Does Statement Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? Well.. Lets Find Out

[DoubtingNate]

How do you think they know this? Because it is incredibly unlikely??

 

Again, apply the same concept to something other than God. You would almost certainly demand to see the diamond in the milk carton, before you accept their claim.

[mymistake]

exactly.....yet the funny thing is people keep asking for evidence for some thing they KNOW wont happen, thats like a math teacher asking students to make 5 out of 2 plus 2. pointless.

 

 

The reason it won't happen is because god is imaginary.  That is why there is never any evidence of god.  Deep down inside this is why you know it won't happen.

[Orbit]

here is the thing.....

 

How do you cross the bridge from naturalism to supernatural

if you say i would need to see an interaction from the supernatural to the natural, but this is redundant because how can you even know what a supernatural interaction IS? to determine if that connection was made between the two? how do you avoid the presupposition there is no supernatural?

You don't cross the bridge because the supernatural isn't there. It doesn't exist, and despite all our advanced technology there is no evidence to even suggest that it does exist. There is no god, A1.

[RogueScholar]

exactly.....yet the funny thing is people keep asking for evidence for some thing they KNOW wont happen, thats like a math teacher asking students to make 5 out of 2 plus 2. pointless.

In order to "detect something" said thing must interact with the universe. You appear to admit that we cannot detect this supernatural you speak of. Therefore, are you willing to admit that this concept does not interact with our universe? If so, then there is absolutely no information or evidence to suggest this supernatural exists. Without any evidence there is no rational reason to believe.

[mymistake]

I would take it a step further.  If something doesn't interact with our universe then it's existence is meaningless to us.

[moanareina]

here is the thing.....

 

How do you cross the bridge from naturalism to supernatural

if you say i would need to see an interaction from the supernatural to the natural, but this is redundant because how can you even know what a supernatural interaction IS? to determine if that connection was made between the two? how do you avoid the presupposition there is no supernatural?

 

This bridge does not exist because the supernatural is only for those who believe there is a supernatural. There is no evidence for supernatural. So why should anyone make a bridge to the supernatural who is not even believing in it? Since there is no evidence for the supernatural and most events that christians classify as supernatural have a very natural explanation...why should anyone assume a supernatural? There is natural only. No bridge to cross...

 

 

exactly.....yet the funny thing is people keep asking for evidence for some thing they KNOW wont happen, thats like a math teacher asking students to make 5 out of 2 plus 2. pointless.

 

Haha, if I made a video with every facepalm I do when reading your posts...you know, you are quite funny when you don't try to be.

 

If someone tells you a weird story that you sense to be invented or at least a delusion for whatever reason, would you not ask this person to show you more about it before embracing full heartedly...even though at some point you KNOW this person can't provide you with any evidence at all?

For example someone tells you a good friend of yours was visiting him and is now at his home. But you know that it can't be because your friend is somewhere oversees right now, enjoying an extended vacation. Would you not take your phone and ask this person to call your friend? And if he was not willing to, maybe you would send your friend a text and see what he says?

 

Or taking your own example. A math teacher tells a student 2 plus 2 is 5. Would a student not insist for the teacher to proof this statement just to make the point that the student is right with his knowledge that 2 plus 2 can not be 5? And then he would also insist on the teacher to give proof of this statement because if there is a slight chance that 2 plus 2 can get you a 5 you as a student for sure want to know...but until then...if no evidence is shown...2 plus 2 remains 4.

 

Hope that helps?

[ExCBooster]

Regarding evidence and historical persons, what, precisely, do you think it is that historians do with their time? Just make stuff up? Historians use information from a wide range of sources and fields, up to and including "hard" sciences like nuclear physics. How old is this guy? Cite scientific study involving Carbon 14 dating. Citations, or it didn't happen. You can't just make stuff up in a history paper. There's a world of difference between mass-market public history books, and peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Any asshat with a lot of money can publish something. Only solid arguments with proper source citations and, you know, actual evidence make it in the field of history. That's why it causes a humongous scandal, when a historian steals work from other people and doesn't properly cite things. I might mention here, that the historian in question, Stephen Ambrose, basically torpedoed his career beginning with interviews and claims regarding a living person. That's right, you need proper evidence, even if the person you're writing history about is still alive.

