Supernatural Evidence?

[Jesster]

"Sure, iron sharpens iron. I have a question about that, though. You've asked us to stay open-minded."

When?

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

I mean, that was just in this thread. It was even in the OP. I could point it out to you in your other threads as well, if you'd like.

Are you open to evidence?

[Soldat Du Christ]

"Sure, iron sharpens iron. I have a question about that, though. You've asked us to stay open-minded."

When?

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

I mean, that was just in this thread. It was even in the OP. I could point it out to you in your other threads as well, if you'd like.

Are you open to evidence?

Yes, that's an inquiry. I asked IF, not TO. I want to seperate those who dismiss supporting evidence (wouldn't even beleive if amputees are healed) from those who are reasonable (testable, observable, repeatable, falsifyable). But by no means am i pleading for all to listen. Notice i ignore an awfull lot of comments. Not only for the interests of time, but for my own sanity, i refuse to run around in circles with individuals who have dogma glasses on.

[Jesster]

I mean, that was just in this thread. It was even in the OP. I could point it out to you in your other threads as well, if you'd like.

Are you open to evidence?

Yes, that's an inquiry. I asked IF, not TO. I want to seperate those who dismiss supporting evidence (wouldn't even beleive if amputees are healed) from those who are reasonable (testable, observable, repeatable, falsifyable). But by no means am i pleading for all to listen. Notice i ignore an awfull lot of comments. Not only for the interests of time, but for my own sanity, i refuse to run around in circles with individuals who have dogma glasses on.

Then my question still stands. Are you open to evidence contrary to your beliefs?

The reason I ask is that it is important if you are looking for a discussion here. If you just want to pick out people who are easy to manipulate and ignore the rest, then nothing is being accomplished.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Of course, i found this article posted earlier to be the most sufficient refutation of the bibles divinity. I havn't quite dug into it yet, but it should be pretty good!

Somthing you all have to realise is that at the end of the day it all comes down to beleif. And that is hard for me to say, given i see it being such a clear answer. But if this was so, we wouldn't see such a massive split in belief systems. This is all because of the rise of emericism. Some people could be slapped in the face with proof, and still not beleive. Ironicly this was born out of the idea that our minds are not reliable sources for intel gathering, which ends up in a vicious downwards sprial with the end game being litteral insanity.

Now this isn't to say i don't understand that extra ordenary claims, demand extra ordenary evidence. This, i think rests only on the reliability of the bible. On all accounts. Historical accuracy, consistency, scientific statements, etc. I have seen plenty skeptical claims of contradictions, and all sorts of attacks on the source material. I simply don't buy it outright. But we'll see how my opinion changes after look further into this article

---

Yes, that's an inquiry. I asked IF, not TO. I want to seperate those who dismiss supporting evidence (wouldn't even beleive if amputees are healed) from those who are reasonable (testable, observable, repeatable, falsifyable). But by no means am i pleading for all to listen. Notice i ignore an awfull lot of comments. Not only for the interests of time, but for my own sanity, i refuse to run around in circles with individuals who have dogma glasses on.

Then my question still stands. Are you open to evidence contrary to your beliefs?

The reason I ask is that it is important if you are looking for a discussion here. If you just want to pick out people who are easy to manipulate and ignore the rest, then nothing is being accomplished.

Also understand, when people get in there comfortable zone surrounded by people who agree with them, it's easy for them to just drop off there arbitrary comments. I will not entertain ones claims who do not put the same resepect, and care into their objections as i do.

And seriously, they arn't even high standards, even a link will do.

[Minimalist]

Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

All i keep hearing is disbelief

That must be the story of your life.

[Mister Agenda]

I will not entertain ones claims who do not put the same resepect, and care into their objections as i do.

That's a good example of a bar set so low as to be non-existent.

[Asmodee]

Yes, that's an inquiry. I asked IF, not TO. I want to seperate those who dismiss supporting evidence (wouldn't even beleive if amputees are healed) from those who are reasonable (testable, observable, repeatable, falsifyable). But by no means am i pleading for all to listen. Notice i ignore an awfull lot of comments. Not only for the interests of time, but for my own sanity, i refuse to run around in circles with individuals who have dogma glasses on.

It also makes it easier to argue if you can just ignore anything that's too tough to answer. And the "dogma glasses" are what you use to read the Bible or you wouldn't think some vague description happening to match something specific in the real world was in any way "evidence" that magic is real.

[ohreally]

Sort of an odd question. If I can interact with supernatural things then how does evidence from supernatural differ from natural? Is there a caveat?

Ii'm open to evidence of any kind.

[Jehanne]

Sort of an odd question.  If I can interact with supernatural things then how does evidence from supernatural differ from natural?  Is there a caveat?

Ii'm open to evidence of any kind.

As I said, a violation of the conservation laws.  As Professor Bart Ehrman likes to say, "Bars of iron sink, whereas, bars of ivory soap float."  If Jesus of Nazareth truly walked on water (he didn't), then that would be a miracle.

[Edwardo Piet]

Alright self-proclaimed athiests

It's an accurate label for what I don't believe in.

,

FUCK you and your comma!

this is where your integrity is put into question.

Nope.

As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality,

I am aifrad yuor spilelng mtseiaks are siwonhg.

the default position being a lack of belief in god,

Absence. There is nothing lacking or deficient in not believing in utter shite.

Sorry but this "lack of belief" thing is one of my pet peeves. It's an absence, not a lack.

rather than being closed off to the possibility.

I'm not. But logical possibility =/= logical soundness.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined [your typos are showing] 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?

If and only if supernatural evidence can somehow be falsifiable. I don't see how that's the case. Supernatural evidence seems unfalsifiable and therefore lacking (not merely absent) by definition.