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

[torridon]

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

'methodology' is a naturalistic concept.

[Walter]

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.

This is a joke ,right?

[Nearly Sane]

'methodology' is a naturalistic concept.

No, thar's just assertion. And effectively moves to philosophical naturalism.

[Roses]

'Supernatural' is just term for something, which cannot currently be properly explained by science. However, science is such a wonderful tool it is more than likely to eventually come up with a very natural explanation for whatever puzzles people at present.

[ippy]

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.

This post of yours Spud can be filed under 'The Bible proves the bible' fantasy thinking group of ideas and as such it'd be good idea to write it down and then place it in a receptacle, the type often kept outside, and often kept next to a back gate ready for collection on whatever day of the week the binmen call in whatever area's concerned.

When I saw this absolute rubbish of yours here Spud, my thoughts were how come in 2020 we can still have people with such naive ideas about the world and at the same time still apparently function quiet well in their every day life.

ippy

[Spud]

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.

The nature of the description rules out mistakes, tricks, coincidence. It's just the validity of the accounts that needs verifying. I have always had the sense that we have an unbroken chain of witnesses between then and now. Paul wrote to Timothy, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also."

There is no way for me to verify that my late Grandad used to look up when my Nan cycled past him at work in his field, and that's how they met, other than to see if my Nan had told my cousins the same thing, and that I believe it because I trust my late Nan. Someone might find an account of this by me and a similar one by my cousin, and be able to believe what happened. Likewise the second generation of believers trusted the apostles though they hadn't seen the miracle in the synagogue. Their trust was based on the love shown by the disciples, which has been the same basis for determining who is a disciple of Jesus ever since. in the same way you can determine whether an event in your family's history took place (eg I have my great great grandparents' Bible, signed by them, which my Nan gave me and verified to be theirs).

[Spud]

This post of yours Spud can be filed under 'The Bible proves the bible'

Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.

[Roses]

Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.

Most of us know it is made up of documents written over a long period of time and put together by a committee in the middles ages. I believe the crazy book of Revelation was nearly left out, what a terrible pity it was included.

[Nearly Sane]

The nature of the description rules out mistakes, tricks, coincidence. It's just the validity of the accounts that needs verifying. I have always had the sense that we have an unbroken chain of witnesses between then and now. Paul wrote to Timothy, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also." ...

Idiotic drivel.

[Nearly Sane]

Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.

Irrelevant drivel

[Spud]

Idiotic drivel.

[ippy]

First Vlad it's you that needs to supply evidence for your leprechaun like idea of something you refer to as a god.

Now since you ask bearing in mind I'm not the one putting up bronze age ideas as though they are worthy of notice, I'm pretty sure if someone found indisputable evidence in support of your bronze age, at the moment, idea of a god there would be a world wide media explosion supplying news of this newfound evidence event to every corner of our Earth, if this unlikely event were to happen I would have no option left but to believe the same bronze age nonsense that seems to have overtaken your ability to reason. 

Without the evidence supporting your god idea, as it is at present you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Vlad, bearing in mind here in most westernised nations the growth of  atheism, as you call us, non-believers, is exponential with no sign of this slowing down either  and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.

Regards, ippy.

P S 'Richard Dawkins'

[ippy]

Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.

O K Spud, in what way does that alter the ludicrous inane view of some that think 'the bible proves the bible'.

I wouldn't have thought you were a member of that school of thought when I see some of the most realistic comments you're capable of making on most other subjects, it seems to me as though  you like to leave your brain by the door before you come in and make any comments about religion.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First Vlad it's you that needs to supply evidence for your leprechaun like idea of something you refer to as a god.

Now since you ask bearing in mind I'm not the one putting up bronze age ideas as though they are worthy of notice, I'm pretty sure if someone found indisputable evidence in support of your bronze age, at the moment, idea of a god there would be a world wide media explosion supplying news of this newfound evidence event to every corner of our Earth, if this unlikely event were to happen I would have no option left but to believe the same bronze age nonsense that seems to have overtaken your ability to reason. 

Without the evidence supporting your god idea, as it is at present you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Vlad, bearing in mind here in most westernised nations the growth of  atheism, as you call non-believers, is exponential with no sign of this slowing down either  and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.

Regards, ippy.

P S 'Richard Dawkins'

Maybe reasoning and evidence has been put forward that isn't naturalistic enough for you guys.
However this thread is about what evidence might sway you and therefore I'm not obliged to cite evidence here? Let's start with an asteroid crashing into a comet and the debris spelling out the names of God in every language. Would that move you in any direction do you think?
or being convicted that morals are real and not just made up to suit Would that change your point of view?

Growth of atheism exponential? wow sounds like you've got a movement going there, a regular stealth religion, people using amazon has grown exponentially too. Why do you think the growth of atheism is significant. Is it because it is a force of Good? A wave of righteousness?
That of course would confirm Wilson's idea that this new movement is a stealth religion.

with no sign of this slowing down either  and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.

Blimey, a stealth religion which even obliges by presenting it's own saints.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron.

And so we come at last to it. Torridon has said what others,IMO have failed to come clean about. Only naturalistic evidence is ''evidence''. Classic philosophical naturalism.

  To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural,

I have a lot of sympathy with that. Since the naturalist is bent on naturalistic evidence how is anything other than empirical evidence going to satisfy, ever? The naturalist is therefore locked in the naturalistic circularity only ever seeking and finding nature. That doesn't even help establish philosophical naturalism which looks like a choice in which someone could be conditioned into.

This of course would explain ''the hiddenness of God'' to someone whose thought patterns were so conditioned.

[Roses]

And so we come at last to it. Torridon has said what others,IMO have failed to come clean about. Only naturalistic evidence is ''evidence''. Classic philosophical naturalism.
I have a lot of sympathy with that. Since the naturalist is bent on naturalistic evidence how is anything other than empirical evidence going to satisfy, ever? The naturalist is therefore locked in the naturalistic circularity only ever seeking and finding nature. That doesn't even help establish philosophical naturalism which looks like a choice in which someone could be conditioned into.

This of course would explain ''the hiddenness of God'' to someone whose thought patterns were so conditioned.

Your posts get crazier and crazier!

[Walter]

'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .

Now here is your chance to produce some evidence , the kind that you accept and the kind I might accept .

go on , give it a try . I dare you!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .

I don't see things like that...………... to me God exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Special pleading by you in that you are saying that the other two are supported.

The support for an external creator is that everything observed is dependent on something else for it's existence.
Your conditioning has led you to avoid that obvious reason to posit an external creator as a possible reason for the universe.

That that creator may have had a creator is irrelevant to the reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .

Now here is your chance to produce some evidence , the kind that you accept and the kind I might accept .

go on , give it a try . I dare you!

I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .

Do you not think that's just because you are conditioned just to look for naturalistic empirical evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.

Demonstrate moral realism.

[Walter]

Do you not think that's just because you are conditioned just to look for naturalistic empirical evidence?

So are you but you deceive yourself because ........ reasons (which make no sense to right thinking people) that I cant understand .

Besides, does non-natural empirical evidence exist ? If it does show it to me here, now !

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you but you deceive yourself because ........ reasons (which make no sense to right thinking people) that I cant understand .

Besides, does non-natural empirical evidence exist ? If it does show it to me here, now !

Right thinking people. That's a northern brexity sort of thing isn't it. What makes them right?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Demonstrate moral realism.

Moral irrealism cannot make moral arbitration. Everybody acts as if morals are real.