Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

---

....

No, because I have empirical evidence that cards are manmade. I have empirical evidence that humans are a part of reality.....

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

You can't demonstrate any experimental evidence attributable to the supernatural.

---

That's why it's called the supernatural.

---

I started to say "maybe so" but if one claims a supernatural being then one must make good on that claim in secular world or no body will believe that nonsense. The supernatural cannot simply say "I exist" without engaging a thoroughly secular person or culture.

"Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain" TS
Answer his question, please

"I have reliable and authentic historical evidence and testimony from firsthand witnesses or firsthand contacts of those witnesses. That is a rational basis for belief. YOU are the one who needs to prove all of this is false, since YOU are claiming that it didn't happen." Dusty

Are a BU graduate? Did you not study Bible and its origin? The oldest full copy of Mark is 400 AD. The origins of the OT are oral tradition which was finally redacted in 700 BC; yet, it stories are from a time 2,000 years before it is written down. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the historicity of the OT

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

What science? Wishful thinking isn't science. Neither is philosophy of psychology. There is no science or math that points to the supernatural as an answer to anything.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

---

No, we live in a very ordered universe.

---

In some ways try but short sighted. The universe operates by orderlies chemical, biological and physical laws but the observable phenomena of these laws is chaotic. Earthquakes operate from the physics of tectonic plates but their actual occurrence is random and chaotic. There is no guiding hand of a supernatural god.

Waco1947 said:

---

Are a BU graduate? Did you not study Bible and its origin? The oldest full copy of Mark is 400 AD. The origins of the OT are oral tradition which was finally redacted in 700 BC; yet, it stories are from a time 2,000 years before it is written down. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the historicity of the OT

---

Fragment p52 dates to the mid-second century ~ AD 150-ish. That is only 60 years, at the most, after the death of John.

No historical evidence outside the Bible? Like the archelogical finds of:

• Judges-Era Lead Trade
• Hezekiah's Sluice Gate
• Vanilla-Laced Vessels from time of Jeremiah
• City of David Ivories
• Hezekiah's Monumental Inscription.
• Lachish Comb Inscription

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Are a BU graduate? Did you not study Bible and its origin? The oldest full copy of Mark is 400 AD. The origins of the OT are oral tradition which was finally redacted in 700 BC; yet, it stories are from a time 2,000 years before it is written down. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the historicity of the OT

---

Fragment p52 dates to the mid-second century ~ AD 150-ish. That is only 60 years, at the most, after the death of John.

No historical evidence outside the Bible? Like the archelogical finds of:

• Judges-Era Lead Trade
• Hezekiah's Sluice Gate
• Vanilla-Laced Vessels from time of Jeremiah
• City of David Ivories
• Hezekiah's Monumental Inscription.
• Lachish Comb Inscription

---

I am aware of these fragmentary finds but they do not constitute historical evidence of the sweep Jewish history from Abraham to Ezra. Adam and to Noah are probably legendary tales.
But the Bible does not ask us to believe in historicity rather it asks to have faith in a God who is one and who. loves us

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

Atheists like TXScientist believe that physics resulted in physics observing, contemplating, and subjectively experiencing itself.

Let the mind-numbing absurdity of that sink in...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Atheists like TXScientist believe that physics resulted in physics observing, contemplating, and subjectively experiencing itself.

Let the mind-numbing absurdity of that sink in...

---

Just the very fact that if you go down to an atom, then quark, then even further down, there's a level you get to called Planck scale and we've already mathematically proven that's as far as you can go because there's absolutely zero possibility for any operational meaning beyond it. So the idea of physicalism going on forever is impossible. It's not even that far down. It's only 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. I'd be impressed it was 10 to the minus 33 trillion centimeters.

The logical conclusion to that is there's something non physical projecting our reality.

The quantum world is greater than Planck scale. They're physical objects. Txscientist doesn't understand this. A metaphor for his conclusion is like he's seeing a folder on a computer screen and he thinks that's the end point. That folder is actually being produced by toggling millions of voltages. He thinks of our reality as the folder.

