What If Tarot Is Real?

[creative]

 

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real.

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence. If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

I wont tell you how experience or testimony is not a real type of evidence, but I will say that experience and testimony like that can lead one into a deep delusion. Think of a suicide bomber who uses both experience and testimony to aid them in believing that what they are doing is right.

 

Before of after he blows himself up?

 

Testimonys are never evidence in science. Sure it works in a court case, but that's not science.

Apart from that a testimony is never accepted without some realy evidence. If you go to court and testify that someone was murdered but there is no body, no blood, nothing then your testimony is useless.

 

Now in the case of tarot, we have testimony's and evidence that shows its a simple magic trick. There is no evidence what so ever that goes in favor of tarot being real.

 

The same could be applied to the bible. There is no evidence that backs up any of the story's. There is however plenty of evidence that proofs the contrary.

For example: heaven in not in the sky and hell is not underground

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

 

 

Ok then, Clay.

 

So what checks and balances can a person apply to these non-repeatable events, to prevent themselves from being swayed by personal bias, the false or mistaken testimony of others and the biases that exist within their own culture, so that they won't draw the wrong conclusion?

 

And let's not confine ourselves to people living today. 

Please tell us how all the peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas could have established a saving knowledge of God for themselves, centuries and millennnia before Christian missionaries brought them the word of God?

 

Romans 1: 18 - 32, perhaps?

 

Anyway, please tell us how...

 

...in the absence of the eye-witness testimonies recorded in the Bible,

...in the absence of repeatable observations of the supernatural,

...in the absence of any kind of empirical testing of the supernatural,

...in the absence of the written testimonies of Christians speaking the truth of the experiences and...

...in the absence of the spoken testimonies of Christians speaking the truth of their experiences

 

...how these billions of people were supposed to bring themselves to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

 

And when you've done that, please cite the writings and the transcribed oral records from around the world, the ancient papyri and the cuneiform tablets, the scrolls and the stele and everything else that speaks of how the these people came to know that Jesus Christ is the one, true God.

 

And how they also came to know (taking all of the above absences into account) that Quetzalcoatl and Kwannon and Sedna aren't real gods, but actually demons in the service of Satan, sent to lead them away from the truth that God has so plainly put in front of them? 

 

BAA

[centauri]

 

OC wrote:

Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

That's a very popular Christian myth...that Christ was "pure good".

A pure good being doesn't undermine God's law, doesn't make false prophecy, and doesn't give false testimony to one of God's priests.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

The evidence. Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

 

"Christ" was an asshole.  He went around insulting people and destroying their property -- Just a turn-of-the-millennium apocalyptic fruitcake whose story option got picked up by a Roman emperor.

 

 

Wasn't he also a liar? Didn't he also purposefully deceive people by speaking in parables and not telling everyone what the parables meant? At least "Christ" was less of a monster than big daddy Yahweh, the god who turned "Christ" into his little punching bag just to save humans from himself.

 

When OC says "Christ" was not an evil entity, assuming "Christ" really did the things the Bible said he did, he could have been a human puppet given some powers allowing him to do some cool tricks. He might not have been an evil entity, but he could have been bossed around and controlled by an evil entity, assuming that Yahweh really was real.

[Thackerie]

 

 

 

The evidence. Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

 

"Christ" was an asshole.  He went around insulting people and destroying their property -- Just a turn-of-the-millennium apocalyptic fruitcake whose story option got picked up by a Roman emperor.

 

 

Wasn't he also a liar? Didn't he also purposefully deceive people by speaking in parables and not telling everyone what the parables meant? At least "Christ" was less of a monster than big daddy Yahweh, the god who turned "Christ" into his little punching bag just to save humans from himself.

 

When OC says "Christ" was not an evil entity, assuming "Christ" really did the things the Bible said he did, he could have been a human puppet given some powers allowing him to do some cool tricks. He might not have been an evil entity, but he could have been bossed around and controlled by an evil entity, assuming that Yahweh really was real.

