The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

Sorry it took so long, Stat. I enjoy replying to your walls of text so much, that I needed some time off in order to come down from my Waldorf high. Seriously though, I realize you hold no hard feelings as you would be the first to acknowledge how life can make it difficult to devote time to an internet forums sometimes, seeing as you were detained for some time recently as well. Let's get back to it, shall we?

Then my objections were warranted.

Your objections were childish, as are your beliefs. Belief in god: evidence is necessary. Belief in Santa: evidence is necessary.

Equivocating two things that can just as false as one another is just an unfortunate reality for you, since you wish God is real. You wish it so bad, that you start with that very premise, it would seem. You box up and packed the Bible so nice and neat, that anything outside of it that doesn't conform, you justify it or find a way to where your god can magically "poof" things into some appearance of order.

You say it yourself on many occasions: you start with the premise of god, and we start with the premise of evidence. We arrive at two very different conclusions. Why should we take your conclusion at face value? I feel like that would make anyone dishonest to go down that particular rabbit hole.

Are you saying that you are not a naturalist or materialist? You believe the supernatural and the immaterial exists? Really?

This feels like a loaded question. Isn't it true that naturalists dogmatically reject anything they can't prove by some natural means? I can't say that that's what defines me. I trust everything that's proven naturally, but I can't say that there's no such thing as the supernatural either, but I also feel like that would be something impossible to prove. (I mean, proving the supernatural via the natural seems rather silly, after all.)

I think the same holds true for materialism, I would wager.

Now, what I think you get all uppity about is that you DO believe wholeheartedly in the Supernatural, and you have this notion that it somehow changes the natural laws of the universe (those laws that we assume have always been around, and that we predict will continue to work in the future). Not only does this seem highly implausible as well as an ad hoc explanation for why your Bible doesn't seem to fit with that which is established as reality, but it seems like a really desperate way to view the world. If you can trust natural laws, then you can predict the future (in a way), and you can delve deep into the past (as far as those laws allow us).

Is it true that you merely trust in the here and now, but feel like things could change according to the whims of your god? Can you prove that he has accomplished such changes in the past, not using the Bible as your evidence?

How can belief in God not be evidenced as fact? Merely asserting that does not make it so. You’re welcome.

A moment of awesomeness from you. Are you sure you haven't been trolling us this entire time with this Christian fundamentalism and apologetics of yours?

You mean there is no evidence that you accept for God right?

I think stating something like that would not only be outrageous on my part (a claim for which I could never produce evidence), but wholeheartedly dishonest. If I've ever led you to believe I was a strong atheist, then I apologize.

I think sufficient evidence would be for this god (or any other god) to make themselves known. A supernatural event could be making something occur (turning straw into gold, hehe) without any mechanism in place for which this could happen, i.e. willing it to happen/magic. Miracles such as the ones Jesus purportedly performed in the Bible are probably another good example. I especially think raising Lazarus from the dead, if true, would be a pretty good example of godhood to some degree.

But, Stat, do you really consider these miracles to be supernatural? Perhaps they are not (if they are real) and are really quite basic and natural to these godlike beings. Isn't "Supernatural" just a term that we historically have applied to those things for which we don't yet understand? Perhaps the bending of space and time is natural on a completely different level? Maybe you can verify for us how you feel about this.

It’s not a very bold claim at all, the overwhelming majority of people agree with this claim making it rather ordinary.

Common claim =/= ordinary claim.

You keep assuming I am going to accept your self-serving standards of evidence.

My bar just isn't set as low as others' when it comes to accepting certain claims.

This is committing a category error between a metaphysical immaterial claim and a material claim. For some reason you seem to be laboring under the misconception that all claims are proven or supported in the same manner.

Quite right. Metaphysical can't be supported by the physical. Why do you support it the metaphysical then, in that case? There's no way to prove your claims, if this is what you believe.

There is definitely a certain kind of profundity, for instance, if I pointed out the similarity between Mormons believing in the Angel Moroni visits to Joseph Smith Jr. and the claims made by so-called alien abductees.

I am not following you here.

I think my sentence structure came out a bit strange. It looks like I was trying to compare something between different types of claims, both of which could indeed cannot be proven, even though one is of a metaphysical nature and the other involves something quite physical. The account of Joseph Smith Jr. is rife with claims of divine visits and miracles, and the stories of alien abductees are all about UFOs, aliens, and intrusive experimentation (very physical occurrences). All are based on testimony, yet none are corroborated by evidence. If Joseph Smith was indeed given Golden Plates by an angel, the first step would have been to present said plates. If abductees were indeed taken by extraterrestrials, then the first step would be for these aliens to make themselves known to a larger group of people and leave better evidence than just simple testimony.

The writings of the Bible are also testimony. The men who wrote the book claim they saw something, and then they wrote it down. How do we know that this is what happened? The first step would be for Yahweh to make it known to us nowadays that all this has indeed transpired. The angel Moroni who visited Joseph Smith needs to come back and show us his Golden Plates. The aliens need to meet with our world leaders.