Can't prove the supernatural God

[SteveII]

Your first paragraph relies on dismissing the entire NT (and any other claims of miracles).

No. It relies on all miracle/supernatural claims lacking sufficient evidence to justify believing them. The claims in the New Testament are not supported by sufficient evidence to convince me (or any rational person) that they are true. Thanks, by the way, for acknowledging (via this bold part here) that the NT is, in fact, forwarding miracle claims. Now, if you agree that a claim cannot be used to prove itself, then we agree that the NT cannot be used as evidence of miracles. Right?

I have a bad feeling about this...

But in addition, even though you are carefully wording your sentence, you are really saying that events can only have naturalistic explanations.

Again, no. I'm really saying that all known explanations, objects, and events are naturalistic, so it is not reasonable to believe or expect supernatural explanations for things, especially in the absence of any sort of evidence (or, as far as I can tell, adequate definition).

You are simply moving "unknowns" over to the naturalistic column for no reason other than they must not have had a supernatural cause.

 ...nope...I am leaving unknowns in the unknown column, which is where they belong.

I do not generally expect unknowns to turn out to be supernatural, and that is because they literally never have. If even one known, supernatural thing existed, then it might be reasonable to expect other things to perhaps have supernatural origins/explanations, but since that isn't the case, I find it unreasonable to believe or expect supernatural explanations for any event (no matter how bizarre). If good evidence to the contrary ever surfaces, then I will change my mind.

I am also, among other things, a magician and a hypnotist, so I am very, very thoroughly acquainted with the psychology and mechanisms by which man can be convinced of the supernatural using entirely natural means. I was also an advanced Biblical apologist for some years, so I also know the kind of mental gymnastics it takes for an otherwise intelligent, skeptical person to believe in things like gods, ghosts, and demons (even while understanding and accepting science in other matters).

Why is this not the equivalent of saying " miracles do not exist because miracle can't happen"--which is circular?

Because that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this: "There is insufficient evidence that miracles happen or have ever happened, so it is not reasonable to believe that miracles happen or have ever happened. If you have even one good reason to believe in miracles or the supernatural, what is that reason?"

It's pretty much the same thing I've been saying the whole time. Still waiting on an answer, too.

I do keep hearing the claim that healing happens at the same rate between religious and non-religious. Do you have something that explains that study? Please note, I was not using modern healing miracles as evidence in this discussion because of some of the reasons you pointed out.

Ummm...what do you need explained, exactly? Prayer studies are a dime a dozen, and they always reach the same conclusion: prayer to any and all gods has absolutely no statistical impact on the rate of healing or survival from any illness; it's virtually the same as not praying at all. Whether you get better has to do with your health, the availability of appropriate medical treatment, and luck. Prayer is a non-factor.

Actually, that's not true, I should be fair here; in the case of some heart conditions, people who know they are being prayed for survive at an objectively worse rate than other patients with the same problem. Doctors speculate that this is because they get a form of performance anxiety over not wanting to make prayer look bad, and anxiety in any form does not mix well with heart trouble.

o yeah...prayer will either do nothing, or it will actually give you a heart attack. How useful.

I don't think you can consider the NT as the claim. "The claim" is Jesus was God, came to Palestine in the first century, performed miracles, preached a new message, died, and rose again for the purpose of redemption.

 DAMMIT, Steve! We agreed!

We meet again, Captain Semantics! How's your mother? She still sore from that fireball?

Steve, look at what you just wrote. "'The claim' is Jesus was God, came to Palestine in the first century, performed miracles, preached a new message, died, and rose again for the purpose of redemption."

Those claims are made by the New Testament, Steve. The New Testament claims that Jeshua Josephson von Nazareth was a god and performed miracles. Those claims are not sufficiently supported by extraneous evidence, and those claims cannot be used as evidence of themselves.

We agreed, Steve. How could you?

I will agree that the NT passes on the claim, but you are missing my point. People already believed that claim (as stated above) prior to any of the 27 books writing it down (beginning around 50AD). So, if there were never any books/letters written, there would have still been a claim. Why do I believe this, because there were already churches outside of Palestine for Paul to write to and established doctrine to discuss 20 years from Christ's death. 

This moves the 27 books from the claim column to the evidence column. There seems to be two possibilities that this was not true:
1. The NT books misrepresented the claim
2. The NT books were all fabrications in pursuit of some other goal