Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

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.

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.

That's an comparison I would expect from a 5th grader. An I would tell the 5th grader the same thing, that is a stupid comparison. 

Regarding the general interpreting of evidence as to who Jesus might really be (the crux of Christianity), there is all kinds of evidence to weigh.

- Documentary (both actual and inferred--by careful textual examination). There has been no other set of writings so thoroughly investigated in the history of the world.
- The presence of churches, the growth, the persecution, and the occasional mention in surviving secular works.
- The characters, their actions, character, stated goals, meaning of their words, and eventual circumstances
- Jesus' own claims (explicit, implicit, connections to the OT--some of which the disciples may have never known).
- The actual message: how it seems to fit the human condition, resonate with people, and somehow it does not contradict the OT--which would have required a very sophisticated mind to have navigated that. I read recently that over a period of 50 years, at least nine authors wrote 27 books containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ.
- Paul and his writings on application and affirmation of the major claims--done before the Gospels were independently written.
- This one can't be stressed enough: the unlikelihood of alternate theories to explain the facts. I think it is obvious people believed from day one when Jesus was still walking around. I have never heard an alternate theory which could account for most or all of the concrete and circumstantial evidence we have. If you think that having an alternate theory on one or two will make your case, it will not--these are a package deal. Address them all or or your objections are meaningless.

You could write books on any one of the points above (and people do). The point is, it is not as simple as saying "there is no evidence" There are layers upon layers of evidence that one person or another will find somewhere between uninteresting to compelling.

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:

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?

I have answered this way too many times. I can't help that you have comprehension problems. Go back and read and reply to a specific response if you want clarification.