RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 10, 2018 at 5:47 pm
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2018 at 5:48 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 10, 2018 at 5:23 pm)SteveII Wrote:(October 10, 2018 at 5:09 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, that is the definition of the word, “supernatural.” That the word has a definition doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently applied to the reality we exist in. The dictionary also has definitions for words such as, “ghost”, “soul”, “fairy” and “Santa”, but that doesn’t mean these concepts are (or could ever be) manifest in reality.
That people involved in the event in question are credulous to the notion of a supernatural cause, is not in any way related to the actual cause of the event. And it does not affect the probability of that event being supernaturally caused versus naturally caused.
So, again; rare medical phenomena happen. How do you rationally determine that the cause can’t, and never will be explainable via science, versus a natural cause that science can and may be able to explain at some point in the future? Because, people prayed first? I know you know what a ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy is.
Why not?
Scientists have managed to explain many a rare, and seemingly miraculous natural phenomena using tools such as microscopes, Steve, lol. You talk about subatomic particles as though they aren’t in play during these supposedly miraculous healings.
Do you notice that you start by claiming the idea incoherent and then write 4 more paragraphs coherently discussing the concept? You seem to understand it fine. Also, the ideas of supernatural, ghost, soul, fairy and Santa are all coherent no matter if they are real or not.
I don't see any [i]claim[i] that the idea is incoherent.
I only see the phrase "doesn’t necessary mean that the concept itself is coherent, nor that it can be coherently applied to the reality we exist ".
I consistently see theists make assumptions about statements of conjecture or hypothesis, as being claims, in the absolute sense. That may be the reason why most theists I talk to can't seem to understand how most atheists define their atheism.
Why is that?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.