What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

[Nearly Sane]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.

[wigginhall]

What evidence have you got?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.

My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.

Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.

It would need to reveal itself.

Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.

[Nearly Sane]

My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.

Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.

It would need to reveal itself.

Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.

  That's not a method, it's simply a set of assertions. One of which is both suffering from begging the question, and the problem of induction. After all this time you are I think becoming a even worse 'thinker'

[Stranger]

My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.

Hand-waving, scientifically illiterate nonsense. This has been dealt with recently - for a start, the space-time might just be. This is anyway an argument from ignorance.

Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.

That's just an assertion, where is the reasoning?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hand-waving, scientifically illiterate nonsense. This has been dealt with recently - for a start, the space-time might just be. This is anyway an argument from ignorance.

That's just an assertion, where is the reasoning?

If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.

[Nearly Sane]

If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.

Reason free assertion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reason free assertion

If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.

Is it wrong?

[Gordon]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

The claim is yours, Vlad, and therefore the burden of proof is yours too - as is the floor: so, evidence-wise, what have you got?

[Nearly Sane]

If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.

Is it wrong?

It is assertions all the way down with you. You need to show what it's right, or even possible. Your attempts at switching the burden of proof are both extremely boring and desperately sad.

[Walter]

If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.

Is it wrong?

I personally have no idea what evidence would convince me. But if your god is anything like you say he is I'm pretty sure he would know .It is for he to demonstrate , not I to believe !

[Sebastian Toe]

It would need to reveal itself.

How would it do that?

[Stranger]

If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.

Do you know the difference between an argument and an assertion?

[Walter]

Do you know the difference between an argument and an assertion?

or his arse from his elbow!

[Owlswing]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.

What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

OK, I am not an atheist, but for mine I would accept the existence of the God of the Christians if the McCanns got their daughter back alive and well and totally unaffected by whatever has happened to her since her abduction or a deeply religious couple whose first child has been born with a currently incurable disease have their prayers answered within 48 hourse of the prayers being offered.

Over to you!

[jeremyp]

My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.

Two of those options don’t require a creator and the other was unsupported assertion you need a better method.

Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.

It would need to reveal itself.

Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.

But you failed to rule out the possibility that the a Universe itself is the necessary entity or give adequate reasons for the assertion that God is necessary.

[jeremyp]

If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.

The  Christian god is therefore contingent. The Bible contains a lot of stories in which God is affected by physical things.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, I am not an atheist, but for mine I would accept the existence of the God of the Christians if the McCanns got their daughter back alive and well and totally unaffected by whatever has happened to her since her abduction or a deeply religious couple whose first child has been born with a currently incurable disease have their prayers answered within 48 hourse of the prayers being offered.

Over to you!

All you have asked for is things you don't know how to explain. That is useless as to explain a claim to.the supernatural.

[Spud]

One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.

What if you get a positive result once but not a second, third etc. time after that?

[Nearly Sane]

What if you get a positive result once but not a second, third etc. time after that?

  Evidence is not a word you understand. And you ignored entirely  the  point of my post.

[Spud]

  Evidence is not a word you understand. And you ignored entirely  the  point of my post.

Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. We have three accounts of a healing miracle done by Jesus in the synagogue in front of the Pharisees. There is a man who has a paralyzed hand, which is described as withered. Jesus tells him to stretch it out and he does. The Pharisees are watching closely to see whether he'll heal on the Sabbath; so this miracle is verified by people without a vested interest as having taken place.

The three accounts corroborate each other as to the nature of the disease and the words spoken by Jesus.

I know someone who had a stroke and has a paralyzed hand. Many people have asked God to heal this person's hand but he has not done so. That's what I meant by God doing something supernatural but not repeating it on other occasions.

So the method is scientific in that it involves close observation and verification by unbiased witnesses who can testify that the man's hand went from paralyzed to normal, yet it isn't repeatable in the sense that scientific method would require.

[torridon]

When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?

'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron.  To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural, after all. The problem is not so much lack of evidence, as lack of definition. 'Supernatural' is undefinable, other than by 'not natural', which is trivial.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. ....

That isn't a method. At best, if you rule out mistakes, tricks, coincidence, none of which you can, it gets you to an unexplained incident.


And that's leaving aside that you don't know who wrote those  accounts, they aren't eye witness accounts, and they aren't separate. What you have presented wouldn't even make it to a courtroom, never mind present justification for overthrowing methodological naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron.  To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural, after all. The problem is not so much lack of evidence, as lack of definition. 'Supernatural' is undefinable, other than by 'not natural', which is trivial.

No, in theory there could be a supernatural methodology.  There is just never one presented.