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

What science? Wishful thinking isn't science. Neither is philosophy of psychology. There is no science or math that points to the supernatural as an answer to anything.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

---

No, we live in a very ordered universe.

---

In some ways try but short sighted. The universe operates by orderlies chemical, biological and physical laws but the observable phenomena of these laws is chaotic. Earthquakes operate from the physics of tectonic plates but their actual occurrence is random and chaotic. There is no guiding hand of a supernatural god.

---

Just because a human can't predict or see the future doesn't mean there isn't an order. Especially when if told of a future event, we would understand what the outcome would most likely be due to our understanding of that order. Furthermore, the universe doesn't come into existence in its current form unless there was an underlying order before it materialized. I'll let you noodle on those concepts.

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

What science? Wishful thinking isn't science. Neither is philosophy of psychology. There is no science or math that points to the supernatural as an answer to anything.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

---

No, we live in a very ordered universe.

---

In some ways try but short sighted. The universe operates by orderlies chemical, biological and physical laws but the observable phenomena of these laws is chaotic. Earthquakes operate from the physics of tectonic plates but their actual occurrence is random and chaotic. There is no guiding hand of a supernatural god.

---

Just because a human can't predict or see the future doesn't mean there isn't an order. Especially when if told of a future event, we would understand what the outcome would most likely be due to our understanding of that order. Furthermore, the universe doesn't come into existence in its current form unless there was an underlying order before it materialized. I'll let you noodle on those concepts.

---

To add, that underlying order has to be non-physical and self created.

There are some theories on how this could be. They're axiomatic because they're not working with physicalism.

Chris Langan (195 IQ) has a theory called the CTMU and he explains how this is logically possible

Quote:

---

Predating the Big bang (what is understood to be the birth of the universe) Physicists, Philosophers and Theologians alike have all sort to explain (with varying degrees of success) what existed before the universe and what gave rise to it (what premeditated it). For philosophers, many would be forced to admit that it could not literally have been nothing that predated and gave rise to the universe (nothing as in no single thing).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the main source of controversy over that premise is whether the cause is external or internal (that is whether it is self caused or exo-caused (caused by something else)). Something that I think we can all agree on is something must exist in order to generate a cause. This seriously rules out the pre-big bang period as a place where no single thing existed, and makes expressly clear that something had to be there.

That something takes on the nature of what physicists call Quantum foam. Defined as a quantum theory of gravity where spacetime would have a foamy, jittery nature and would consist of many small, ever-changing, regions in which space and time are not definite but fluctuate.

As you can tell from its above description quantum foam sounds very undefined, in the sense that no space time or any type of structure has been defined in it. We can see this is a reasonable description to give it since the universe, its space and time structure (our reality) had yet to be defined so logically before it was defined it was undefined. Simple and undeniable.

Enter UBT:
Quantum foam actually gives way to a more rich concept found in CTMU known as Unbound Telesis (UBT) literally meaning, unbounded purpose. UBT is very much like Quantum foam in that it is a purely undefined realm free of informational constraint, that is, it is completely unconstrained and is capable of taking on the nature of any definition, meaning, ontology or structure.

In order to really get a sense of this concept, picture if you will, the laws of physics suddenly being something else, energy no longer equals mass by the speed of light squared, every force no longer has an equal and opposite force, the electron mass could be anything. Similarly for logic, imagine sentential logic not being defined, first order logical statements like x = x can't exist because x and even propositions themselves have not been defined.

In UBT x can be x x. that is x can be equal to itself and not equal to itself at the same time, a contradiction. If you imagine this scenario through and through one can come to see UBT as sort of a realm of pure paradox, where structure and being have not been defined because the rules for their existence need to be defined and bounded first.

So what defined the rules for our universe's existence? The answer must be it itself does, it self causes them, since for an external cause to generate reality it has to affect reality, and thereby it is contained within reality itself since reality contains all that is real.

A cause cannot truly be separate from the effect it creates, since for a cause to generate an effect it has to exist in a relational medium that allows it to do so (a medium that relates cause and effect) and that medium must be reality. So we can see external causes cannot be distinctly separated from reality, because they require interaction with reality in order to cause it (implying they must be similar enough to reality in order to effect it, if they are completely unlike reality, then the cause cannot interact with reality in order to cause it) making reality "self causing" or as it emerges from UBT "self defining".



