Show us the evidence

[Nearly Sane]

Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again

[~TW~]

Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again

 You never answer any points you just sit back and hope your mates will back you up,with the same daft answers you give.And in most cases they are daft enough to do it 

  ~TW~

[Nearly Sane]

Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again

 You never answer any points you just sit back and hope your mates will back you up,with the same daft answers you give.And in most cases they are daft enough to do it 

  ~TW~

I forgive you

[Andy]

It seems that what some people struggle with here (and that's theists and atheists) is what it means to assess something that is a) claimed to be outside of nature, and b) to be the reason that nature exists. This means that all natural phenomena that occurs can be traced back to the source of nature, so there is nothing that exists in nature that can't be evidence for the supernatural. This leaves us with no contrast, like a universe where temperature is the same everywhere yet people think they can make sense of hot and cold.

Also, this problem is compounded by nature holding no constraints over this supernatural thing. Even if it wasn't claimed to be the reason nature exists, you still couldn't fathom where the supernatural had intervened and where it hadn't, as no matter where on the spectrum the natural phenomena is, whether it's at the outlandish or mundane end, the temperature is the same.

[ippy]

I note Hope's reference to academics and theologians. Given this I am sure he will supply me of details of a recognised university course in the UK where there is a methodology provided that allows evaluating supernatural evidence?

Hope would give you that info but you'll have to wait he's put it away with the evidence he has that would prove for once and all that god does exist and he can't find that.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

[Nearly Sane]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times.  The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Code: [Select]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times.  The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN

No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.

Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.

There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

[Nearly Sane]

Code: [Select]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times.  The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN

No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.

Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.

There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.

No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!

[Nearly Sane]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you? Why is is it that you won't entertain an honest position? Why are you seemingly driven to lie so continually and to lie so frequently and to lie so brazenly about what people say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Code: [Select]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times.  The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN

No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.

Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.

There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.

No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!

No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.

[Nearly Sane]

Code: [Select]

What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?

Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times.  The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN

No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.

Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.

There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.

No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!

No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.

I have not restricted it, merely asked for it and how it works. Your pusallinimous use of quotes to further avoid and lie about this would be pathetic if it now was not simply boring because again and again you run away and lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

[Andy]

When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.

[Nearly Sane]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.

Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.

[Nearly Sane]

And do we really have to do the whole thing again that agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

Evasion noted.

[Nearly Sane]

When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.

Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.

that isn't coherent, since if as you claim the statement is everything needs proving, there can be no special pleading. It may be that you didn't manage to write anything that you were meaning?

[Nearly Sane]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

Evasion noted.

No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?

[Andy]

When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.

Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.

Ugh, no-one is asking for a methodology for determining philosophical supernaturalism (PS), so when you attempt to shift the burden to requesting a methodology for determining PN, you are not making a valid comparison.
A methodology is being requested for determining when a supernatural occurrence has taken place, but to do this is to hypothetically accept the supernatural exists.

I'd love to know what I'm making a special pleading case for...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

Evasion noted.

No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?

I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.

[Nearly Sane]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

Evasion noted.

No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?

I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.

I am not judging about that. You have continually lied about others positions and lied about them and continue to do so

[jeremyp]

You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.

It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.

OK I understand, you don't have it.  It is a figment of your imagination.

The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.

But it isn't there.  You've been repeatedly asked to present this non scientific evidence, but you don't have it.

After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer.  You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.

Why are you suddenly talking about proof instead of evidence? 

Why do you think something only starts existing when we find a name for it?  Scientific evidence is merely another name for "evidence that can be verified".  Did verifiable evidence suddenly pop into existence during the Enlightenment?