Satan is having an easy time of it!

[floo]

True!

[Alien]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

[BashfulAnthony]

Nearly there Bashers ... nearly there ... 

Oh, I'm there, Shaky, and have been for a long time  -  maybe you'll join me some day.   

[Shaker]

Unlikely.

[BashfulAnthony]

Unlikely.

Hope springs eternal.

[floo]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

[Alien]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

[floo]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!

[Alien]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!

If there is no supernatural?

[Shaker]

Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.

[Nearly Sane]

Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.

Or indeed any method by which such 'evidence' could even be defined.

[Shaker]

Yes, I was steering in the direction of methodology, NS

[Alien]

Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.

If you think evidence is naturalistic, as some here claim, then so what? If however evidence is not naturalistic then there is evidence, e.g. the life of Jesus Christ (amongst other things).

[Shaker]

"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement. If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.

What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?

[floo]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!

If there is no supernatural?

For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.

[Alien]

"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.

Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.

If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.

So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.

What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?

Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But then you knew that already.

[BeRational]

"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.

Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.

If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.

So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.

What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?

Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But then you knew that already.

The existence of objective morality is not a fact. It's not even likely.

It is as certain as it is possible to be certain, that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

If he died, then he remained dead, and would be dead now at any rate.

[Shaker]

Says who?

Not a who but a what - reality.

It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.

They know what they're on about, then.

So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.

Yes, that makes every bit as much sense (i.e. none whatever).

Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe

No evidence of an "absolute" beginning.

the fine-tuning of the universe

Which you may or may not know is perfectly well explained without recourse to any woo. If you're unaware of the demolition of FT as a serious would-be argument, I'd be more than happy to walk you through it.

There is also the existence of objective morality

I had no idea that objective morality had been determined to exist. Who did this, where and when, and why wasn't I told?

and the life, death

Too poorly documented to mean anything.

and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Didn't happen.

But then you knew that already.

I knew that such pseudo-examples are horseshit, yes.

[Nearly Sane]

Of which there's absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever.

If you think evidence is naturalistic, as some here claim, then so what? If however evidence is not naturalistic then there is evidence, e.g. the life of Jesus Christ (amongst other things).

Given that if I am one of the some you claim to have done this, that it is a misrepresentation of a my position, I will assume that despite having covered it Many times in detail in the past, it is simply that you have missed what is being said. In order to avoid this misrepresentation happening yet again in the future I will try and break down this into a simple set of statements. You can them indicate agreement or not on these and where you disagree we can have further discussion.


1. Evidence is what is defined as valid based on axioms of methodology e.g
 Repeatability in the scientific methodology


2. There are a number of differing definitions of evidence based on a differing methodology so that what is regarded as evidence in law courts is different from science journals

3. Each methodology may be unclear on certain points e.g. what is defined as hearsay in law may differ in different jurisdictions


4. However each methodology seeks to be as uniform as possible


5. Methodologies such as history, science and law while separate are sought to be consistent accepting the different approaches e.g. in a law case scientific assumptions are accepted for scientific evidence in court


6. All these methodologies are naturalistic in their assumptions, I.e law, science, history.


7. This is the method taught in all recognised UK universities on these subjecis

8. Supernaturalistic claims are not in the purview of these, ergo to evaluate any such claim a methodology would need to be proposed which could evaluate such claims

If you are still in agreement up to that point, then it is incumbent on you to suggest such a methodology. I would note that you have been asked for such a methodology multiple times before but, to my knowledge,have yet to present one

[wigginhall]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!

If there is no supernatural?

For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.

Yes, I think this is interesting, as for example, there are tons of visions of the Virgin Mary.   Does this mean that they are accurate or real?   How would we know?  And in India, there are also tons of weird experiences which are reported in villages and towns - person X levitated or materialized jewelry from thin air, or healed someone.   And people will swear that it's true.   How do you separate the supernatural which is true from the supernatural which isn't?   Wishful thinking?  Guesswork?

[floo]

I think the default position where less than credible claims are made is that unless there is verifiable evidence to back them up they aren't likely to be true.

