Did you miss the bit where the caller says he can prove his god's existence using physics and biology? If you have a problem with discussions of science in any context, maybe you should take it up with people who make these sort of claims. You're the one shifting the gears of the discussion. You asked for someone who claims to have proof of the supernatural and I provided one. The caller chose to couch it in scientific terms all by himself, of his own free will; I'm fairly certain that nobody had a gun to his head. However, I'm a reasonable sort of chap, so if you didn't like that guy, let's try another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Dj9_2G3j8&NR=1
As I indicated, I am quite lenient when it comes to matters of evidence versus proof. Offer me something I can evaluate myself and I'll consider it. If I find it as convincing as you do, I'll probably end up altering my own beliefs to accommodate it in some fashion.
I'd just like to add that even phenomena outside the natural universe must have at least some measurable effect on reality, however limited such effects may be; if they don't or can't, they can be safely disregarded altogether - they wouldn't matter. Nor could they possibly be examined to claim their existence by anyone, including you and your fellow believers.
However, if you are defining the parameters of discussion in such a way that no proof/evidence of any kind will be offered because it lies outside those parameters, then that is special pleading and effectively the end of the dialogue. There can simply be nothing to discuss for either side; I can examine nothing, you can claim nothing and expect to be taken seriously.
Put more simply: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Dj9_2G3j8&NR=1
As I indicated, I am quite lenient when it comes to matters of evidence versus proof. Offer me something I can evaluate myself and I'll consider it. If I find it as convincing as you do, I'll probably end up altering my own beliefs to accommodate it in some fashion.
I'd just like to add that even phenomena outside the natural universe must have at least some measurable effect on reality, however limited such effects may be; if they don't or can't, they can be safely disregarded altogether - they wouldn't matter. Nor could they possibly be examined to claim their existence by anyone, including you and your fellow believers.
However, if you are defining the parameters of discussion in such a way that no proof/evidence of any kind will be offered because it lies outside those parameters, then that is special pleading and effectively the end of the dialogue. There can simply be nothing to discuss for either side; I can examine nothing, you can claim nothing and expect to be taken seriously.
Put more simply: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
