Supernatural Evidence?

[Arkilogue]

He doesn't even know what an ad hominem is LMAO.

Well we better stop anyway, there's enough people in here already.

[Asmodee]

So, your point is....

Are you suggesting that because the Bible mentioned something which is real for a change this somehow proves that magic is real, ignore the unicorn behind the curtain?  Stephen King mentions Maine a lot in his made up shit.  But Maine is a real place!  Should I fear sewer clowns now?

What about the firmament?  The windows of Heaven?  The corners of the Earth?  Unicorns?  Jewish slavery in Egypt?  40 years in the wilderness that never happened?  Jesus saying that half the population would disappear during the time of the apostles?  We just ignore everything which DOES NOT agree with you and focus on the ONE THING which does?

You are confusing "evidence" with "coincidence".  As my Jehovah's Witness friend is fond of pointing out, the Bible also says something about the Earth hanging as if on nothing, proving they had a concept of how space worked!  Except where they didn't, of course.  This is not "evidence" that magic is real.  Maybe one of the writers really did have a better understanding than was common at the time.  Maybe it was common understanding that water comes from somewhere, it comes from springs on land so it must come from springs in the sea.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

As for addressing "the evidence and only the evidence", no, you do not get to dictate the conversation into the tunnel vision you would like us to have.  Parts of the Bible which say things which clearly are incorrect are relevant.  The idea that we must focus on ONE SINGLE THING that the Bible appears to have gotten right and nothing else is ludicrous.  It's a dishonest argument approach used by people with weak positions such as yours.

So, as "evidence of the supernatural" you present a passage about springs in the sea.  And these are real things.  Therefore magic?  What is your evidence that this knowledge is magical?  Or that the writer wasn't just having a guess?  What was the common belief at the time regarding springs in the sea?  What evidence to you have that magic was involved?  I would bet your "evidence" is "The Bible said it and it is right, therefore magic!"  Um...that's not how "evidence" works.  I once watched a George Carlin skit from a couple decades ago in utter awe as he mentioned one thing after another after another which hadn't yet happened at the time, but DID HAPPEN within a decade of him doing that skit.  In all I counted 6 things he joked about which became a reality within 10 years of the 20 minute long skit.  That's better than one correct prediction every 3 minutes.  But I'll tell you, my first conclusion wasn't, "George Carlin is magic!!!!!"  It was, "Wow!  Now THAT is a coincidence!".  I had 6 things in 20 minutes.  You have 1 thing in a year's worth of reading.  One of us has a much lower standard of "evidence" than the other.

[The Grand Nudger]

Technically, it's the modern re-interpreter that could be argued to have a "better understanding", not the bible or it's authors.  Their syncretic retconning offers no support for the accuracy of the narrative or the better understanding of the people who wrote it.

They're obviously not satisfied on those latter counts either, if they're reinterpreting it in the first place.

[Angrboda]

Proposition 1. Job 38:16
"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

Discovered 1977
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/H...Floor.html

NOTICE: Lateral moves, ad hominums, and other evasions will not be noticed. Adress the evidence, and only the evidence presented.

What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?

A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents. It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea. It could be any number of things. I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being. That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are. Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered. Perhaps it was aliens. You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means. Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being. It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes. And it could have a natural explanation. (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)

Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Proposition 1. Job 38:16
"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

Discovered 1977
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/H...Floor.html

NOTICE: Lateral moves, ad hominums, and other evasions will not be noticed. Adress the evidence, and only the evidence presented.

What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?

A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents.  It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea.  It could be any number of things.  I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being.  That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are.  Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered.  Perhaps it was aliens.    You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means.  Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being.  It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes.  And it could have a natural explanation.  (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)

Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak.

Right on all counts. It's always puzzled me that none of the so-called prophetic passages in the various 'holy' books aren't unambiguous. If the author of Job truly knew about geothermal vents, he could just as easily have written, 'And the Lord maketh rifts in the floors of the seas. And from out these rifts he sendeth waters of exceeding heat, wherewith to replenish the oceans of the world he hath made.'

That this didn't happen almost makes one think that the author in question was simply a literate barbarian who knew as much about oceanography as a pig knows about Plutarch.