But why did it pick the laws of physics and logic as its foundational rules? The answer, it has to conform to logico-mathematical consistency in order to have a stable structure and not collapse under its own self contradiction.

If reality anywhere contradicts itself (the laws of physics variate, the laws of logic variate) then it would have collapsed already (e.g much, much sooner then later). Because if nature isn't always uniform, the mechanism that controls its uniformity would be an arbitary one (a mathematically random one) instead of a chosen one, meaning the universe would be maximally entropic, destroying itself instantly.
Thus the problem of induction in science, where by nature is only assumed to be uniform, is solved by the deduction that nature must be uniform, otherwise none of these sentences and thoughts that you and i are having would exist.

Imagine you have a friend called Dan who is 6'2, in this reality you can perceive him as being 6'2 because there exists laws that allow perception to be possible. Now picture an alternate reality or world that could exist where you can perceive Dan as being 6'2 and 5'8 at the same time, a contradiction. Such a world cannot form from UBT because it is incoherent, it is self contradictory or wholly paradoxical in nature. If even one part of a system is contradictory then the entire system is self contradictory and therefore would not be able to sustain itself and would collapse, preventing it from being a reality where observers can form and therefore making it impossible for it to be a reality that we could be in.

This means reality must be setup to allow observers to arise within it, implying mind determines reality. And since those observers cannot be separated from reality (because they are in it) they are in a literal sense, reality in the act of observing itself.

https://scienceofsingularity.com/2020/05/16/explaining-the-ctmu-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

---

....

No, because I have empirical evidence that cards are manmade. I have empirical evidence that humans are a part of reality.....

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

You can't demonstrate any experimental evidence attributable to the supernatural.

---

That's why it's called the supernatural.

---

I started to say "maybe so" but if one claims a supernatural being then one must make good on that claim in secular world or no body will believe that nonsense. The supernatural cannot simply say "I exist" without engaging a thoroughly secular person or culture.

---

Why, exactly, not? Who are you, precisely, to say what "the supernatural" could or could not do?

Waco1947 said:

---

"Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain" TS
Answer his question, please

---

WHO ARE YOU to demand answers? You've repeatedly refused to answer my questions in other threads. Do you have any sort of self awareness?

But I'll answer you. First, though, I need to know how you interpret Jesus' words about faith being able to move mountains - do you interpret this literally? If so, how come you interpret the text literally here, but not where it says Jesus performed miracles and was raised bodily from the dead? Your mode of interpretation seems to flex according to what suits you, doesn't it?

Waco1947 said:

---

"I have reliable and authentic historical evidence and testimony from firsthand witnesses or firsthand contacts of those witnesses. That is a rational basis for belief. YOU are the one who needs to prove all of this is false, since YOU are claiming that it didn't happen." Dusty

Are a BU graduate? Did you not study Bible and its origin? The oldest full copy of Mark is 400 AD. The origins of the OT are oral tradition which was finally redacted in 700 BC; yet, it stories are from a time 2,000 years before it is written down. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the historicity of the OT

---

If the bible is unreliable, then your whole belief that the "overwhelming witness of scripture is love" has no reliable basis, because it too is based on the very same bible you are saying is unreliable.

You've just invalidated your own theology.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

---

....

No, because I have empirical evidence that cards are manmade. I have empirical evidence that humans are a part of reality.....

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

I've never seen a mouse set a mouse trap that will eventually kill them…






until now

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Science tells us that the dead don't come back to life. Science tells us that the communion wafer doesn't transform into flesh, nor does communion wine to blood. Science tells us the sun doesn't stand still. Science tells us space is not filled with water.....

---

No, science doesn't "tell us" these things. Given that science itself is showing the existence of a reality outside of our universe (i.e. the supernatural), and since science is totally incapable of explaining this outside reality, and if or how it can affect our universe, then science isn't in a position to say that the supernatural can't ever happen. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.

