Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[downbeatplumb]

Prove the supernatural is even a thing, then we'll talk.

Thanks. On the basis of your statement, I have no reason to attempt to.

But all I did was ask you to provide proof of something you believe in. If you believe in something without any proof then how certain are you that its real?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

No need to rage dude.  It makes more sense to state the actual fallacy rather than state the specific name of the fallacy.  Must be an atheist thing.

Looks like a "no" to both questions.

Bot

---

How many sources would you like? If my citation wasn't adequate, on what basis didn't it meet your standard(s)?

We study with parameters. If something is "supernatural" how would we establish parameters by something not bound by our natural laws because it supersedes them by how it's defined?

By making whatever observations are possible, finding patterns in the observed behavior, making hypotheses about those patterns, and testing them with further observations.

And why would you think something exists if it cannot, even in theory, be observed?

Right, so back to the original question.  What would you consider evidence?

---

Thanks. On the basis of your statement, I have no reason to attempt to.

But all I did was ask you to provide proof of something you believe in. If you believe in something without any proof then how certain are you that its real?

You're making an assumption. I never said I didn't have any proof.  But then again, I never asserted that I had any.  No reason to jump the gun here.

[Angrboda]

Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

It was already pointed out to you that intercessory prayer studies, which are routinely considered scientific, do not qualify according to the definition and sources that you've provided. And as already noted previously as well, if the sources and authorities you use to vet your definitions are making incoherent statements or false statements about what the scientific method can or can't do, then their being an authority doesn't make their opinion correct. That you continue, in the face of having these facts explained to you earlier choose to repeat bad arguments and invalid appeals to authority simple points to the fact that you are a dishonest dumbass.

---

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

The truly sad thing is that there is a common and readily identifiable fallacy which you could point to for Gae which would extricate yourself from this mess. That you continue to waffle and fail to actually name a specific fallacy rather strongly suggests that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[polymath257]

Looks like a "no" to both questions.

Bot

---

By making whatever observations are possible, finding patterns in the observed behavior, making hypotheses about those patterns, and testing them with further observations.

And why would you think something exists if it cannot, even in theory, be observed?

Right, so back to the original question.  What would you consider evidence?

I've already answered that question. Evidence is information collected from the senses and interpreted in  way to test hypotheses against each other.

More specifically, evidence is sensory data that changes the probabilities of something being true.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Bot

---

Right, so back to the original question.  What would you consider evidence?

I've already answered that question. Evidence is information collected from the senses and interpreted in  way to test hypotheses against each other.

More specifically, evidence is sensory data that changes the probabilities of something being true.

You're skirting the question.

[Amarok]

You're skirting the question.

No he's not and it's not even his problem

[polymath257]

I've already answered that question. Evidence is information collected from the senses and interpreted in  way to test hypotheses against each other.

More specifically, evidence is sensory data that changes the probabilities of something being true.

You're skirting the question.

Why do you say that? I said what it means for something to be evidence. That is what you asked for. What else are you wanting?

Specifics on what would count as evidence for a supernatural? I can't think of any because I haven't seen enough discussion of the supposed properties of a supernatural to determine what sorts of evidence would justify the conclusion that such exists.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You're skirting the question.

No he's not and it's not even his problem

Well then you answer it.

If he can't substantiate the question, I'm not wasting my time with it.  Has nothing to do with you or you opinion.

---

You're skirting the question.

Why do you say that? I said what it means for something to be evidence. That is what you asked for. What else are you wanting?

Specifics on what would count as evidence for a supernatural? I can't think of any because I haven't seen enough discussion of the supposed properties of a supernatural to determine what sorts of evidence would justify the conclusion that such exists.

If nothing can be considered, then no point in providing anything.

[Amarok]

No he's not and it's not even his problem

Well then you answer it.

If he can't substantiate the question, I'm not wasting my time with it.  Has nothing to do with you or you opinion.

---

Why do you say that? I said what it means for something to be evidence. That is what you asked for. What else are you wanting?

Specifics on what would count as evidence for a supernatural? I can't think of any because I haven't seen enough discussion of the supposed properties of a supernatural to determine what sorts of evidence would justify the conclusion that such exists.

If nothing can be considered, then no point in providing anything.

It's not my job either and your free not to answer it makes no difference to me . As for your last statement it's not an opinion and again this isn't his job either .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Well then you answer it.

If he can't substantiate the question, I'm not wasting my time with it.  Has nothing to do with you or you opinion.

---

If nothing can be considered, then no point in providing anything.

It's not my job either and your free not to answer it makes no difference to me . As for your last statement it's not an opinion and again this isn't his job either .

Of course.  And I choose not to answer something that is loose-ended.  That has been my position since this conversation started yesterday.