 

If it is not absolute like you want it to be then its subejctive and if its subjective it doesnt apply to everyone right? and again....extradoinary claims need extraordinary evidence is itself an extraordinary assertion claim so one must ask what Extraordinary evidence of you have to back up this claim?

I don't even know where to begin, here. I'll just paraphrase Inigo from the Princess Bride: "about that word you keep using, 'extraordinary' - I don't think it means what you think it means." In fact, I'm not convinced that you know what just about any of these words mean.

[disillusioned]

here is the thing.....

 

How do you cross the bridge from naturalism to supernatural

if you say i would need to see an interaction from the supernatural to the natural, but this is redundant because how can you even know what a supernatural interaction IS? to determine if that connection was made between the two? how do you avoid the presupposition there is no supernatural?

 

1AAT1, this argument fails miserably. The supernatural is not well-defined. It unclear what is meant by this term. Moreover, there is no evidence of any kind which indicates that such a realm exists. Ergo, disbelief is the only correct response to assertions of its existence.

 

Of course, you may choose to assert that the supernatural does indeed exist, and also claim that you know this by faith alone. Fine. But that is not in any way convincing to anyone but you. Also, this type of reasoning will allow you to reach whatever conclusion you like. I could similarly assert that there is invisible undetectable gnome in my garden who cares for my plants, and that I know that he exists because I have faith. I could also, if I were so inclined, ask you how you avoid the presupposition that this gnome does not exist, but that would be the very definition of a stupid question. It is up to those who make positive truth claims to substantiate them. It must be so.

 

exactly.....yet the funny thing is people keep asking for evidence for some thing they KNOW wont happen, thats like a math teacher asking students to make 5 out of 2 plus 2. pointless.

 

Perhaps you should take your own hint here. The reason that there is no evidence that 2+2=5 is because this assertion is false. I say the same may be said of claims that the supernatural exists.

[TrueFreedom]

To accept the laws of nature is to accept that anything operating outside of those laws is not only improbable but impossible.  Rational, scientifically minded people should not believe claims contradicting those laws without evidence supporting a revision of those laws.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Thanks moanerina for that example

 

if its ok its better to respond to all as a whole, i am not ignoring anything, i read all, just reponding as a whole, if i missed something crucial please let me know

 

perhaps what i respect about math and science is the abiltiy to break things down so may i will attempt that there, when i speak i general many subcatagories can be applied and not target the focus of my position.

 

Here is what i DO understand

On my Opening post i said this "On one hand i agree with the statement, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories, money scams and money hungry preachers...that i agree i understand, having a healthy sense of skepticism is good"

so this applies to questioning the diamond in the milk cart, or doubting 2 plus 2 is 5, doubting friend being at x persons house when person x is actually overseas. i agree we should require evidence to believe such claims, this i agree no problem, no hassle. understood. 100%.

 

but this isnt my stance or position per se

 

The  above example is a subcategory of basic methodology and examination and logical analysis, its understandable to not believe without evidence or if there was no evidence at least not believe without reasonable certainty

 

here is what i dont understand

The supernatural is as you all have said its different......from math, diamonds, milk and people. The other scenarios we use basic induction to draw conclusions on things we seen and know exist can touch feel or at lease use even if its abstract like math. Supernatural however there is nothing to use induction on, there is no previous knowledge there is no previous experience or even assumptions to use to help with examination. So.....This poses a problem

 

You say supernatural doesnt exist, but how do you know? really? like do you KNOW it doesnt exist or do you at this point have no evidence to believe it exists because that is a HUGE difference. There are many things we didnt have evidence for but doesnt mean it wasnt in EXISTENCE at...that...particular...time

 

So my stance is this.....to test the supernatural to determine its existence what do you do? what would it look like? how do you Text observe supernatural causation? if you dont believe supernatual in the first place, are your presuppositions of no supernatural exists getting in the way of examination? science defines supernatual out of existence from the get go it doesnt allow the realm of supernatural proof to occur basid on its SHEER definition.