We have historic evidence of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was a supernatural event, not a natural one. The disciple Thomas, after he touched Jesus' resurrected body, would have told you that the "evidence of reality" tells us that a dead person did in fact come back to life. And you just don't have the science to prove him wrong.

---

You only have mysticism and pseudoscience. There is no objective empirical quantifiable scientific evidence to support your claim of the supernatural, or any claim of any supernatural agent acting on our universe. You're caught up in your own perceived alternate reality.

We have historic tales of a person coming back to life from the dead. It was alleged to be a supernatural event, not a natural one, without objective proof or evidence. The evidence of reality tells us Thomas didn't encounter a resurrected body.

---

If you see a deck of cards in the shape of a house, do you need empirical evidence to know how it happened?

---

....

No, because I have empirical evidence that cards are manmade. I have empirical evidence that humans are a part of reality.....

---

But you also have empirical evidence that air currents, gravity, and friction exist in reality too. How do you know the cards weren't blown off the table and happened to land in that way? What is the objective, empirical evidence that makes you conclude it didn't happen that way, rather, that it was a human who did it?

---

Probability, extreme probability. I know the cards are manmade through empirical evidence and observation. Where is any evidence that a supernatural power made the cards, or that any supernatural power placed them in the shape of a house, or has ever placed them in the shape of a house. Do you believe planets orbit the sun as explained by general relativity, or some god is pushing them around the sun?

---

Exactly! Probability!

So, you agree then, that extreme probability, or improbability, is a form of empirical evidence?

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

You didn't answer the question: Is extreme improbability a form of empirical evidence and/or objective proof? You were asked what empirical evidence or objective proof you had for believing the house of cards was not by chance. You said extreme improbability. So either you are conceding that yes, it is empiric evidence and/or objective proof, OR you are demonstrating that you do NOT base your beliefs solely on empiric evidence or objective proof. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

---

Snap! Right on the neck of the mouse.

Waco1947 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

What science? Wishful thinking isn't science. Neither is philosophy of psychology. There is no science or math that points to the supernatural as an answer to anything.

---

The work of Stephen Hawking and Alexander Vilenkin isn't science to you? Those external and teleological boundary constraints are seen in their math.

The only wishful thinking here is the hope in an infinite number of universes to explain the finely tuned universe for life.

---

Hawking and Vilenkin never asserted any teleological boundaries, or supernatural force acting with a purpose on the universe. Observation, and testing of theories is what yields reliable predictions about the universe. Nothing observable or testable predicts the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is nothing more than a mental crutch to cope with one's on mortality.

---

I didn't say Hawking and Vilenkin "asserted teleological boundaries, or supernatural forces acting with a purpose on the universe". I said that the math that their ideas are based on, the same ideas you are promoting, required teleological boundary constraints (meaning, with an end goal in mind) in order for it to work. What this points to is that there exists outside our universe (i.e. supernatural).

Belief in the supernatural is recognizing that things can't all be explained naturally. It comes from an honest mind honestly seeking truth. The belief that "reality" is ONLY what we can empirically observe and test, requires just as much faith as any religion. That's what's so ironic about your rants.

---

There doesn't have to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. Hawking certainly didn't believe there was any purpose behind those laws.

The history of science is one of discovering explanations for what once 'couldn't' be explained naturally, and eliminating the need to attribute what was once unexplainable to the supernatural.

---

I didn't say that there has to be an end goal or purpose for the laws that govern our universe. I said that in order for our universe to have arisen spontaneously as you claim, there needed to be an end goal in mind for the math to work out.

You may not be capable of following. I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

---

There is no evidence of any underlying purpose to the universe. You want to presuppose a purpose when there obviously is none.

---

We live in a random universe.

---

exquisitely random?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

Well, you know, can't have God getting uppity ...