 

 

I think Jesus was more assaholic than the old man. In the Old Testament, once Yahweh killed you, you stayed dead. In the New Testament, unless Jesus is your buddy, death is only the beginning of endless torture.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

The evidence. Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

 

"Christ" was an asshole.  He went around insulting people and destroying their property -- Just a turn-of-the-millennium apocalyptic fruitcake whose story option got picked up by a Roman emperor.

 

 

Wasn't he also a liar? Didn't he also purposefully deceive people by speaking in parables and not telling everyone what the parables meant? At least "Christ" was less of a monster than big daddy Yahweh, the god who turned "Christ" into his little punching bag just to save humans from himself.

 

When OC says "Christ" was not an evil entity, assuming "Christ" really did the things the Bible said he did, he could have been a human puppet given some powers allowing him to do some cool tricks. He might not have been an evil entity, but he could have been bossed around and controlled by an evil entity, assuming that Yahweh really was real.

 

 

I think Jesus was more assaholic than the old man. In the Old Testament, once Yahweh killed you, you stayed dead. In the New Testament, unless Jesus is your buddy, death is only the beginning of endless torture.

 

 

But I thought that the torture after death was Yahweh's plan, assuming Jesus was even Yahweh's puppet, and Jesus was only telling everyone about it.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence. Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

 

"Christ" was an asshole.  He went around insulting people and destroying their property -- Just a turn-of-the-millennium apocalyptic fruitcake whose story option got picked up by a Roman emperor.

 

 

Wasn't he also a liar? Didn't he also purposefully deceive people by speaking in parables and not telling everyone what the parables meant? At least "Christ" was less of a monster than big daddy Yahweh, the god who turned "Christ" into his little punching bag just to save humans from himself.

 

When OC says "Christ" was not an evil entity, assuming "Christ" really did the things the Bible said he did, he could have been a human puppet given some powers allowing him to do some cool tricks. He might not have been an evil entity, but he could have been bossed around and controlled by an evil entity, assuming that Yahweh really was real.

 

 

I think Jesus was more assaholic than the old man. In the Old Testament, once Yahweh killed you, you stayed dead. In the New Testament, unless Jesus is your buddy, death is only the beginning of endless torture.

 

 

But I thought that the torture after death Yahweh's plan, assuming Jesus was even Yahweh's puppet, and Jesus was only telling everyone about it.

 

It's a gang of sky fairies.  

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The evidence. Christ was clearly not an evil entity. It is trivially easy to detect evil. Seeing Christ was pure good and that the demonic is pure evil is obvious to those with honest intentions.

 

"Christ" was an asshole.  He went around insulting people and destroying their property -- Just a turn-of-the-millennium apocalyptic fruitcake whose story option got picked up by a Roman emperor.

 

 

Wasn't he also a liar? Didn't he also purposefully deceive people by speaking in parables and not telling everyone what the parables meant? At least "Christ" was less of a monster than big daddy Yahweh, the god who turned "Christ" into his little punching bag just to save humans from himself.

 

When OC says "Christ" was not an evil entity, assuming "Christ" really did the things the Bible said he did, he could have been a human puppet given some powers allowing him to do some cool tricks. He might not have been an evil entity, but he could have been bossed around and controlled by an evil entity, assuming that Yahweh really was real.

 

 

I think Jesus was more assaholic than the old man. In the Old Testament, once Yahweh killed you, you stayed dead. In the New Testament, unless Jesus is your buddy, death is only the beginning of endless torture.

 

 

But I thought that the torture after death Yahweh's plan, assuming Jesus was even Yahweh's puppet, and Jesus was only telling everyone about it.

 

It's a gang of sky fairies.  

 

 

There's Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the minions, and Yahweh, the boss of the Divine Mafia. LOL Then there is all of the messenger dudes whose jobs are to blow trumpets and pour bowls on the Earth. LOL

[sdelsolray]

 

There's Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the minions, and Yahweh, the boss of the Divine Mafia. LOL Then there is all of the messenger dudes whose jobs are to blow trumpets and pour bowls on the Earth. LOL

 

Yeah, monotheism at its best.

