You Can't Disprove a Miracle

[Cyberman]

We assume the story is true, so that we can write down probabilities, to prove that the story is true?

That seems to be how the game works. I wonder how many impossible things we can get to believe before breakfast using this method?

[robvalue]

Let's find out at Milliways

If we were so gracious as to say, "There is supernatural stuff", then what?

Then nothing.

[KevinM1]

So, where's this purported evidence of supernatural causation? Or is this just a wild dance between math abuse and God of the Gaps?

[ignoramus]

I find it absolutely satisfying to know that theists will use scientific stuff like maths and probability theory to show that science is wrong, LOL!

One day, a theist will say that he believes in science 100% and knows that religion and the bible is a man made construct but likes to believe anyway.
Every single one of them since has shot themselves in the foot by trying to mesh their fantasy with reality.

It worries me further to know that they've made the effort to come here to test the robustness of their logic!@
Theists: science is not like the bible. You can't cherry pick just the facts you like and pretend the others don't exist.

DISCLAIMER:
[SCIENCE - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH]

[robvalue]

They use science to debunk science. It's stupid.

They have to assume that science currently provides a near 100% accurate model of all the laws of nature.

Then they say science can't account for certain things, because they fall outside of these models.

I'm surprised they can't see the massive contradiction here. It's the obsession that there definitely is stuff science can't handle. That has not been demonstrated. And I don't know how they possibly expect to demonstrate this is true without being able to somehow produce examples of these things science can't handle, without using science to measure them in some way.

All that's left are anecdotes, and "feelings", which are utterly useless. Even in an anecdote, how did they determine supernatural causation without using the argument from ignorance? They didn't, is the answer. They couldn't think of a natural explanation for what they thought they experienced, so they erroneously concluded it was not natural.

Again, I have no need to declare the supernatural impossible. I just don't yet see any evidence it is possible, so starting with that assumption is flawed.

[Cyberman]

It's a little worse than that. They jam their god - and let's not kid ourselves, that's what this guy's trying to shoehorn in - into the category of "stuff that science hasn't found yet". Which is a very shaky box in which to hide the foundational principle of your worldview, as you're forever having to shift the threshold in the face of science shrinking the box. Ken Ham recently did something similar, with comments like "well, the bible doesn't say Noah didn't use advanced technology that we don't know about, so he could have done" (paraphrasing). When your position requires you to throw the Answers part of Answers in Genesis under the bus when it suits you, and you don't see the problem, you deserve everything you get.