Boru

[Soldat Du Christ]

Proposition 1. Job 38:16
"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

Discovered 1977
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ge-Hy/H...Floor.html

NOTICE: Lateral moves, ad hominums, and other evasions will not be noticed. Adress the evidence, and only the evidence presented.

What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?

A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents. It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea. It could be any number of things. I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being. That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are.

"Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered."

We discovered them relatively recently, it does in fact require advanced technology.

"Perhaps it was aliens. You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means."

You're getting on that alien boat with dawkins then huh? Whatever it takes to avoid the obvious.

"Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being."

You can reject it if you want, but that would make you unreasonable. I second what @the gentlemen bastard, said; "As long as it's testable, repeatable, verifiable and (most importantly) falsifiable."
This proposition certainly fits the bill, as well as many others i'll present.

"It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes. And it could have a natural explanation. (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)"

What is there to overinterpret about "springs of the sea" lol.

"Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak."
It's called supporting evidence, you assume my epistimology is based on one sentence? I'm going to start calling you strawgirl. Get it? Like strawman fallacy but you're a girl? Ha

Don't worry there are plenty more where that came from, one at a time.

---

What exactly is this supposed to be evidence of?

"A passage which refers to the sources of water for the sea isn't necessarily referring to hydrothermal vents. It could be a figurative passage referring to an assumed source of the waters of the sea. It could be any number of things. I take it that you're claiming that because it refers to hydrothermal vents, and hydrothermal vents weren't known at the time, the only source of this information is a supernatural being. That's assuming an awful lot about what these mysterious sea springs that he refers to are."

Exactly my point



"Moreover, we're not supernatural and we know about them, so obviously it doesn't take a supernatural event for the knowledge to be discovered."

We discovered them relatively recently, it does in fact require advanced technology.

"Perhaps it was aliens. You can't rule out a natural explanation if there is one for the fact that we have such knowledge by natural means."

You're getting on that alien boat with dawkins then huh? Whatever it takes to avoid the obvious.

"Again, as I stated in my first post, you can't trace a causal story back to God, so this isn't really evidence of Him or any other supernatural being."

You can reject it if you want, but that would make you unreasonable. I second what @the gentlemen bastard, said; "As long as it's testable, repeatable, verifiable and (most importantly) falsifiable."
This proposition certainly fits the bill, as well as many others i'll present.

"It could be any of a vast number of potential supernatural causes. And it could have a natural explanation. (Including that you're over interpreting the passage.)"

What is there to overinterpret about "springs of the sea" lol.

"Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak."
It's called supporting evidence, you assume my epistimology is based on one sentence? I'm going to start calling you strawgirl. Get it? Like strawman fallacy but you're a girl? Ha

Don't worry there are plenty more where that came from, one at a time.

---

Damnit, sorry guys, the mobile app sucks

---

"'And the Lord maketh rifts in the floors of the seas. And from out these rifts he sendeth waters of exceeding heat, wherewith to replenish the oceans of the world he hath made.'"

That's not even how it works, hahahahaha. Good thing it's not you who wrote the book of job

And i understand your skepticism, but have you considered that god does not deem it neccecary information? Speaking from within the context, god was declaring his sovereignty by revealing impossible knowledge. In contrast to Job, who couldn't possibly know these things.

[Whateverist]

"Pinning your God belief on a questionable interpretation of a passage is weak."

It's called supporting evidence, you assume my epistimology is based on one sentence? I'm going to start calling you strawgirl. Get it? Like strawman fallacy but you're a girl? Ha

Don't worry there are plenty more where that came from, one at a time.

This is gonna be good. Any next of kin we should notify?

[Soldat Du Christ]

He doesn't even know what an ad hominem is LMAO.

Personal attack, rather than attacking the evidence

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope. See, I can call you a simpleton who doesn't understand basic logic all day long, and it won;t be an ad hom. If I say that you're wrong -because- you're a simpleton who doesn;t understand basic logic...that would be an ad hom....unless, ofc, that was what was evident, and was true. Which it is.

You're welcome.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Nope. See, I can call you a simpleton who doesn't understand basic logic all day long, and it won;t be an ad hom. If I say that you're wrong -because- you're a simpleton who doesn;t understand basic logic...that would be an ad hom....unless, ofc, that was what was evident, and was true. Which it is.

You're welcome.

It can also be used as a latteral move/evasion tactic, to just plain avoid the topic