[bdp]

Evidence does exist.

 

No, it doesn't.

[skepticalme]

 

 

 

 

What if tarot is real? What if the hideous abominations of the left hand path are real? What if kali is real?

 

I see many on here dance around other spiritual followings. It's uncool among skeptics to actually openly embrace the possibility that this stuff is stone cold ******* real. I believe there are some on here that know just how real the spiritual world is and mute their words.

 

Well I ask you, what if it's real? Do you really believe the thin veil called death is simply eternal unconsciousness.

If it was real there would be an enourmous body of evidence that it was real. 

Why do you assume this? We are talking about the supernatural not the natural. You are projecting empirical thinking which is not valid.

 

Actually, if we assume the entities in control of the occult are malicious adversaries then it would follow they would use subterfuge.

 

If it had any influence on the natural world it would be measurable and thus there would be evidence of it's influence.  If it was real but had no influence, how is that distinguishable from non-existant?

 

It is measurable, it is not repeatable therefore you cannot on demand just create a measurement. You must rely on personal experience or testimony. And now someone will jump in with yet another vacuous diatribe about how personal experience and testimony are not evidence. Which is simply a goofy position since they will expect all of us to believe such non-sense based on their testimony

 

Bullshit!  You cannot, on demand, create an anecdote that equals evidence.  Anecdote is no different than opinion.  If you allow that as evidence, then my anecdote of "tarot is bullshit" is just as addmissable and nullifies anything you bring.  You will only accept anecdotes that support your position and dismiss the rest.  This is why they they aren't evidence, opinion is not fact.

[Ravenstar]

hmm.. I was watching Judge Judy yesterday... she's pretty good at keeping things 'on topic'. One of the defendants said, "my friends told me that he saw..." and Judy shut him down saying, "I can't take hearsay as evidence, it's not evidence, I don't care what your friend said, just show me the evidence YOU have".

 

I think that's a pretty good rule as to what hearsay is, and it's legitimacy.

[Thackerie]

hmm.. I was watching Judge Judy yesterday... she's pretty good at keeping things 'on topic'. One of the defendants said, "my friends told me that he saw..." and Judy shut him down saying, "I can't take hearsay as evidence, it's not evidence, I don't care what your friend said, just show me the evidence YOU have".

 

I think that's a pretty good rule as to what hearsay is, and it's legitimacy.

 

Judge Judy also frequently says something applicable to this discussion: "If it doesn't make it sense, it probably didn't happen.

[bornagainathiest]

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'd really like to know how one can assess an event to determine whether it's in fact an instance of revelation, or even just of the supernatural.  I too put this question to OC and just got a snarky dance around the subject.  

 

Bhim, did you ever see my question when I put the same to you a while back?  I'm sorry if you gave your view and I missed it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

 

 

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this.  There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue.  He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen. 

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them.  The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

I guess one could deny the distinction between natural and supernatural.

[bdp]

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them.  The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

 

That's  one of the problems in dealing with OC and his type - they think they already know everything about us - even more than we know ourselves - from 'the bible.'  They don't even try to know or understand us because they think 'the bible' describes us completely inside and out.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

 

 

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this.  There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue.  He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen. 

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them.  The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

 

 

But that would not be a good counter-argument because the Bible god has not made the existence of the supernatural clear to everyone, if he has even revealed it to anyone. A counter-counter argument to that could be that the scripture was written by primitive people who thought that lightning was a sign of divine power. It was written by people who would have thought that tornadoes and hurricanes were the wrath of a god, but it has been discovered that these things naturally occur, through science, and to draw a connection between such things and the divine power of a god would require wishful thinking.

