Supernatural Evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

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

Personal attack, rather than attacking the evidence

Personal attack intended to refute your argument.

Ad hominem: You're stupid, so you're wrong.

Mere insult: You're wrong, so you're stupid.

[Mister Agenda]

All i keep hearing is disbelief

Disbelief is the appropriate response when someone has yet to adequately justify their claims. Do you want us, for some reason, to express belief in advance of you presenting compelling evidence?

You claim that God is real. We don't believe you. If you're fine with that, we're done with that topic. If you want us to believe you, you have to put in the work. It will be helpful if you have actual evidence (facts that indicate your proposition is true). Strong evidence is much better than weak evidence. We take the role of peer review, informing you of flaws in your evidence and logic. If there is a God, he could have handed you a killer argument that would convince anyone in five minutes. It's not our fault you don't have it.

[Simon Moon]

All i keep hearing is disbelief

Disbelief is the appropriate response when someone has yet to adequately justify their claims. Do you want us, for some reason, to express belief in advance of you presenting compelling evidence?

You claim that God is real. We don't believe you. If you're fine with that, we're done with that topic. If you want us to believe you, you have to put in the work. It will be helpful if you have actual evidence (facts that indicate your proposition is true). Strong evidence is much better than weak evidence. We take the role of peer review, informing you of flaws in your evidence and logic. If there is a God, he could have handed you a killer argument that would convince anyone in five minutes. It's not our fault you don't have it.

Exactly!

And the fact you, Soldat Du Christ, find the arguments you presented, convincing, then that is a problem with your critical thinking skills, not ours.

As I pointed out earlier, Soldat Du Christ would most likely disbelieve the 1000's of people claiming they were abducted by aliens. And he would probably do so for good reasons; lack of demonstrable evidence being the best reason to disbelieve.

Yet when we disbelieve his unsupported god claims for the same reasons, he can't understand why.

[Soldat Du Christ]

Hey everyone! I recignise this article http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm
to be the most convincing, and thorough refutation of not only my first proposition, but also alot of the points at large i was going to make. Focusing on quality cross examination, vs the large quantity of mosty dissmissable, poor examples of objection.

Also i recognise that i have been streching the definitions of popular logical falacies, in order to point out what qualifies at very least as poor arguments and personal attacks. So yeah, sorry about that strawgirl

Following my rebut, i will answer objections and inquiries pertaining to the topic at hand. So stay tuned

---

"Yet when we disbelieve his unsupported god claims for the same reasons, he can't understand why."

You're a looney, i said i expected as much. I don't care if you guys are convinced or not. I'm looking for good counter arguments to consider, and counter. Ever heard of iron sharpens iron?

[The Grand Nudger]

Good counter arguments -to what-?  If the things you present end up being a laundry list of logical fallacies interspersed with misconceptions -about- logical fallacies....there's nothing to argue against.  It's just DOA. See, I love a good argument. It's like a game or a puzzle for me, and I;m an addict in every sense of the word when it comes to games and puzzles. If you had one, it would certainly be appreciated. Do you? Hurry up and get to it.

[Jesster]

"Yet when we disbelieve his unsupported god claims for the same reasons, he can't understand why."

You're a looney, i said i expected as much. I don't care if you guys are convinced or not. I'm looking for good counter arguments to consider, and counter. Ever heard of iron sharpens iron?

Sure, iron sharpens iron. I have a question about that, though. You've asked us to stay open-minded. Are you also staying open-minded to the possibility that just maybe we are right? That isn't my argument here at all. I just felt the need to ask just to make sure you were also meeting us half-way instead of just trying to strengthen your arguments (which is a good thing attempt as well).

As for the article, I'll read through some of it. I probably won't get through all of it. Is there anything in there that was particularly convincing to you that you would like to point out? That would help, since I can't be expected to spend my whole day on every lengthy linked article here. I'd like to hear your arguments instead of what you hear others say. If you believe something, you have a reason for that belief. Others can't make every argument for you.