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

Waco1947 said:

---

"I have reliable and authentic historical evidence and testimony from firsthand witnesses or firsthand contacts of those witnesses. That is a rational basis for belief. YOU are the one who needs to prove all of this is false, since YOU are claiming that it didn't happen." Dusty

Are a BU graduate? Did you not study Bible and its origin? The oldest full copy of Mark is 400 AD. The origins of the OT are oral tradition which was finally redacted in 700 BC; yet, it stories are from a time 2,000 years before it is written down. There is no evidence outside of the Bible that confirms the historicity of the OT

---

There are many contemporary extra Biblical references to people mentioned in the Old Testament. I thought you were educated in this area, but I seem to have been mistaken.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't be serious. Scientists throughout history were hampered by their ignorance and presuppositions of gods, or a god to account for what they could not understand. They were persecuted by the religious institutions of power for the scientific revelations they uncovered, until it was abundantly clear science was true and religious belief was false. Faced with the evidence of reality, religious institutions, in order to remain credible, had to modify how they interpreted their religious doctrine. Otherwise, they couldn't to maintain the faith, influence, and power religion held over their culture. When you get down to the basic purposes of control and sway over people, there is no real fundamental difference in the various religions, including Christianity. And yes, science is at odds with every religious doctrine. People don't crawl out of their graves, or caskets at funerals. Virgins don't give birth, with or without relations with a god. Burning bushes don't talk. People don't ascend into space, speak in tongues. The sun doesn't stand still, etc. The universe is more than 6,000 years old (something even the Catholic Church had to recognize). Consciousness is a biological and physical function of the brain. Scientific observation and testing confirm it. We don't have to understand every aspect and nuance of the consciousness to know this.

---

I didn't say that throughout history, science and people's understanding of Christianity didn't conflict. I am saying that science is not at odds with Christianity. If you disagree, then by all means, give us science that conflicts with or debunks Christianity. You've been challenged with this before multiple times, and you failed each time. So let's make it another, just so you'll go away for a while - then come back, recycling your same old failed arguments, hoping no one remembers your previous failure. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

.... Science tells us that cognition is a neurological process that develops, beginning with conception and ending with death. Science tells us when the brain dies, all cognition ends. Science tells us hallucinations and dreams are biochemical processes. I have to repeat what science tells us, because I can't change the truth to fit religious attempts to alter reality. Where would we be if Galileo had scrapped his views, quit repeating, and embraced Church censorship? Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality, until it has no choice but to modify its religious views in the face of science. It has no choice but to reinterpret its beliefs to fill the remaining and evershrinking gap.

---

Science does NOT tell us that consciousness and subjective experience are ONLY biochemical processes. Science has absolutely no explanation for how atoms and molecules can form subjective experience.

"Religion stands in opposition to understanding and embracing reality.." - you've repeated this over and over. Lay out exactly what you've proven to be "reality" that I or other Christians have been standing in opposition to.

---

You're the one claiming a reality outside of what we can know through scientific understanding. Demonstrate it. Let's see you supernaturally move a mountain. Science says you can't, religion says you can.

---

Do you believe that your thoughts and actions coming from your brain is due to choice/free will, or is it due to physics?

If you believe it is all physics, then how do you know that what you're believing right now is truth, and not just what you were determined to believe via physics?

If you believe that it is choice/free will, then how are you moving the atoms and molecules in your brain according to your will? If you can move atoms and molecules, then why would it be impossible to move a mountain?

---

It's a biologic function of physics.

We obviously have the ability to make assumptions, evaluations and decisions within the context of our learned frame of reference.

Decision making is a contained a neuro-biological process. Explain to me with examples of how you've supernaturally moved a mountain.

---

If it is just a biologic function of physics, then any assumption, evaluation, or decision you make is still the determined result of physics. Your whole learned frame of reference is the product of deterministic physics, you had no choice in the matter. Anything that stems from this learned frame of reference, likewise, is strictly determined by physics alone.

If this is the case, then why do you care about those who believe in religion? They had no choice but to believe it, physics determined it. In your grand scheme of things, their belief in religion is not "wrong" because there is no such thing as "wrong" in determinism.

In addition, since your thinking is similarly dispositioned, there is no basis on which to claim your perceptions accurately reflect ultimate reality and truth. Your "objectivity" and "empiricism" are determined only by physics, and so any reasoning derived from these is only confirming the learned frame of reference from which they themselves are derived....a learned frame of reference that itself is also derived only from physics. In essence, you are claiming that physical reality is ultimate truth and reality....because of physics. Circular logic, a fallacy.

