YOU!

[Daystar]

You didn't read any of the information I gave regarding the raising of the dead or the earthquake, did you?

What on earth are you talking about? The bible makes claims about raising the dead right? Thats not evidence is it? You have to provide scientific evidence. Because claims about raizing the dead and certain earthquakes are scientific claims. If you're talking about it actually happening in reality. Its not evidence if you just say "the bible just says its so, so therefore it is". Sure if there's scientific evidence that an earthquake happened then fine. IF there is scientific claims that raising from the dead is possible fine. Show me!
These are existence claims about reality. They are scientific claims. So give evidence.

You amaze me! You really do! You criticize the Bible without ever having even read it in the name of EvidenceVsFaith! Then, in response to my post pointing out stupid mistakes having been made by critics of the Bible that are completely ignorant of the Bible, you demand scientific evidence on the raising of the dead and earthquakes that those uninformed critics didn't realize had completely natural explanations that had nothing to do with raising of the dead or earthquakes because you fucking didn't read it.

As if that wasn't enough, you are so undeservingly confident in your stupid argument against the Bible which you have no interest in understanding that you don't actually get that your defense is working for the prosecution!

Fucking hell! Amazing!

Read the fucking post!

[Edwardo Piet]

You didn't answer me. I said: how is the bible proof? And how does it prove the supernatural?
How can the bible "rise above your ability to criticize it" unless it is assumed true in the first place?
Giving examples of how biblical things can be explained naturally does not address my question. My question is how is the bible proof of the supernatural? Not the natural.
How is the bible proof of God?
And if it isn't where IS the proof of God? Or at least some evidence?
I'm not asking you to explain supernatural stuff naturally!
Besides above I was clearly hypothesizing. With all the 'IFs' and everything. If you're going to explain stuff naturally then you ignored my question. If you're not then what I said above is totally relevant.

[Daystar]

You didn't answer me. I said: how is the bible proof? And how does it prove the supernatural?
How can the bible "rise above your ability to criticize it" unless it is assumed true in the first place?

What I gave in this particular instance was evidence. Proof from the Bible that many so called Bible critics are wrong about the Bible.

[Edwardo Piet]

Of the supernatural? Where exactly? That was my question.

[Daystar]

Of the supernatural? Where exactly? That was my question.

Not of the supernatural, though it was mistaken as being supernatural by Dan Barker. A closer look at the original language demonstrated that Mr. Barker was incorrect in assuming that there were walking dead mentioned in Matthew, when in fact it was only a case of some corpses being thrown from their tombs. And an earthquake turned out to be the trembling of the earth at the moving of a large stone.

[lukec]

Daystar- more trifling matters of the undead: Ezekiel 37: 1-14. Please explain?

[Purple Rabbit]

Of the supernatural? Where exactly? That was my question.

Not of the supernatural, though it was mistaken as being supernatural by Dan Barker. A closer look at the original language demonstrated that Mr. Barker was incorrect in assuming that there were walking dead mentioned in Matthew, when in fact it was only a case of some corpses being thrown from their tombs. And an earthquake turned out to be the trembling of the earth at the moving of a large stone.

So we have bible stories with different interpretations:
- One interpretation is that actual mircales were performed
- Antoher interpretation claims that no miracles were performed
How can the repudiation of any of those interpretations demonstrate truth of the bible. It only demonstrates that bible interpretation yields ambiguous results, thereby making a case for scepticism regarding any interpretation.

[Edwardo Piet]

Of the supernatural? Where exactly? That was my question.

Not of the supernatural, though it was mistaken as being supernatural by Dan Barker. A closer look at the original language demonstrated that Mr. Barker was incorrect in assuming that there were walking dead mentioned in Matthew, when in fact it was only a case of some corpses being thrown from their tombs. And an earthquake turned out to be the trembling of the earth at the moving of a large stone.

Like I said, my question was asking for evidence of the supernatural. Not non-evidence that was mistaken of evidence of the supernatural.

[Daystar]

Like I said, my question was asking for evidence of the supernatural. Not non-evidence that was mistaken of evidence of the supernatural.

On my last post before the big 400th I am going to attempt one last time to explain my position on evidence of the supernatural. It is my hope that we can resolve our apparent differences on this issue.

It is my understanding that the supernatural can’t be proven by science. Therefore what evidence do you expect?

[lukec]

I agree, there can be no evidence.

Daystar, I'm just wondering- many believers in god feel that the bible is allegorical, and you yourself have said that you choose (know) which parts to take as metaphor, and which are truth. Now, since there is a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution, and more specifically different selection pressures, it is fairly certain that evolution has happened for at least a few billion years and is continuing to happen. Why are you so against the idea of perhaps assimilating this into your view of God? Perhaps evolution was His tool for getting to humans? I mean, no one can prove/disprove god. But you can disprove evolution. However, there is no evidence which discredits it. You believe in God, and the word of the bible as truth. But if some of it is metaphorical, why can the creation story not be metaphor?