[Simon Moon]

I'm looking for good counter arguments to consider, and counter. Ever heard of iron sharpens iron?

Why do you believe that you are offering anything that requires counter arguments?

Post hoc reinterpretations of your mythology in an attempt to make it fit modern, evidence based, scientific discoveries, needs no counter arguments.

If all you have is more of the same, don't waste our time.

Piling up more and more bad evidence does not magically become good evidence.

[Jehanne]

If it's instantaneous, then it would violate the Conservation of Energy, which would make it a miracle.  No conservation laws mean no science, and hence, no naturalism.  In this sense, atheistic naturalism is completely refutable, at least in principle.  No empirical observation could ever refute deism, theism, pantheism, etc.

Even if we allow that an instantaneous regeneration of a limb is a supernatural event, that still would not point to a god being responsible. Let alone any specific god.

So, the question remains, why would an instantaneous regeneration of a limb point to a god?

If the conservation laws do not apply within our Universe, certainly on a macroscopic scale, then atheistic naturalism is dead.  It is very definition of a miracle (something contrary to natural law) that makes it a "miracle".  So, yes, I would believe at that point.

[Jehanne]

Hey everyone! I recignise this article http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item65.htm
to be the most convincing, and thorough refutation of not only my first proposition, but also alot of the points at large i was going to make. Focusing on quality cross examination, vs the large quantity of mosty dissmissable, poor examples of objection.

Also i recognise that i have been streching the definitions of popular logical falacies, in order to point out what qualifies at very least as poor arguments and personal attacks. So yeah, sorry about that strawgirl

Following my rebut, i will answer objections and inquiries pertaining to the topic at hand. So stay tuned

---

"Yet when we disbelieve his unsupported god claims for the same reasons, he can't understand why."

You're a looney, i said i expected as much. I don't care if you guys are convinced or not. I'm looking for good counter arguments to consider, and counter. Ever heard of iron sharpens iron?

The problem with believing in the "miracles" of Jesus is not, at the same time, believing in the "miracles" of other religions.  Nothing about early Christianity makes the miracles of Christ special.  In fact, one can point to all sorts of miracles and visions which, no doubt, you reject.

[Soldat Du Christ]

"Sure, iron sharpens iron. I have a question about that, though. You've asked us to stay open-minded."

When?

"If all you have is more of the same, don't waste our time."

Nobody is forcing anybody to paticipate, bye bye!

---

"I just felt the need to ask just to make sure you were also meeting us half-way instead of just trying to strengthen your arguments (which is a good thing attempt as well)."

Acceptence or rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a primarily emotion based decition. It doesn't matter how much evidence is stacked in favor for, or agaisnt it. If it touches you in a deep way, and you agree with his words of wisdom, you will live by them. If you are convicted, or have a rebelious heart, most likely will hate Jesus and his messege to the world, like most people did during his time.

Now i absolutely don't buy into these crazy objections regarding the validity of the bible, historicity of Jesus. To me that sounds like special pleading, and an unreasonable demand for emperical evidence. I ventured into the realm of debates, skepticism and apologetics to see if it's true what i hear all the time... "there's no evidence", "religion is anti-intellectual", "people who beleive this are crazy". I want to know where i stand. Can i, with integrity, evangalise the world knowing i there is a solid case for this. If i wanted to reafirm my beleifs i would just listen to the reasonable faith podcast every week. Instead i came into the wolves den. If i end up being destroyed in my arguments, i will retreat and keep my beleifs to myself. I havn't found any reason to do that yet.

---

So to answer your question, i Suppose i would be forced to conform to the insanity of an order out of chaos world. But my heart and mind would belong to someone who i may be wrong about. Because if there is anybody in the entire world of history (or fiction if you want to call it that) who has the ability to save a persons life like he has mine, who can convict you into self discipline, who can be called a hope for humanity... It has to be Jesus Christ.