 

of course it couldnt test it, so how could you ask for a test or an obervation FOR it....then how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent checked? how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent tested it? how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent observed it? YOU cant observe what isnt there, you cant test what isnt there....I get that but HOW do you KNOW its not there? you dont,....you just use current evidence points otherwise sure but

here is the catalyst...

 

 

IF you know what supernatural IS then you would admit that it exists by default by claiming to know what it is

 

If you "DONT" know what something IS....you cannot say what it ISNT, if you dont know what something IS, then you cannot say it doesnt exist...

 

so....What would you need to see "SPECIFCALLY" to show that supernatural exists?

[florduh]

We don't need to enter the world of hard scientific evidence when it comes to the god of the Bible.

 

To me, sufficient evidence would be if that deity fulfilled his promises, answered prayers, wrote a book that was not internally contradictory, if there were any contemporaries documenting the stories, if his word was in harmony with observable reality.

[Orbit]

A1, the supernatural isn't demonstrably real. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, it becomes the job of the person making the positive claim to give evidence for the claim that the supernatural exists. There isn't any evidence.  It's not up to us to prove the supernatural doesn't exist, because that it logically impossible. It's up to you to prove the supernatural exists, because that is logically possible.

[Ravenstar]

Russel's Teapot

[mymistake]

 

 

So my stance is this.....to test the supernatural to determine its existence what do you do? what would it look like? how do you Text observe supernatural causation? if you dont believe supernatual in the first place, are your presuppositions of no supernatural exists getting in the way of examination? science defines supernatual out of existence from the get go it doesnt allow the realm of supernatural proof to occur basid on its SHEER definition.

 

of course it couldnt test it, so how could you ask for a test or an obervation FOR it....then how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent checked? how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent tested it? how can you say it doesnt exist when you havent observed it? YOU cant observe what isnt there, you cant test what isnt there....I get that but HOW do you KNOW its not there? you dont,....you just use current evidence points otherwise sure but

here is the catalyst...

 

 

IF you know what supernatural IS then you would admit that it exists by default by claiming to know what it is

 

If you "DONT" know what something IS....you cannot say what it ISNT, if you dont know what something IS, then you cannot say it doesnt exist...

 

so....What would you need to see "SPECIFCALLY" to show that supernatural exists?

 

 

 

There is no presupposition of no supernatural.  Every objective test and examination everyone has ever done returns the answer of no supernatural.

 

You also seem confused on another point.  Imaginary things can be understood without being real.  I understand that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father even though both are fictional.  I know Luke is the son.  I know Vader is the father.  These are facts of literature.  That is how the story goes.  It is exactly the same kind of fact of literature as Jesus feeding 5,000 men using two fish and five barley loaves.  We can know things that are fiction.

 

Now if there was objective evidence for supernatural then it would have been produced long ago by other men.  You are not going to find such evidence.  It doesn't exist.  Search all you like.  When you are done wasting your time and energy realize that I was right.  The very concept itself is silly fiction.  If god, demons, angels and so on were meaningful to our existence then they would be natural instead of supernatural.  Only the natural world exists.  Everything we can detect is natural.  The supernatural is make believe.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

so what is the supernatural....everyoen will have differnent definitions.

 

then..from there BASED on those definitions, someone could try to use science to detect, test observe this Definiton you gave, BUT if your definition doesnt fit science, then science could never verify its not real

 

so without a true definition of supernatural we will always go in circles, fictional characters at least you know what it is what they are and have a description with the SUPERNATURAL im asking What is it?  if you cant tell me what it IS, then you cant tell me what it ISNT

[mymistake]

so what is the supernatural....everyoen will have differnent definitions.

 

then..from there BASED on those definitions, someone could try to use science to detect, test observe this Definiton you gave, BUT if your definition doesnt fit science, then science could never verify its not real

 

so without a true definition of supernatural we will always go in circles, fictional characters at least you know what it is what they are and have a description with the SUPERNATURAL im asking What is it?  if you cant tell me what it IS, then you cant tell me what it ISNT

 

 

You have the cart before the horse.  But I just did tell you what it is.  Supernatural is make believe.  Supernatural is fiction.  It is imaginary.  You will never find any objective evidence that conflicts with this definition.

 

All attempts to use science to detect the supernatural will get results consistent with supernatural is imaginary.

