Of course you have, becuase you haven't been able to demolish the evidence that you have been presented with - just neatly batted it away by claiming that, because it isn't naturalistic evidence it isn't evidence (even though life is more than just naturalistic)
This of course is your constant assertion, just as the negative proof fallacy is your constant form of aberrant reasoning. It goes without saying that it is also yet another iteration of the aforementioned negative proof fallacy, without which it is becoming increasingly clear that you cannot even post. Twice today alone to my knowledge, for example. (The other instance being on this very thread less than five hours ago, viz.,
http://goo.gl/goW2Rn ).
You haven't been asked to provide a naturalistic methodology to evaluate these so-called claims of the supernatural; you have been asked to provide
any methodology which is objective (that's to say, is shareable and can be investigated and employed by anyone) by which such claims can be scrutinised. That you have consistently failed to provide any such methodology speaks volumes, and lends itself to the entirely reasonable stance that no such methodology even exists.
and none of you have any evidence to support, let alone prove your rather narrow view of life.
Anything other than a naturalistic view of the universe stands in need of demonstration. You claim to believe in such a thing and claim that you are in possession of a methodology by which supernatural claims can be evaluated, therefore the burden of proof is squarely yours. You have to demonstrate this to be the case. It doesn't go through on the nod with a wave of the hand as you seem to expect; if you intend to be taken seriously (a dubious proposition at best, given your posting history), back up your claims.
But you don't, because you cannot.
You know this; I know this; we all know this. Absolutely nobody is in any way fooled by your constant waffling and hand-waving and the interminable prevarication, evasion and bloviating ... except, very possibly, you.
You bore on about there being more to life than the merely natural (i.e.
natural broadly construed here as the world of matter-energy as revealed by physics), and so have been asked multiple times by any number of posters here over a long period of time (many months) to provide an appropriate methodology for the evaluation of these claims. Not a naturalistic methodology, as that's a straw man on your part, adding to your already formidable arsenal of logical fallacies; any methodology which is objective and capable of scrutinising these claims of the
soi-disant supernatural and of evaluating their truth or falsity. You have utterly failed to provide any such thing. You recently claimed* that you have previously provided such a methodology somewhere else online and indeed in more than one place, but cannot provide so much as a link to these other places.
Therefore, after so many requests to provide such a methodology, so many ducks, dodges, dives and evasions of the request, claims that it exists elsewhere but a stonewall refusal to provide evidence of this claim, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that no such methodology exists, that it has never been provided elsewhere as asserted by you, and that as well as being a homophobe, a hypocrite and a pompous braggart, you're no more than a plain old common (very common) or garden liar. The methodology you assert doesn't exist and it has never been provided elsewhere on other online forums.
After all, in saying this there's no evidence that I'm wrong, is there? Where's the evidence that I'm
not right?
Remember how easy it is to refute this charge: a clear and thorough exposition of this supposed methodology written up here, or if that is too much work, a URL or URLs to where it has allegedly been posted elsewhere in more than one place (as claimed by you)* would do. If those URLs are too long as-is, a URL tidier such as Tinyurl or Google URL Shortener would do the job beautifully. This is easy stuff.
The floor's all yours.
* Here:
http://goo.gl/7raQfK