 

Since the discovery that people have disorders that make them prone to hallucinations and in some cases, environmental factors can make a person hallucinate when they would not originally hallucinate meaning it would be nearly impossible to decipher the difference between a hallucination or an outright lie when a person claims to have had the supernatural revealed to them. So if OC gave a response such as the example you provided, BAA, or if any other believer used that response, my answer would be that for his god to reveal his own existence of the existence of the supernatural to people, he would need to reveal it to everyone at the same time in a way that can be scientifically verified.

 

If a believer did give me a response similar to or exactly like the possible counter-argument you presented, I would be curious to see how a believer would reply to the counter-counter argument I used. Likely, at this point, I would probably not receive a response.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

 

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

 

 

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this.  There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue.  He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen. 

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them.  The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

 

 

But that would not be a good counter-argument because the Bible god has not made the existence of the supernatural clear to everyone, if he has even revealed it to anyone. A counter-counter argument to that could be that the scripture was written by primitive people who thought that lightning was a sign of divine power. It was written by people who would have thought that tornadoes and hurricanes were the wrath of a god, when in reality, but it has been discovered that these things naturally occur, through science, and to draw a connection between such things as being the wrath of a god would require wishful thinking.

 

Since the discovery that people have disorders that make them prone to hallucinations and in some cases, environmental factors can make a person hallucinate when they would not originally hallucinate meaning it would be nearly impossible to decipher the difference between a hallucination or an outright lie when a person claims to have had the supernatural revealed to them. So if OC gave a response such as the example you provided, BAA, or if any other believer used that response, my answer would be that for his god to reveal his own existence of the existence of the supernatural to people, he would need to reveal it to everyone at the same time in a way that can be scientifically verified.

 

If a believer did give me a response similar to or exactly like the possible counter-argument you presented, I would be curious to see how a believer would reply to the counter-counter argument I used. Likely, at this point, I would probably not receive a response.

 

 

How about this, CG?

 

Your counter-counter argument fails on a number of grounds.

 

1.

If the Bible says that God has made the existence of the supernatural clear to everyone - then that is what has happened.  When you deny that this is so, that's your sinful nature rebelling against God.  The Bible says you have no excuse.  So, you have no excuse.

 

2.

Almost all the 'primitive people' you mention had no concept of science (as we understand that word), so what would have been the point of God making the existence of the supernatural clear to them in a way that could be scientifically examined?  It would have been a futile exercise.  

 

3.

And what about those who died before the had they chance to mature and fully develop their analytical abilities?  That would be billions of unborn children, newly born babes and children up to the age of what... ten or twelve, perhaps?  They never had the chance of seeing and understanding any scientific evidence of the supernatural that God could have presented to them, did they?  Btw, Christianity has this angle covered too.  Check out Matthew 19: 13 -15, Mark 10: 13-16 and Luke 18: 15 -17.

 

4.

Lastly, what one person considers as bona fide evidence, another considers as inadmissible.  A third person may even say that anything that doesn't agree with their preconcieved ideas is a lie.  (Try using scientific evidence to convince a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that it wasn't a conspiracy!) Sorry, but there's no one standard of evidence that'll convince everyone.  Which means that God can't possibly use one-and-only-one method to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural to everyone. 

 

We already have a good idea of this kind of scenario - because there's no one-size-fits-all argument we can use against the different types of Christian apologists who come to this forum.  Scientific evidence that would make a good argument against a Theistic Evolutionist wouldn't work against a Young Earth Creationist and vice versa. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please note CG, that I'm playing devil's advocate here, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

How about this, CG?

 

Your counter-counter argument fails on a number of grounds.

 

1.

If the Bible says that God has made the existence of the supernatural clear to everyone - then that is what has happened.  When you deny that this is so, that's your sinful nature rebelling against God.  The Bible says you have no excuse.  So, you have no excuse.

 

2.

Almost all the 'primitive people' you mention had no concept of science (as we understand that word), so what would have been the point of God making the existence of the supernatural clear to them in a way that could be scientifically examined?  It would have been a futile exercise.  

 

3.