---

Everyone (who is not mentally impaired) has the ability to analyze and make decisions base upon what they have learned.

People's beliefs are based upon what they have learned, regardless of its accuracy or veracity. They have the ability to change those fallacious beliefs when presented with accurate information, once they can overcome the hurdle of recognizing their beliefs and knowledge were based upon error, and inaccuracies.

Your premises and reasoning are flawed by your reductionist desire to oversimplify complexity, in an attempt to make a point, that shows you don't understand physics, and science.

---

If there is any mental impairment or lack of understanding, it is on your part for your failure to understand the logical implications of your thinking.

If everyone has the ability to analizye and make decisions based on what they learned, and then CHANGE them based on their perception of "correctness" and "error" - are they doing this freely, or is it merely the inevitable result of unguided physics? You can not have it both ways. Either you can guide the biology and physics in your brain, or you can't. If you say we CAN guide the biology and physics, then you are invoking the supernatural. If you say we CAN'T, then whatever a person ends up thinking, whether "right" or "wrong" in your view, or whether or not they can "change" their thinking to conform to whatever is "right" or "wrong" in your view, is merely the end result of the pathway that was determined by physics alone. If all there is is physics, then it couldn't be any other way.

You say that everyone "who is not mentally impaired" has the ability to analyze, learn, and make decisions. Serious question - how do you know that YOU aren't mentally impaired to a degree? Mentally impaired people are only that way because it was the end result of physics, right? So how can you assume that the physics that resulted in you, landed in all the right ways for you to have the ability to accurately perceive truth and reality?

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Very odd behavior for someone who claims to be an ordained minister ...

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Probability is testable to a point of being reliable for conclusions. The burden is on you to prove something supernatural is probable.

---

So you'll accept the supernatural, but only if we can prove there's nothing supernatural about it.

---

If you can produce empirical objective proof of any (imaginary) supernatural being, why wouldn't I accept it. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

---

where in a search for evidence (you say proof ) is a presupposition against something, a useful thing?

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

So now you consider yourself qualified to judge God ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

So now you consider yourself qualified to judge God ...

---

only the god of his creation.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

So now you consider yourself qualified to judge God ...

---

only the god of his creation.

---

In that case his god is, as Hulk said, a 'puny god'.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"There is no evidence of the supernatural ". This is so right yet evangelicals cannot prove their basic premise - God is supernatural being. Their only argument is "The Bible says so" wjhich is not a source for the real l, scientific world we live in

---

No evidence of the supernatural EXCEPT for:

The Shroud of Turin
The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego's cactus-fiber Tilma from Dec. 12, 1531
The Miracle of the Sun in Ftima, Portugal on Oct. 13, 1917
The 70+ miraculous healings at Lourdes, France
The many Eucharistic Miracles that have appeared going back to the 8th century

If ONE miracle has ever presented itself, that alone is evidence of a supernatural.

If you believe in ghosts, spirits, or even demons, that is evidence of a supernatural.

---

The evidence against? All those not supernaturally healed.
The miracles are simply myths of the RC church

---

Please explain how 70 different people have been healed with no medical intervention and whose cases were reviewed by an independent medical board made up of believers and unbelievers.

Please explain how someone made the Shroud of Turn when we cannot replicate it with today's technology.

---

If God is good then ALL would healed.

---

Why?

---

It is logical -- If God is good then where does evil come from. in your theism God created everything. If evil exists then it comes from God's creative hand but in the nature of God as good how can evil possibly come from God. If 80 saved and hundreds of thousands not healed then one has a very fickle God who is supposed be good.
Your theism is logically absurd.

---

Do you believe God is "good"? If so, then by logic you must believe that "NOT good" exists as well. Otherwise, "good" doesn't have any meaning, it just means "everything". So just by the nature of the fact that God is "good", does that mean, then, that he created "NOT good"?

Illustrated another way: if you build a house, then immediately there is the concept of "inside" the house, and "outside" the house. Does that mean if you build a house, it means you've built the whole "outside" of the house as well? Wouldn't that be logically absurd?