That would be "less than credible" in your eyes, Floo?

What do you mean?

You keep saying things are "less than credible". To whom are they "less than credible"?  Credible means "Able to be believed; convincing." Who can't believe it? To whom is it not convincing and on what basis?

Virgin birth and resurrection from the dead will do for starters. Those things don't happen to humans in real life!

If there is no supernatural?

For which there is no evidence! Good grief, I have probably had more MEGA weird experiences throughout my life than most people, but in spite of them all I still think there is a natural explanation for all that is thought to be 'supernatural'.

Yes, I think this is interesting, as for example, there are tons of visions of the Virgin Mary.   Does this mean that they are accurate or real?   How would we know?  And in India, there are also tons of weird experiences which are reported in villages and towns - person X levitated or materialized jewelry from thin air, or healed someone.   And people will swear that it's true.   How do you separate the supernatural which is true from the supernatural which isn't?   Wishful thinking?  Guesswork?

Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.

As I have mentioned on many occasions I saw a 'vision' of what appeared to be the picture book version of Mary in our 'miracle field' at our previous property. I knew without any doubt in my mind that what I was seeing wasn't real. As others had claimed to see visions of Mary in our field I was seeing what I hoped to see.

[Shaker]

Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.

This begets (not begs ... that's something else   ) the question as to whether verifiable proof to substantiate a supernatural claim therefore still leaves a supernatural claim standing. I would say no, by definition.

This is why the supernatural is, on its own terms, for ever out of reach, never graspable, in the same way that the concept of 'tomorrow' is something that we can never actually reach.

[floo]

Until there is verifiable proof to substantiate claims of the supernatural, one should be sceptical, imo.

This begets (not begs ... that's something else   ) the question as to whether verifiable proof to substantiate a supernatural claim therefore still leaves a supernatural claim standing. I would say no, by definition.

This is why the supernatural is, on its own terms, for ever out of reach, never graspable, in the same way that the concept of 'tomorrow' is something that we can never actually reach.

Good point.

[Alien]

"Non-naturalistic evidence" is a contradiction in terms, a self-refuting and self-negating statement.

Says who? It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.

If it's evidence, by definition it's naturalistic.

So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.

What methodology do you propose by which "non-natural evidence" can be ascertained?

Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe. There is also the existence of objective morality and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But then you knew that already.

The existence of objective morality is not a fact. It's not even likely.

It is as certain as it is possible to be certain, that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

How did you calculate that?

If he died, then he remained dead, and would be dead now at any rate.

He would be dead even if God raised him from the dead and he then ascended to heaven?

[Alien]

Says who?

Not a who but a what - reality.

OK. Demonstrate it then.

It's a bit of a mantra on this board from some people.

They know what they're on about, then.

Yes. Thank you for asking.

So what was the point of stating there is no evidence for the supernatural? You might as well have said, on your understanding of evidence, that there are no milk bottles for the supernatural.

Yes, that makes every bit as much sense (i.e. none whatever).

So why did you make that claim then?

Science can undergird philosophical reasoning, e.g. the (possible) absolute beginning of the universe

No evidence of an "absolute" beginning.

Except that some scientists believe it to be so. Why is that?

the fine-tuning of the universe

Which you may or may not know is perfectly well explained without recourse to any woo. If you're unaware of the demolition of FT as a serious would-be argument, I'd be more than happy to walk you through it.

Good man. Off you go.

There is also the existence of objective morality

I had no idea that objective morality had been determined to exist. Who did this, where and when, and why wasn't I told?

Perhaps you missed the thread or did not see that the choice is between objective morality or a "morality" which has no obligation on anyone. Several of our atheist friends here don't get that and continue to argue for a "morality" which has an obligation on people when they (appear to) think it ought to, yet have no proper basis.

and the life, death

Too poorly documented to mean anything.

In your opinion.

and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Didn't happen.

You seem very certain.

But then you knew that already.

I knew that such pseudo-examples are horseshit, yes.[/quote]In your opinion.