And what about those who died before the had they chance to mature and fully develop their analytical abilities?  That would be billions of unborn children, newly born babes and children up to the age of what... ten or twelve, perhaps?  They never had the chance of seeing and understanding any scientific evidence of the supernatural that God could have presented to them, did they?  Btw, Christianity has this angle covered too.  Check out Matthew 19: 13 -15, Mark 10: 13-16 and Luke 18: 15 -17.

 

4.

Lastly, what one person considers as bona fide evidence, another considers as inadmissible.  A third person may even say that anything that doesn't agree with their preconcieved ideas is a lie.  (Try using scientific evidence to convince a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that it wasn't a conspiracy!) Sorry, but there's no one standard of evidence that'll convince everyone.  Which means that God can't possibly use one-and-only-one method to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural to everyone. 

 

We already have a good idea of this kind of scenario - because there's no one-size-fits-all argument we can use against the different types of Christian apologists who come to this forum.  Scientific evidence that would make a good argument against a Theistic Evolutionist wouldn't work against a Young Earth Creationist and vice versa. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Please note CG, that I'm playing devil's advocate here, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

I know and it appears that my counter-counter argument would have been destroyed, at least, in the minds of apologists, with the possible response you presented. I suppose that another argument that might work to counter that would be to say that in the past, people may not have needed the supernatural to be scientifically verified. Even though quite a few people still do not need that today, there are also quite a few who do.

 

Honestly, I don't know how I could possibly counter this: "If the Bible says that God has made the existence of the supernatural clear to everyone - then that is what has happened.  When you deny that this is so, that's your sinful nature rebelling against God.  The Bible says you have no excuse.  So, you have no excuse."

 

Nice job playing devil's advocate by the way. You must have dealt with this apologetics crap long enough to know the different types of responses one might receive by heart!

[Guest r3alchild]

 

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this. There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue. He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen.

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them. The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

If you think about that verse its absurd. How can a invisible cause lead you to know its self by its visible effect. You would never know a cause of an effect if the cause was not detectable.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

Notice what Clay's saying and what he's not saying?

 

He's saying there is evidence for the supernatural, but this evidence is exempt from objective, scientific investigation.

 

Q.

So what other, objective method of investigation can be used to investigate it?

 

A.

Clay's so far failed to provide one..

.

.

.

 

Please draw your own conclusions.

 

BAA

He is probably not able to provide an answer as to another objective means of investigating the supernatural. If the supernatural exists, you would need to rely on personal experience with a spiritual entity and could never objectively prove to others that it is real. If there are ghosts and demons, I doubt most of them care about the living being able to prove their existence so likely they would never be around when people tried to scientifically investigate their existence.

 

However, I would think that if his god existed, as an all powerful being that wanted everyone to know he was real, he would present himself in a way that he can be scientifically proven to be real instead of forcing everyone to rely on feelings, personal experience, and hearsay. If his god wanted everyone to know that the supernatural was real, he would force ghosts and demons into a situation in which they must present themselves in such a way that they can be proven as real, scientifically. If OC's god does not do these things, then he must either not be real or not really have any interest in letting everyone know that he is real or that the supernatural is real in an objective and scientific way.

Perhaps so CG,

 

But the counter argument to yours might be this. There's no need for God to make the supernatural known to humans by forcing the issue. He's already made the supernatural easily and plainly seen.

The Bible even describes it.

 

Romans 1: 18 - 20.

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

See that?

Everyone who's ever lived has been without excuse for not seeing what God has made plain to them. The supernatural has been clearly shown to us - but we've wilfully chosen not to see it and to deny it's existence.

 

Any questions?

 

BAA

If you think about that verse its absurd. How can a invisible cause lead you to know its self by its visible effect. You would never know a cause of an effect if the cause was not detectable.

 

 

That same scripture could be used to say that an invisible unicorn created the entire universe and since things exist, everyone is without excuse for not knowing that the invisible unicorn is real.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey CG and R3alchild!

 

I gotta run now - but I've got something in mind, to reply to your latest posts. 

Hang in there.  I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow.

 

Bye.

 

BAA