[florduh]

definition of supernatural

 

Outside or beyond the natural, observable reality.

 

The assertion of a supernatural being or force is unassailable by natural means. Anything that is beyond observable reality must be taken on faith. If there was evidence for it, then faith wouldn't be needed. If there is no evidence, then faith is all you can have. A negative assertion can have no proof; you can't prove I don't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. I can't prove you don't have a god in your driveway.

 

This is obvious and basic, but a lurker may see something new in it, so I play along.

[Orbit]

so what is the supernatural....everyoen will have differnent definitions.

 

then..from there BASED on those definitions, someone could try to use science to detect, test observe this Definiton you gave, BUT if your definition doesnt fit science, then science could never verify its not real

 

so without a true definition of supernatural we will always go in circles, fictional characters at least you know what it is what they are and have a description with the SUPERNATURAL im asking What is it?  if you cant tell me what it IS, then you cant tell me what it ISNT

There is exactly one definition of supernatural: that which is said to be outside the natural, observable world. 

[sdelsolray]

so what is the supernatural....everyoen will have differnent definitions.

 

then..from there BASED on those definitions, someone could try to use science to detect, test observe this Definiton you gave, BUT if your definition doesnt fit science, then science could never verify its not real

 

so without a true definition of supernatural we will always go in circles, fictional characters at least you know what it is what they are and have a description with the SUPERNATURAL im asking What is it?  if you cant tell me what it IS, then you cant tell me what it ISNT

So, after 65 posts in this thread you're finally getting around to thinking about a definition for the word "supernatural".  Talk about cart before the horse.

 

Define the term "supernatural".  Discussion about an undefined term is silly.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 Supernatural is make believe.  Supernatural is fiction.  It is imaginary.  You will never find any objective evidence that conflicts with this definition.

 

All attempts to use science to detect the supernatural will get results consistent with supernatural is imaginary.

 

 

 mymistake just said the definition is "make believe" or "imaginary" thats not a definition thats a description or opinion or adjective. If that is a definition then Obama is not president he is a person with eyeballs and a mouth

 

lol so as we proceed...so with our definition that fits popular consensus from everyone else "not natural, outside the natural etc"

 

With this definition If science only detects the natural, and supernatural is "NOT natural" Then.....Science could never observe or test it, as i said ebfore it defines supernaural out of existence it doesnt allow supernatural proof to even occur in the first place. Its like asking for a plate of cheese from a barn full of only animals meat. If you cant test something with one methodology should you use another? using science to detect the supernatural is a category error

 

So false anaylisis keeps gettign applied Provide evidence for supernatural people will say...but the evidence they are looking for is Natural, So if supernatural is NOT natural, they will never accept my evidence, and they know they wont accept it before they even ask me...So why ask? just for giggles?

[florduh]

they will never accept my evidence, and they know they wont accept it before they ask me...So why ask?

 

Right, so maybe you should give up, shake the dust off and beat feet. Capisce?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

no maybe yall should stop askign questiosn you already knwo the answer to lol

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

its like a scientist asking why is the sky blue when he knwo full what the answer is, one would have to question his motives. asking for evidence you know beforehand you wont wont accept nor change your mind upon obtaining it.

[florduh]

To reiterate:

 

We don't need to enter the world of hard scientific evidence when it comes to the god of the Bible.

 

To me, sufficient evidence would be if that deity fulfilled his promises, answered prayers, wrote a book that was not internally contradictory, if there were any contemporaries documenting the stories, if his word was in harmony with observable reality.

 

 

 

no maybe yall should stop askign questiosn you already knwo the answer to lol

 

 

Maybe YOU should START asking questions you DON'T know the answer to. Sheesh.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

To reiterate:

 

We don't need to enter the world of hard scientific evidence when it comes to the god of the Bible.

 

To me, sufficient evidence would be if that deity fulfilled his promises, answered prayers, wrote a book that was not internally contradictory, if there were any contemporaries documenting the stories, if his word was in harmony with observable reality.

 

good good Fair enough appreciate that, sry missed that had alot of posts coming in

 

 

fulfill promises

answered prayers

book not internall contradictory

contemporaries

word in harmony with reality

 

Good good. i like that i will try to provide some of that for you brb