Counterfeits.

[Sparko]

If you provided evidence of the supernatural you would also need to provide convincing evidence that there’s no possible natural explanation, otherwise you’re simply making a god-of-the-gaps argument and they never end well for theists.

You already said you would reject God himself standing in front of you doing anything you ask, or even bringing back a dead family member who has been dead for years and you know for a fact is dead. Basically there is nothing that you would accept as verifiable or convincing evidence. Nothing.

Except maybe when you eventually die and are kneeling in front of God at the judgment. You can try to deny his existence then, but it won't do you much good. At least you can't say you weren't warned or given a chance.

[Doug Shaver]

At least you can't say you weren't warned or given a chance.

But I can say that I was given no good reason to believe the warning.

[Tassman]

You already said you would reject God himself standing in front of you doing anything you ask, or even bringing back a dead family member who has been dead for years and you know for a fact is dead. Basically there is nothing that you would accept as verifiable or convincing evidence. Nothing.

You’re trying to convince me of the existence of a supernatural entity without providing evidence that the supernatural exists. There’s no verifiable evidence that it does. So why should I even consider your childish scenarios?

Except maybe when you eventually die and are kneeling in front of God at the judgment. You can try to deny his existence then, but it won't do you much good. At least you can't say you weren't warned or given a chance.

I’ll take my chances.

[Kbertsche]

You’re trying to convince me of the existence of a supernatural entity without providing evidence that the supernatural exists. There’s no verifiable evidence that it does. So why should I even consider your childish scenarios?

I suspect that when you say "verifiable evidence" you mean "scientifically testable, physical evidence". In other words, you are saying that there is no clear, natural evidence for the supernatural. But how could there be? How could something within nature tell us about a world outside of nature? If you insist a priori that nature is all that can possibly exist, you will never recognize the supernatural, even if it actually does exist. You have insulated yourself from the truth.

But although the evidence is not clear enough to convince a hardened skeptic like yourself, I claim that we do see some hints in the natural world that the supernatural actually exists:
First, the natural world, in and of itself, is inherently incomplete. There must be something beyond it which explains it.
Second, the supernatural world has at times broken into the natural world, giving us things which are impossible to explain in a purely natural way. (The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory.)

[Tassman]

I suspect that when you say "verifiable evidence" you mean "scientifically testable, physical evidence". In other words, you are saying that there is no clear, natural evidence for the supernatural.

Yes.

But how could there be? How could something within nature tell us about a world outside of nature? If you insist a priori that nature is all that can possibly exist, you will never recognize the supernatural, even if it actually does exist. You have insulated yourself from the truth.

There is no substantive evidence of anything outside of nature; this is the “truth”.

But although the evidence is not clear enough to convince a hardened skeptic like yourself, I claim that we do see some hints in the natural world that the supernatural actually exists:

No we don’t.

First, the natural world, in and of itself, is inherently incomplete. There must be something beyond it which explains it.

Our knowledge is incomplete certainly, but there’s no justification for leaping to a god-of-the-gaps explanation, this is an 'argument from ignorance'.

Second, the supernatural world has at times broken into the natural world, giving us things which are impossible to explain in a purely natural way. (The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory.)

There is no credible evidence that the alleged supernatural world has ever “broken into the natural world”. This would imply that the fixed laws and constant's of nature are capricious and inscrutable. But the laws of nature do not appear to change over time, and they also appear to exist throughout the universe.

[Roy]

In other words, you are saying that there is no clear, natural evidence for the supernatural. But how could there be? How could something within nature tell us about a world outside of nature?

Like this:

the supernatural world has at times broken into the natural world, giving us things which are impossible to explain in a purely natural way.

[Sparko]

You’re trying to convince me of the existence of a supernatural entity without providing evidence that the supernatural exists. There’s no verifiable evidence that it does. So why should I even consider your childish scenarios?

The hypothetical was to see if ANYTHING would convince you. I suspected that nothing would, and you admitted that. So why should I waste my time trying to convince you of anything if you have already admitted that nothing can convince you? that no evidence is good enough?

[Kbertsche]

In other words, you are saying that there is no clear, natural evidence for the supernatural. But how could there be? How could something within nature tell us about a world outside of nature?

Like this:

the supernatural world has at times broken into the natural world, giving us things which are impossible to explain in a purely natural way.

Yes. In my first comment, I was referring to clear evidence that even a skeptic like Tass would accept. My second comment was referring to less clear hints, and was prefaced by:

But although the evidence is not clear enough to convince a hardened skeptic like yourself, I claim that we do see some hints in the natural world that the supernatural actually exists:

[Roy]

Yes. In my first comment, I was referring to clear evidence that even a skeptic like Tass would accept. My second comment was referring to less clear hints, and was prefaced by:

Sure. But supernatural interference in the natural world could produce clear evidence, rather than merely hints. That the claimed interference hasn't produced anything verifiable is not a problem for the methodology, only for those that proclaim the supernatural.

[Sparko]

Sure. But supernatural interference in the natural world could produce clear evidence, rather than merely hints. That the claimed interference hasn't produced anything verifiable is not a problem for the methodology, only for those that proclaim the supernatural.

OK give me an example, something that even Tassman would accept and not explain away as an unknown natural phenomenon.

[seer]

OK give me an example, something that even Tassman would accept and not explain away as an unknown natural phenomenon.

Right, like this event was an unknown natural phenomenon, even though no one could offer even a possible explanation.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=fern

[Sparko]

Right, like this event was an unknown natural phenomenon, even though no one could offer even a possible explanation.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...highlight=fern

I never saw that thread before. cool.

[seer]

I never saw that thread before. cool.

Cool and true...

[shunyadragon]

Yes. In my first comment, I was referring to clear evidence that even a skeptic like Tass would accept. My second comment was referring to less clear hints, and was prefaced by:

Quote Originally Posted by kbertsche
But although the evidence is not clear enough to convince a hardened skeptic like yourself, I claim that we do see some hints in the natural world that the supernatural actually exists:

I as a Theist consider these hints as a subjective witness of the existence of God, but I am perfectly aware the atheists and strong agnostics can easily ignore this as anecdotal, and groundless as far as any objective basis for the existence of God.

I believe that 'IF' atheists and agnostics are going to accept these hints as a witness of God's existence they will respond better to a more universal theology of God, like the Baha'i believe not grounded in ancient mythology, and unconditionally accepts science as the interpreter and understanding of the nature of our physical existence.

The inconsistency of Western Theism in the nature God and the understanding of the nature of our physical existence, and it's history.

[Tassman]

The hypothetical was to see if ANYTHING would convince you. I suspected that nothing would, and you admitted that. So why should I waste my time trying to convince you of anything if you have already admitted that nothing can convince you? that no evidence is good enough?

You've provided nothing that would allow for the existence of the supernatural world and this is a prerequisite for ANY claims about the existence of a supernatural being.