RE: Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural
April 12, 2018 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: April 12, 2018 at 9:03 am by I_am_not_mafia.)
(April 12, 2018 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: Again with the "no evidence" nonsense.
You keep referring to us pointing out that you have "no evidence" as us not being critical thinkers. But that would only be true if it was incorrect.
You have no evidence.
Responding to this by saying that this is a sign of us not being critical thinkers is a fallacious Ad hominem argument. Rather than respond to the point raised you attack the character or attributes of the people making the argument.
(April 12, 2018 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:
1. Person of, the message of and the insights of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
It's hilarious and tragic that you think that's evidence. It's not evidence. As I said, using your standard of evidence, Harry Potter would be evidence of the existence of witches and wizards. Funny you ignore this point.
You have no evidence. Just a few deliberately half-baked definitions which you use for arguing for whatever magic you wish for. If you had clear definitions then you'd be able to answer the following question rather than continually ignoring it:
(April 11, 2018 at 1:19 pm)Mathilda Wrote: How is a supernatural cause different from a natural cause if both affect the nature that we can sense?
Because even if you could try answering this (you can't) then it wouldn't help you.
Because we know that in the past supernatural explanations have been shown to be incorrect when we've managed to come up with a natural explanation.
How can you tell the difference between a natural explanation that we do not yet have and a supernatural explanation that we will never know?
The supernatural is just a placeholder for natural explanations that we have not yet arrived at. And for you it's just a way of convincing yourself that you are justified in believing the fairy tale you were brought up with.
And you still think you're a critical thinker Dunning Kruger boy?
