Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[SteveII]

Briefly, causes not in the natural order of things.

I say again "Science does not particularly deal in disproving anything and in particular fiction .... If you wish to turn fiction into non fiction YOU NEED TO OFFER THE EVIDENCE ...."

No one asked it to. That is the point. There is evidence but that is not the topic of this thread.

[SteveII]

@steve

Stop, I'm obviously not going to humor you.  I have no interest in hearing your rationalizations -again-.  We can discuss the one you made in this thread...that I commented upon, content which you've quoted.

Should we discard contradictory narratives, or should we create special criteria and exemptions in the event of their appearance?

You are going to have to be specific if you want me to answer about hypothetical contradictory narratives.

[Alex K]

What is the definition of supernatural causes again?

Briefly, causes not in the natural order of things.

That's a meaningless statement.

[The Grand Nudger]

@steve

I have been specific, you quoted me....twice.  Are you done?

[madog]

Are you being serious?  Are you saying science can't scientifically prove that birth, at our present evolutionary stage, can't produce the birth of a human child without sperm? or that a man dead for three days can't rise and come alive?

Science has more authority to talk about science than religion has to talk about science ... in fact the Bible doesn't try to talk about science it just relays myths, its the followers of the myths that think they can say more than the fiction book actually claims 

You misunderstood my entire point. Science cannot tell us whether a supernatural cause is possible or not.

Look science isn't in conflict with religion, it doesn't give a shit about fiction .....

If I write a fiction book stating that a ball will float and not fall to the ground if you coat it in butter, that is not in conflict with science as its FICTION .... It only comes into conflict with science when people claim it is non fiction and that the contention is fact ....

It is not for science to disprove every bit of fiction masquerading as non fiction, it is up to those making the claims to offer tangible evidence before science even acknowledges the claims 

[madog]

I say again "Science does not particularly deal in disproving anything and in particular fiction .... If you wish to turn fiction into non fiction YOU NEED TO OFFER THE EVIDENCE ...."

No one asked it to. That is the point. There is evidence but that is not the topic of this thread.

I will say it again "there is zero proof for any supernatural event .... I repeat zero .... "

Now please show me proof for a supernatural event 

[SteveII]

Notice my main sentence/topic/thesis/response of that post.  "It is not a scientific fact that there cannot be supernatural causes to natural events." Again, science cannot tell us anything about this. So, no contradiction. No need to discard my religious beliefs.

You've discarded your exortation that we discard contradictory narratives.  Instead, you've manufactured an exemption in favor of your beliefs.

You're certainly free to do so.  There's simply no sense in pretending that we should, and implying that you -have-, discarded contradictory narratives when the very next thing you grace us with is an example of precisely how you -didn't-.

I'm sorry this is out of order from my last post to you. 

No, I said that the belief should be discarded if it was in conflict with a scientific fact. A supernatural cause is not in conflict with scientific fact. I am sorry if you did not anticipate this and took my three sentences to be the sum total of all thoughts on the matter.

[SteveII]

Briefly, causes not in the natural order of things.

That's a meaningless statement.

Certainly not because the words don't have meaning. Why?

[RoadRunner79]

Are you being serious?  Are you saying science can't scientifically prove that birth, at our present evolutionary stage, can't produce the birth of a human child without sperm? or that a man dead for three days can't rise and come alive?

I would say that it would be stretching it to say that science, can "prove" any such thing.  

I am curious.... are you claiming that which is non-living, cannot become alive?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I said that the belief should be discarded if it was in conflict with a scientific fact.

Right....so, when we discuss the supernatural we...

A supernatural cause is not in conflict with scientific fact.

...create an exemption in favor of our beliefs.

I am sorry if you did not anticipate this and took my three sentences to be the sum total of all thoughts on the matter.

How much good has all the posturing done you?