The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

I haven't received a meaningful definition for either supernatural or God, so I can't comment on whether they may exist.

I gave you a definition of "supernatural" from the dictionary. I can't see how that doesn't qualify as a "meaningful definition." What more do you want?

You've just used supernatural to mean unexplained. There are things that are currently unexplained, yes.

You persist in this claim but I must continue to refute it because it isn't true. Supernatural isn't just something unexplained, it is something that violates natural order.

I have no idea what you might think "God" means. But here's the equivocation I even predicted in the video, trying to associate the word supernatural with God. Did you even watch it? I made it for you man!

I best go watch it then.

[robvalue]

Please do

I explain all this there. I'll post it again in case you missed it.

http://youtu.be/J5u5-Bg2ENQ

[Joods]

Annnnd I'll continue to stand by what I said way earlier.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I am not most atheists. I have no qualms in stating with an authority of certainty that god does not exist.

I'm interested to know how you could be so confident.

What has your favorite deity done to prove that it exists?

[abaris]

You think two people having the identical dream about a precise event in a specific location that actually happened is guessing or mere coincidence? I would look at the probabilities against that happening as being mind-mindbogglingly high.

How would you know they did? Because they said so? Because anyone else said so? Because someone penned something they heard down?

You're conflating facts with legend, evidence with hearsay. That's why I asked you, if you ever played telephone.

Supernatural isn't just something unexplained, it is something that violates natural order.

There's absolutely no evidence for anything violating natural order. Only unknowns.

[pocaracas]

Bingo!
That's why you'll find it difficult to find an atheist here that claims that.

I would say that every atheist here who says that there is no such thing as the supernatural is automatically ruling out the possibility of there being a God, since God is synonymous with the supernatural.

Perhaps people are poor communicators... some, like myself, are not even native english speakers... keep prying to get past misunderstanding!

What you'll most likely get is "there is no evidence that anything supernatural has anything to do with what goes on in this Universe".... which, after many fruitless discussions and frustrations, becomes very akin to "there's no supernatural, sod off with your delusional speak!"
As long as a natural explanation is available, even if we are unable to ascertain if it corresponds to the actual event observed, then that option is far far more likely than the supernatural.
Some people, however, are primed to attribute a higher likelihood to a supernatural interpretation.
Probability, here, always plays in favor of the natural explanation...

- When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. [Sherlock Holmes]

If you want to promote a particular supernatural event, then you must make damn sure that no unlikely natural events could have taken place. The supernatural is Holmes' "impossible".

Observable means that it can be observed, but need not be, or have been, observed yet.
You should not confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable.
Unexplained is that which hasn't been explained yet.
Unexplainable is that which cannot be explained, no matter how we try. You seem to think that abiogenesis falls in this category when it doesn't seem to, at all!

So do we have an explanation of abiogenesis yet?

Many (linking directly to the relevant section):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesi...ent_models

yes... history is full of stories.
And sometimes people guess correctly at what will happen. Sometimes, the guesses are vague enough to fit many things in there. Most times, however, the guesses are wrong and, as such, are cast away into oblivion. The good guesses, however, get recorded. Can you spot the problem with this mechanism?

Vagaries aside, there are certain instances that are quite precise. My wife had a prophetic dream of her grandfathers heart attack in the backyard of her parents house three weeks before it happened. It just so happens that her sister had the same dream, exactly.

Your wife had a dream... so did your sister. How many dreams do they have yearly? How many come true?
Then the thing happened.
And a vague memory of a dream surfaced on both their minds... or only on one and the other mimicked as it was being commented? or maybe the other had what's called a "déj-vu" moment? Or maybe the dream was just about some faceless person having a problem at that backyard and then got retconned as something actually happened in that backyard.... or... or .... I could come up with tons of examples... tons of natural explanations for the event (heck, they could both be lying!). Sadly, we cannot probe a mind to the level of detail required, so it's beyond our ability to verify.... but not 100% theoretically unverifiable.

Like I said above, as long as a natural explanation exists, even if we cannot test it, that one is far far more likely than the supernatural explanation.

As such, your wife's and her sister's dreams are what's termed "anecdotal evidence of prophecy", which is the same as saying, "none at all".

[robvalue]

This is exactly why anecdotes are useless. There's nothing to test.

All we have is, "Just maybe it was something magic..."

Maybe. But not likely, and no way to investigate. If you want to believe it's magic, then you will. It doesn't mean it's a valid conclusion. I don't even trust my own memory; I've experienced things I could easily put down to magic if I was so inclined.

It's the argument from ignorance, again. "You can't prove me wrong / you don't have a better explanation / well it could be"

Anecdotes are only useful as a starting point for investigation, they can't be the investigation, for anyone concerned with truth.

[ignoramus]

Religious people have a vested interested in the supernatural and/or magic being a real thing since their holy book is full of it...
That's why they have no trouble swallowing any woo. That woo is real has been drummed into them from a young age.

[abaris]

That woo is real has been drummed into them from a young age.

When I was little, I was into all kinds of woo. But I always found ghosts to be more interesting and frightening than anything the bible could offer.

Since I live in good old Europe, I remember once tiptoing when passing a castle ruin at night on our way home. So as not to wake the spirits residing there.

[Pat Mustard]

It's not about an excuse not to use their brains. It's about ultimate security. Feeling protected in life and death, not having to cope with losing loved ones forever, not having to cope with the thought of no longer existing at some point in time.

The ultimate life insurance, if you so will. I guess, that's the major motivator.

The life insurance analogy was true for me when I was a child, but it isn't the driver in my faith now as an adult. I am convinced that the supernatural must exist because there are things present in our world that natural processes cannot account for.
An example of this is that we generally accept that 4.5 billion years ago there was nothing living on earth, just dirt rocks and water. Since we know of no natural process that creates life from non-life, there must be some process at work above and beyond the natural, ie the supernatural. 

AJ.

What can you point to that hasn't a natural explanation? And I'm cutting off the abiogenesis bullshit right here, because we've plenty of possible natural explanations, just not enough evidence currently to chose any single one as being more plausible than the others.