Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

For your point to mean anything, you need to discuss the supernatural in vague terms. However, you have just erected a straw man because that is not how people who believe in the supernatural consider this question AT ALL.

Look at the example above. If Jesus did do this thing in the context described, are you still going to hide behind "undiscovered natural causes?" No, only an idiot would think that. So what you have to say is that these events did not exist. Notice you are not really making the same argument you claim to be.

And for your point to mean anything, you need to believe in the Jesus myth.  Of which, regarding miracles and magic, there is absolutely 0 evidence of.

You’re doing the same thing you always do - attempt to make the fantastic elements of your faith real through poor arguments (starting from “If this actually happened...” is laughably weak) and a litany of ‘reasons’ that are all rooted in one fallacy or another.

Again, you think you’re some learned scholar, yet you can’t even hack it with the basics.  You need to establish your premise - that Jesus existed and performed these acts exactly as described in the Bible - before moving towards your conclusion.  Instead, just like every theist, you presuppose the conclusion (what Jesus did was evidence of the supernatural) and then try to contort the premise(s) so that it logically follows.

I am distinctly unimpressed.

Clearly demonstrate that Jesus actually did this miraculous thing (hint: THE BIBLE IS THE CLAIM), and then come back to us regarding the supernatural.  Otherwise you’re simply mentally masturbating, and that’s something I feel you should do in private.

Again with the "no evidence" nonsense. 

A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

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.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is by definition rationale (from my reasoning listed above). The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

SO, to say there is "no evidence" you would have to address and conclusively prove ALL of these points are false. That is something you cannot do. That is why your statement is nonsense. 

Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.