Supernatural Evidence?

[Soldat Du Christ]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

[The Valkyrie]

Deities themselves may be considered supernatural.

However, even if you proved the existence of other supernatural beings, ghosts, for instance, that would not be evidence of the existence of deities.

I'm open to evidence. However, please remember our 30/30 rule about posting links.

[Jesster]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

This is a 'GOTCHA' question though. You are trying to pin us down on a singular position. The supernatural doesn't have anything to do with atheism unless it is the question of a god. Many of us are skeptics, though, and that has plenty to do with the supernatural.

That is why I will not accept supernatural claims until you present the evidence. This does not mean I am not 'open to the supernatural'. I am willing to be convinced if there is enough reason. So far there is none that I am aware of.

Now with that being said, there are atheists who are not skeptics. Would you like me to find you some atheists who do accept some supernatural claims? I can certainly find some. I even know of at least one on this forum.

[Jehanne]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

Yes, absolutely.  Let "god" heal a 1,000 adult amputees of his/her/its own choosing and I will renounce my atheism publicly, right on this board!

[Minimalist]

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

Define "supernatural evidence."


And if its just your imagination don't even bother.

[brewer]

Nope, no credible evidence. All man made fantasy delusion. 

My guess is that you now will or will not provide evidence. 

Understand that "we don't know" does not equal "supernatural".

OK, GO.

[Ravenshire]

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

As long as it's testable, repeatable, verifiable and (most importantly) falsifiable.

[Angrboda]

The supernatural does not obey natural law. Since evidence means that it supports the existence of the claimed existent, the question is: how can I make an inference to the supernatural if the supernatural do not obey the normal rules for making an inference? If I suppose that a fish exists, I support that position by relating how the presumed fish is related to the observed phenomena by the natural laws which all things obey. But if you tell me that God did X, how do I draw a chain of cause and effect back to a God who doesn't obey cause and effect? Maybe it was God. Maybe it was ghosts. Maybe it was an alien who can transcend what I know of natural law. Lacking a causal story, there is no way to draw an inference as to the cause of X. If by open to supernatural evidence you mean that I am willing to listen to your prattle, sure. On the larger question of whether there can be valid evidence of the supernatural, I'm decidedly skeptical, for the reasons given.

[cactus]

If something is real, then it is natural.  Example: The Higgs boson is not "supernatural" just because we don't fully understand it.
Supernatural is nonexistent by definition.
If something "violates" a natural law, then our description of the natural phenomenon is simply inaccurate/incomplete.

If Yahweh exists, even outside of what we call "time and space", then Yahweh is natural.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm not sure what you mean by "supernatural evidence." Could you be more specific?