesn’t merely dismiss it as Physician error. The recommendations to Physicians are, “Patients should be observed for at least 10 minutes using blood pressure and ECG monitoring after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.� Why do you think that is the case? That recommendation is given not because the Doctor may be mistaken where the person may not be truly dead because death is a process but in the rare event the doctor may have a case of Lazarus Syndrome on his hands.

The problem is one you have never addressed because you have ignored my post from about 10 pages ago:

Autoresuscitation [sometimes called the 'lazarus phenomenon] has no comparison with a body that has been dead and buried for 3 days.

This is the second time you've misrepresented me on the same point. Why do you continually cut out pertinent parts of my posts? Is it because you find it easier to knock down strawmen rather than address the actual position of your opponent? Or are you simply failing to grasp my position? Here is the full quote of what I wrote to Tired of the BS:

"The article goes on to list about half a dozen of those proposed explanations but guess which explanation is curiously missing? That’s right, the one that hypothesizes the doctors made goofs. You see the medical community recognizes the Lazarus Syndrome as a real phenomenon and doesn’t merely dismiss it as Physician error. The recommendations to Physicians are, “Patients should be observed for at least 10 minutes using blood pressure and ECG monitoring after the cessation of CPR before confirming death.� Why do you think that is the case? That recommendation is given not because the Doctor may be mistaken where the person may not be truly dead because death is a process but in the rare event the doctor may have a case of Lazarus Syndrome on his hands. It’s only folks like you, arguing in a circle, that try to outright dismiss the Lazarus Syndrome as human error. Again, this gives us a baseline of plausibility for a resurrection, though it doesn’t fully establishes Jesus’. Whereas flying reindeer have no such baseline. Thus you have a bogus analogy. But never mind all that logic stuff, carry on with your juvenile arguments by ridicule. After all, it’s pretty much all you have and I wouldn’t want to deprive you of that."

You cut out the bolded part and knocked down a strawman. I'm not - NOT, NOT, NOT!!!! - arguing the Lazarus Syndrome establishes Jesus' resurrection. Is this sinking in yet? The reason I ignore you is you continue to dishonestly leave out pertinent parts of my posts and misrepresent my position. Until you can actually engage me in an honest manner of debate, don't expect me to take you seriously or respond.

[Danmark]

You cut out the bolded part and knocked down a strawman. I'm not - NOT, NOT, NOT!!!! - arguing the Lazarus Syndrome establishes Jesus' resurrection. Is this sinking in yet? The reason I ignore you is you continue to dishonestly leave out pertinent parts of my posts and misrepresent my position. Until you can actually engage me in an honest manner of debate, don't expect me to take you seriously or respond.

Incorrect. I simply quote the pertinent portion of your posts that I choose to respond to. I see no need for unnecessary verbiage. You have cast the 'lazarus syndrome as some sort of 'base line,' comparing it to the resurrection. There is no comparison, yet you continue to bring it up as if it makes some point about the resurrection. Are you now agreeing a 30 minute cessation of a measurable heart beat has nothing to do with being dead for 3 days and coming back to life?